Last night I mentioned in passing the problems of County Dublin tomato growers.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 37: Agriculture (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.
—(Deputy Creed).
Tomato growers?
They have a bull there all right.
There is one in the Deputy's constituency as well.
Thanks for the help. I knew the Deputy would be helpful. Last night, after the Adjournment, I was asked to seek an assurance from the Minister that those men would be able to compete in Common Market conditions. I hope the Minister will be able to give me that assurance. Last night I said that some of the best farmers in Europe are in County Dublin. In County Dublin as well we have some of the smallest, most uneconomic holdings in Ireland, particularly in south County Dublin. I know it is difficult for any Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, even if he were St. Peter himself, to look after every uneconomic holder in Ireland and to give him a decent standard of living.
He might be able to do better than St. Peter.
Mr. O'Donnell
I hate to hear the Dublin Deputies fighting over agriculture.
There are numberous small holdings in places like Glencullen, Bohernabreena and elsewhere. The people there would not be able to carry on if they had not got sidelines, as many of them have. We have dealt with the 12 western counties. I came from one of them years ago on a single ticket and I was never able to afford to get a ticket back. I do not like the distinction sometimes made between small and middle-class farmers. The distinction should be between the small farmers and the large farmers. Any Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has a big problem on his hands trying to help small farmers. We all know how, when there were no children's allowances or widows' and orphans' pensions, or grants of any kind, those people made a living. Last night I paid a tribute to those small farmers who survived through co-operation.
I heard people speaking about the old Congested District Board which operated especially in the 12 western counties where there were uneconomic holdings due to the fact that Cromwell and his associates drove all the people from the good land to the mountains and created small uneconomic holdings. Some of them had to go to America, Australia, England and various other countries and sent home money to their families and friends. That is how they survived in those days and they were a great race of people to survive.
In my childhood days people lived off the land. That has gone to a great degree. A number of small farmers do not even keep a hen or a pig today. They do not rear pigs or keep fowl. Years ago every small farmer, every cottier and every labourer kept a few pigs. I am sorry that that trend has gone because it was good for the country. Today a number of small farmers do not even grow a head of cabbage. Their fathers and grandfathers before them had very nice gardens of cabbage and vegetables of all kinds.
I suggest that in every county a special committee should be set up under a chairman nominated by the Minister consisting of officers of the county committees of agriculture, county engineers and men of that type. I remember older men than I speaking of the good work that was done by the old Congested District Board. These committees should be co-ordinating committees under the auspices of the Minister and his Department. They should report each year on roads which need to be repaired and on small drains that need to be cleaned. During the winter season uneconomic holders could work on these roads and rivers and drains. These jobs are very essential in rural Ireland and this work can only be carried out by a co-ordinated effort.
I compliment the farming organisations on what they are trying to do for the farmers as a whole. They are fighting for better conditions for farmers. The uneconomic holder cannot live on the land. But for the fact that he gets social welfare benefits he would not be there at all. That is not sufficient. Enough money is given for land reclamation to clean all the scrub land we have all over Ireland. People have not the initiative to apply to have their land drained and cleaned of trees and furze. The land reclamation scheme is a wonderful scheme and people should avail of it. A number of small farmers have been doing this work themselves and then getting the money for it. We have too much scrub land and there are many derelict holdings to be seen.
I spent a week in Holland recently. There is no such thing as a wide headland in Holland and there is no such thing as any scrub land or furze or rocks. The country is very level and it is tilled to the very roadside. Holland has a population of over 30 million and it is approximately the size of Munster. We are concerned about every section of our people irrespective of class or creed. I would be glad, and so would the Minister, if we could put £500 million into agriculture to raise the standard of living of that section of our people. It is bad to have one section almost on the breadline.
On these committees which I suggest there should be clergymen of all denominations taking part in this great economic revival. The Minister cannot work miracles. The people will have to do something themselves. I should like also to compliment Fr. McDyer. He is trying to do a lot for his people. He is trying to help them economically as well as spiritually. He is trying to give them the economic uplift which they need so badly.
When these committees are appointed they should ask the Department for so much money to do so much work in their districts. They should itemise the work as they go along and indicate to the Department which work is the more pressing. The rural improvements schemes and the other small schemes have done a great deal of good. Vegetables go down from Dublin to some towns in the West of Ireland. In my childhood days the farmers supplied vegetables to their own districts. It is a reflection on our country that they are not doing that today. In this connection we must try to get our people back to where they were in their grandfathers' day. They had initiative then and they did a lot for themselves.
The grants given for reconstruction of outhouses and other similar work were a wonderful asset to our people. Grants given for improving land, when they were availed of, were also a wonderful asset. There should be a co-ordinating committee in each county consisting of priests, bishops and all laymen of goodwill. Their aim should be to make their county one of the best in the Thirty-two Counties. I know it would take money to do that but it would be money well spent. We should also try to provide viable holdings of at least 50 acres. Here and there individuals have made a living on very small holdings but they had the initiative to do the work which was essential. The county committees of agriculture, the county councils, voluntary bodies, Macra na Feirme and all the farmers' organisations should consider my suggestion. So much money should be allocated to each county to be spent on priority schemes.
The people who are on the dole could be given a good wage for doing work in the wintertime. I was always interested in seeing that people were properly paid because, for one thing, production will be higher. In that way we help the small farmers. In the old days, on the uneconomic holdings, there was a great spirit of co-operation. It would be a good thing if nine or ten farmers would join together and help one another. Such co-operation will be even more necessary if we enter the EEC. In relation to co-operative firms, there is at least one in North Dublin which is suffering from growing pains. Strange to say, in the days of adversity people co-operated more than they do today. I should like to see that co-operation being revived in each county rather than on a regional basis. If each county were allowed so much money each year to do important work like drainage, roads and so on during the winter months, say, from October to February, we would be doing something worthwhile. It should be the responsibility of the local council, the county committees of agriculture, the priests and bishops and all others concerned to start this great revival that is so necessary for the wellbeing of our country.
When I was chairman of the Dublin County Council we were, on a few occasions, confronted with the problem of about 400 families living off laneways which we could not take over because we were spending only a few thousand pounds on doing these laneways. I suggested to our council that, over a period of years, a sum of £100,000 should be raised to do the laneways on a priority basis. We could not get the £100,000 at the time, but we decided to do the work out of revenue over a period of six or seven years, and the people are satisfied with the result.
If one wants an example of co-operation one thinks of the wonderful job done by the people of Holland in reclaiming thousands and thousands of acres of land from the North Sea and developing it. These people had a great struggle for existence and it is an inspiration to see how they survived. I should like to see our country solving its problems in the same spirit of co-operation. When you visit another country on a delegation people say you have been on a holiday. Any time I have made visits to other countries it has been an education in itself to see how other people overcome their problems. I know that a number of countries like Holland have mineral resources, but we ourselves have come a long way and have made the most of our resources. There have been great developments in agriculture and in education, for instance, in the training of our technical advisers and young farmers. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has a most responsible position because there are so many people depending on him. There are many people living on small farms who could be helped if they were given some part-time employment.
I have no doubt that eventually this country will be able to take its place in the EEC and compete with other countries. It is ridiculous to see written on the walls in certain parts of this city and county the slogan "No EEC". The people responsible for that do not want any government in this country. They are anarchists. Anyone who wants this country to make progress should come before the public and try to be elected to this House.
Last night I complimented the Minister on providing £105 million for the farmers in the Estimate this year. The amount for poultry has increased considerably from £15 million to £17 million. They will tell you, in certain parts of the country, that the fox will not leave them with a hen. In my young days we went after the fox to see that he did not take anything and that he would not be in the district at all, but today nobody is doing that. In my constituency there are people with 10,000, 12,000 and 15,000 hens. The number of small producers is declining. The same thing applies to pig producing, and this is a pity. In regard to the beef incentive scheme, £4.8 million was given out to 51,000 landowners which shows they were taking advantage of it, helping the country as well as themselves. Exports of slaughtered cattle rose to 576,000 compared with 530,000 in 1970, showing that we are progressing and that we had a very good year. Agricultural output increased by 2.6 per cent; cattle increased by 176,000 over 1970. Cattle exports in 1971 numbered 550,000 compared with 473,000 in the previous year. All these things are good omens for the country and it is a great pleasure to read of them.
The Minister has many up-to-date methods of marketing our exports. I should like to hear those who are criticising offer some advice as to how we could improve our marketing arrangements for agricultural products. They should advise Deputies of or send a memo to the Minister setting out their suggestions. Constructive criticism is welcomed by every intelligent person; it is the lifeblood of any democratic society but nobody has a cure for all ills.
There has been an increase in the amount of money given for the farm buildings scheme and water supplies. The farm building scheme has been a great boon to farmers in all parts of the country. Had I my way I should like to see piped water supplied to every farm in Ireland. Unfortunately, we cannot provide it for all human beings yet. Pure piped water is the best thing any cattle or any human beings could have. I hate to see cattle drinking water from a stagnant stream or pond. You cannot have healthy cattle if they have to drink dirty water. Many water schemes, some costing millions of pounds, have been promoted in County Dublin in the last few years. Good water supplies are essential and will pay well in the long run by giving us healthy cattle which will in turn help our economy. It is impossible for cattle to avoid murrain and other diseases if they have to drink contaminated water. We depend very much on our cattle exports.
The limestone, nitrogen phosphate and potash schemes have been a wonderful benefit and, by increasing production, they have helped the national economy. They are costly, but I should like to see farmers avail themselves of them more and more. If one side of our economy suffers economically the nation cannot do well. Therefore, we must do all we can to raise the standard in every section. We are all a family and, if one member is not doing well, the others are worried. That is how we must look upon every citizen of this State. They may have different political views and may differ from us in other ways. It is well we are not all the same; if we all thought on the same lines we could not be as progressive. Opposition stimulates. I wish to stress these points strongly.
We have a big population of sheep and lambs in County Dublin. While the Minister and the Department have helped a great deal in trying to get markets, and while the housewife is still paying as much for mutton, the price of sheep has fallen considerably. A number of my constituents are deeply concerned about this; they feel the situation should be better. I do not know what the position will be when we go into the Common Market. When France bought our mutton it was a great help, and if they continued their custom we would not be in the present position. However, they only buy when they need our mutton and lamb. One cannot expect them to do otherwise.
There has been a great deal of talk about people leaving the land but that is happening in every country because people always want better conditions and wages. Anybody who leaves a home where there is a poor living, especially on the land, will take the first job that offers and you can do nothing about it. The same applies everywhere. Immediately after the war about three-fifths of the French population got a living from the land; today the figure is, I believe, less than 50 per cent. This shows the trend, The same applies to England and other countries. Modern machinery and methods have eliminated many farm workers. Perhaps some day, if the Minister for Agriculture could strike oil, we could live on our mineral resources as eastern countries especially have done. If it had not been for their oil resources their standard of living in these countries would be very low. When you visit countries such as Iran you can see how the oil supplies have affected living standards. I had the pleasure of visiting some of these countries some years ago. However, these are things one can only wish for. We have come a long way in the past nine or ten years and, even if I repeat it for the tenth time, we have come a long way since we got our freedom in the Twenty-six Counties. It was said by the then British Premier: "We have given them the agricultural South; they will never be able to make it economic." We had no subsidies and we got no money from any other country. We had to rely on our own resources and we had to carry on.
It is hard to get markets abroad for creamery milk and powdered milk products and we have to pay heavy subsidies to help our people. Over £30 million was spent on this. I understand an increase has been announced in the price of milk and this is very welcome. Every year more and more of the dairy farmers in County Dublin are going into business. Much of their land is being bought up because the city is creeping out further every year.
The sheep subsidy is very much appreciated. We find that the price of wool has gone down very much because of the many other synthetic products which are now on the market. However, that is part of modern society and we have got to change with it. Wool meant a good deal to our people years ago but now they are not getting so much for it. The committee dealing with the production and sale of wool are doing a very good job under very adverse circumstances. Even the great wool markets of Australia are suffering the same reaction as we are.
Deputy Michael Pat Murphy referred to animal diseases last night. He felt the bovine TB scheme was finished and that we were finished for all time with bovine disease. We had the same position when we built sanatoria and we thought we were finished with TB but we found that that disease still returned. We will find the same in regard to bovine TB and also in relation to brucellosis. The Minister, in his speech, referred to the free areas of Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan, Leitrim and Sligo where testing is continuing. I have met people on holidays who said they got brucellosis from drinking milk and that they were treated in hospital for it. I suppose years ago if people got this disease they did not know what it was.
Liver fluke is another disease which causes a lot of damage. Anything which can be done by our veterinary surgeons to help us get rid of this disease is very welcome. The warble fly scheme is a scheme which should not have been shelved. I visited a leather factory recently and saw hides which were not treated for warble fly.
The hides were covered with holes and this looked very bad. Fowl pest is something which is very hard to control because we have wild birds coming in from other countries who will bring the disease in with them. However, we must do our best to control this disease among our own fowl.
Our wheat acreage has dropped from 234,000 acres in 1970 to 226,000 acres this year. Feeding barley increased by almost 12 per cent this year and malting barley is up by 10 per cent this year. These things will help our economy. I welcome the glasshouse scheme because we have hundreds of acres under glass in County Dublin. I must say, in dealing with the Minister's Department, as far as the glasshouse scheme is concerned, the officials of the Department have been very helpful. I have made representations to them for my constituents in County Dublin on many occasions. Our advisory services are very helpful to tomato growers. Modern standards of research are very helpful to all those people. A sum of £50,000 is being provided for mushroom units. There was a good export trade in mushrooms from County Dublin during the past year. This crop is very subject to disease and there can be great losses in growing it.
The small farm incentive bonus scheme is also very welcome to our farmers. All those schemes encourage our small farmers to take pride in their work and try to do better in the coming year.
The word "pollution" seems to be in everybody's mind at the present time. I believe the day is coming in County Dublin when the first thing we are told, if we want to start any scheme, is that we will pollute our waters.
Has the Minister for Agriculture any responsibility for this?
No, but this has been referred to. The Minister has a certain responsibility in this regard because if some farmers become a bit careless and use the river to get rid of bad crops it becomes polluted. Some farmers get rid of farm manure and rotten turnips in rivers flowing through their land so, in that way, pollution comes under the Minister's Department. I would like the Minister to consider anything he can do to prevent our farmers from polluting our rivers in that way.
I have delayed the House considerably. This is a very important debate. We will discuss fisheries on a later occasion. We have made great progress in this regard also. A great deal has been done for the fishery industry of our country. The Department of Agriculture is concerned with the lives of our people. People in cities like Dublin are affected by agricultural policies. Wonderful advances have been made with regard to milk production and other agricultural products consumed by human beings. I hope that the advances with regard to cleanliness will continue. We do not want to be regarded as the dirty Irish. We should be able to conduct our affairs as well as other countries can. Let us have the serenity to accept things which we cannot change and the courage to change things we can change, and the wisdom to know the difference between them. I must congratulate the Minister and the Department on doing so well. Every Minister for Agriculture we have had has done well.
Mr. O'Donnell
This Estimate deals with the activities of the Department of State which is closely connected with an aspect of our national life which can rightly be called the most important sector of our economy. I do not propose to make a wideranging speech because my colleague, Deputy Creed, has done so in an effective and admirable way as befitting a man who has close associations with agriculture and who is a practical and successful farmer.
I was interested to hear Deputy M P. Murphy commenting on the fact that it was difficult for Opposition Deputies to make a proper assessment of the performance of any Department, by reason of the fact that we have no research facilities, and the Minister's brief is only available when he stands up to speak. Perhaps I might add my voice to the appeal for some new type of facilities which would enable Opposition Deputies to carry out research into the various aspects of the Departments on which they are spokesmen.
It is unfortunate for the nation and particularly tragic for the farming community that at this moment of time when we are contemplating taking the most momentous step in our history—entry to the EEC—that we should have, not merely a bad Government, but a Government with the worst agricultural record of any government in Western Europe, particularly over the past one and a half decades. When one looks at the history of the Fianna Fáil agricultural policy since 1957, at the First, Second and Third Programmes for Economic Expansion, and particularly at the disastrous results following the blundering ineffectiveness of the Fianna Fáil Government in relation to agricultural planning one feels disheartened. There is no doubt whatever that Irish agriculture would have that opportunity within the context of the European Economic Community, provided we had taken steps over the past decade to gear up our agricultural industry to its maximum potential in a way which would mean that we could grasp all the opportunities presenting themselves within that Community. Instead, we find that we are contemplating entry to EEC when the morale of the agricultural industry is at its lowest ebb for a long time. Irish agriculture is suffering today from a series of blunders and of haphazard stop-gap measures dictated, in most cases, by the political expediency which has characterised Fianna Fáil agricultural policy, particularly in the last 15 years.
The Minister spoke about the urgency of adapting our processing and marketing organisations to enable us to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the Common Market. It is a pity that this idea did not occur to the Fianna Fáil Government ten years ago and that the present Minister's predecessors did not realise that we had to adapt our processing and marketing organisations towards that end. Now, at the 11th hour, in typical Fianna Fáil fashion, they have realised that we are entering the EEC and, instead of having drawn up realistic plans over the last decade, we now find emergency action being taken by the Government. The Fianna Fáil Government since 1957 have the worst record of any government in Western Europe in relation to agricultural planning and policy. I do not believe in making sweeping statements in the House without having some evidence to substantiate the allegations I make.
I propose to have a look at the dairy industry not merely because it is the most important industry in my constituency but also because it is the foundation and keystone of our whole agricultural industry. It is an industry which makes a vital and important contribution to the whole agricultural and national economy, as well as contributing extensively to our total export business. The dairy industry is the foundation of the cattle industry. Without it we cannot have cattle, and, if we have not cows, we cannot have calves. What has been done by the Government to prepare the industry for entry to the EEC? In the Second Programme for Economic Expansion we had an all-out effort to encourage farmers to engage in milk production. For a period of four or five years in the 1960s every effort was made and every inducement given to encourage farmers to keep more cows and to increase milk production.
There was an outstanding response by the farmers to that appeal. In order to increase their yield they went to the limit of their creditworthiness so that they could erect modern cow byres, install the most modern milking equipment and introduce the cow cubicle system. They adopted new and more intensive grass land production methods. All of this was done at considerable expense and, in 99 per cent of cases, the extensions and improvements were carried out on borrowed capital. The farmers did all this because they took the Government's appeal to increase milk production at its face value and they assumed that they could bank on a guaranteed return for their efforts and expenditure and that there would be no sudden change of policy on the part of the Government.
During those four or five years our dairy farmers proved themselves to be as efficient and as modern as any farmers in western Europe. Milk production soared but when the 530 million-gallon target was almost reached, the Government panicked and the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Blaney, announced that there was too much milk so there would have to be a cut-back in milk production. In other words, he was telling those farmers who had spent so much in modernising their farms that he was going to penalise them and, consequently, there was introduced the multi-tier payment system for milk delivered to creameries. Indeed, I am proud of the fact that on the occasion on which that innovation was debated here, I said that such a system was the most retrograde step ever taken not merely by this Government but that it was without parallel in any country in western Europe. At the time I said that if and when we entered the EEC, a multi-tier price system for milk would have to go and now the Minister has announced its abolition.
What, then, has happened? For the four or five years up to 1968-69 there was a mad rush on the part of the Government and on the part of the agricultural advisory service to persuade farmers to go into milk production. The result was so magnificent that the traditional 20-cow farmers geared themselves to carry up to 40 cows. Farmers tied financial millstones round their necks which will affect themselves and their families for many years to come. After their efforts they were stabbed in the back by the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and there was a cut-back until the stage was reached where the bigger and more efficient farmers were to get prices for milk that were ridiculous and uneconomic.
There was then a switch to beef and we saw the introduction of the beef incentive scheme. At that time I recall saying here in the presence of the Minister that I would do everything in my power to persuade the dairy farmers in Limerick to remain in milk production and not to switch to beef.
It was clear to me, then, as it is clear to the Minister now, that milk prices and prices for milk products would increase and that within the context of the EEC, the future for milk was very bright. This has now come to pass. The introduction of the multi-tier system did more to undermine the morale of the farmers and to shake their faith in any appeal made by the Government than has any step that has ever been taken by any Government in the history of the State. Many dairy farmers suffered a drop of £1,000 per annum in their income. Many of these were young and progressive farmers; they were men who wanted to have a stake in the future of agriculture. They had availed of the training and education provided by such voluntary organisations as Macra na Feirme. These were people who had the knowhow and the proper psychological outlook to enable them to derive the maximum from their land and they proved that. Was it right to penalise them? They have been subjected to the most outrageous injustice imaginable. The Department know only too well of the problems that were created by the multi-tier system. If what the Minister is now proposing to do for the dairy industry in order to prepare it for EEC conditions had been done three or four years ago instead of the then Minister having introduced the multi-tier price system, I have no doubt that the dairying industry today would not merely be equipped to enter a European Economic Community but would be in a position, not merely to compete with the dairy industry in other countries of Europe, such as Denmark, but would beat them pricewise, qualitywise and quantitywise.
The multi-tier system, which is now being abolished, is an outstanding monument to Fianna Fáil blundering, to Fianna Fáil stupidity, to Fianna Fáil lack of initiative. It is the final proof that Fianna Fáil never had an agricultural policy in the past; they have none now, and they never will have one in the future. What Irish agriculture needs today, and what it has needed in the past decade, is a Minister with the vision, the foresight, the initiative and the energy of a James Dillon or a Paddy Hogan. It is the tragedy of Irish agriculture that we have not had from Fianna Fáil this type of initiative, thinking or energy. We have had a series of stop-gap measures dictated by political expediency to suit a particular constituency at the time of a by-election or to suit a particular part of the country where the Fianna Fáil vote might be declining at the time of a general election. I condemn, in the strongest words I can find, the scandalous neglect, the total lack of constructive thinking, the total lack of realistic planning, which has characterised the Fianna Fáil Government in relation to agriculture, and, particularly, in relation to the dairying industry since 1967.
The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries now talks about adapting our processing and marketing organisations to take full advantage of the opportunities in the Common Market. He talks about the rationalisation of the dairying industry and various other things. Just as the Fianna Fáil Government stabbed the farmers of this country in the backs by introducing the multi-tier system, the question of rationalising the dairy industry, the question of amalgamation, has been with us for ten years now. I recall, in 1962 or 1963, discussing this question here in this House. In 1961 the Department of Agriculture set up a survey team to examine the dairy products industry. The team was led by Mr. Byrne, if I remember correctly. This team, consisting of three or four men, published an excellent report, making many recommendations in relation to the development of the dairying industry, discussing the question of rationalisation, of amalgamation and numerous other factors. What did we find? Having had that report the Government then commissioned a Doctor Knapp, one of the famous foreign consultants about whom we hear so much now.
I suppose the next step in relation to amalgamation will be that the famous McKinseys will be brought in to do a survey of the dairying industry and to make recommendations regarding rationalisation. Doctor Knapp came in here, a man with an international reputation in the co-operative movement. He spent one month here. He was never in Ireland before, I do not believe he has been here since and I do not want to see him in Ireland any more. He drew up a plan and published another report. That is the famous Knapp Report written after a one month tour of Ireland by an American. He produced virtually nothing that the dairy survey team of the Department of Agriculture had not produced. Then we had reports produced on both the departmental study and the Knapp Report by various organisations—excellent documents produced by the NFA, by the ICMSA, by the IAOS and by the Irish Creamery Managers' Association.
Seven years ago we were in the position of knowing what rationalisation was necessary, how it could be proceeded with and what would be achieved by rationalisation. Since then nothing has been done, because the Department of Agriculture could not make up its mind regarding rationalisation. The Department of Agriculture then set up a special departmental committee to examine all these reports, and I believe there has been a considerable amount of internal wrangling between the Department of Agriculture and other dairying interests. The result is that we are very little further along the road, despite what the Minister has said, towards achieving the much needed rationalisation of the creamery industry than we were seven years ago. We have wasted seven years on futile surveys, on aimless discussion, on talking about the idea of rationalisation. Some experiments have been taking place of late. These have been forced by circumstances, and are not the result of any effort of the Department of Agriculture. They are not the result of any effort on the part of the Dairy Disposal Company or anybody else. These examples of rationalisation that have taken place and are now in the pipeline have been brought about by circumstances, mostly through pressure by the farming community.
I pointed out here, on many occasions, that if the Department and the Minister and the Government were serious about the idea of rationalising the creamery industry, the way to start was to put their own house in order first. The place to start was with the Dairy Disposal Company's creameries. I have pointed out in many a debate here—I am blue in the face from saying it—that there is one outstanding example in my constituency, in the Knocklong group of creameries owned by the Dairy Disposal Company, where there is a central creamery and five or six auxiliaries. Most of these little auxiliaries are totally uneconomic with an average of 40 to 50 suppliers. Here was a case which could have been made a pilot project in rationalisation. It was not done. Now, as the result of long agitation, moves are afoot to have the Knocklong group of creameries acquired by Mitchelstown Co-operative Society Limited. The reason why the farmers supplying the Dairy Disposal Company's Knocklong group of creameries wanted to go in with Mitchelstown was a very simple matter of economics. In the one parish of Knocklong half of the farmers are supplying milk to the Dairy Disposal Company's creameries and the other half to the Mitchelstown Co-operative Society Limited. For the past six, seven or ten years the farmers supplying the Mitchelstown Co-operative Society have been getting 6p per gallon more for their milk than their neighbours who are supplying the Dairy Disposal Company's Knocklong group. It is an outrageous situation which reflects no credit on the Government or on the Department that there should be a difference of 6p a gallon in the price paid for milk to neighbouring farmers, all of whom have the same overheads, the same production costs, and so on, but because of an accident of geography the suppliers to the Knocklong group got 6p a gallon less than the suppliers to the Mitchelstown group.
I want to put on record that the present Minister was the first of the recent Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries to see the light. He gave the green light for the amalgamation of Knocklong and Mitchelstown. I want to acknowledge his help in this matter and I would appeal to him to make it absolutely sure that the merger will be signed, sealed and delivered as quickly as possible, certainly not later than the end of the year, so that the farmers in that area can look forward to receiving a realistic price for milk and will not suffer a loss of 6p per gallon. That represents a colossal difference. It amounts to £12 per cow per year.
Deputy Creed spoke very well about the Dairy Disposal Company, particularly in relation to west Cork and west Clare. The future of the Dairy Disposal Company cannot be considered in isolation from that of the creamery industry. The Minister and the Department will now have to take firm steps to ensure that rationalisation proceeds on realistic lines and that it will not be haphazard. There must be an overall plan of rationalisation for the creamery industry, a realistic, longterm plan, which will ensure that all units, whether co-operatively owned, privately owned or State-owned, in the case of the Dairy Disposal Company, will dovetail into that plan. This is one of the biggest problems in the dairying industry. I have given the extreme example where there is a difference of 6p per gallon in the price for milk in neighbouring creameries but throughout the dairying counties the situation is the same. There are no two creameries paying the same price and this is a disincentive to milk production.
Take a young man who is a progressive farmer, who increases his cow herd to the maximum that the farm will carry, who has modern equipment and suitable buildings and is delivering milk to a creamery which is paying a bad price. That is the worst possible disincentive. In one area that I visited I was appalled to find that there were no two creameries paying the same price. In some cases there was a difference of 1p, 2p and up to 6p. That has been going on for years.
I understand that in the Common Market there will be a flat, basic, common price for milk. This is a matter that concerns every dairy farmer. The question that I have been asked most frequently in recent months is whether there will be a basic common price for milk in the Common Market. I hope the Minister will be able to throw some light on this matter. If the price is x-shillings, certain creameries will be able to pay the price. For instance, Mitchelstown Creameries will be able to pay. What will happen to those creameries who at the moment are paying say, 4p or 6p a gallon less than is being paid by Mitchelstown Creameries? What do the Government propose to do? Will they continue indefinitely to subsidise inefficient units? Will they subsidise the inefficient units for a certain period of time so as to enable them to become efficient or else get out of business?
It is a tragedy that rationalisation of the creamery industry was not tackled seven or eight years ago. Rationalisation must proceed realistically within the context of an overall plan. We have lost seven years during which this could have been carried out. Rationalisation could have been completed now, before entry to the Common Market. We are entering the Common Market at the same time as we are confronted with the colossal task of rationalising the creamery industry.
An effort was made by the IAOS to formulate a plan of amalgamation and rationalisation. There was the famous 19-centre plan. This was a great blunder, a great mistake. There was an effort to sell this all-embracing rationalisation plan to the farmers and it failed because too much was attempted too quickly instead of proceeding at a steady pace and starting where there was a demand for rationalisation, with the Knocklong group, etc., and giving the farmers in the neighbouring areas the benefits of rationalisation. If seven years ago we had started a gradual process we would by now have completed the programme of amalgamation.
I have the greatest confidence in the ability of our producers to produce milk efficiently and up to the highest quality. They will be able to hold their own and even do better than the dairy farmers in the most progressive countries in western Europe but they must be assured of the sincerity of the Government, of the Minister and the Department and of the reliability of the advice given to them by the agricultural adviser and they must know that if they invest money in the development of their holdings there will be no sudden change in policy or in programme on the part of the Government such as happened in the case of the multi-tiered system. I regret very much the wasted years of the past decade in relation to the dairying industry. The way the Government have handled and approached the problem of the dairying industry is a national scandal and a national tragedy. Worst of all, and I am sure this is without parallel in Western Europe, was the way in which the Government, three or four years ago, suddenly changed course and said that we must cut down on milk production: "we will penalise the bigger milk producers and force them to go into beef production." I welcome the change of heart now. The multi-tiered system is going. I regarded that system as a retrograde step. It was a system which did more damage to the dairying industry than any other single step taken in the last 50 years.
The Minister talks about food processing and the urgency of adapting our processing and marketing organisation to take full advantage of the Common Market. Nothing in the last 50 years more clearly exemplifies the stupidity of the Government's economic policy than the fact that we did not exploit the natural resources that we have. We did not exploit the outstanding natural advantages we have for the production of food of all kinds. We have been singularly favoured by nature in that we possess two outstanding natural assets: we have a soil and climate comparable to and, in many cases, better than, those in other Western European countries for the production of grass and agricultural products. Across a few miles of channel we have the greatest food-importing nation in the world. Surely common sense should have dictated that our industrialisation should be geared to food processing and the production of top quality food of all kinds as a top priority. Had we had a proper realisation, particularly on the part of Fianna Fáil Governments, which have been in power for most of that period, we could and we should today be the foremost nation in Western Europe in food technology, in food processing and in food production.
What do we find? Were we the foremost nation, we could now look forward with equanimity to entry into the European Economic Community. What do we find? We find the dairying industry in a mess; we find the bacon industry in a mess. As far as food technology is concerned, we do not seem to know where we are going; we are going one way today and another way tomorrow. Now, on the eve of entry to the EEC we find the Government talking about the rationalisation of the creamery industry and of the bacon industry and the need for these to prepare themselves for entry into the EEC.
This Government, and their predecessors, should hang their heads in shame because of the way in which they neglected to develop the outstanding natural resources of our country and to exploit those natural resources to the full for the production of top quality agricultural produce. This is something for which Ministers for Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture must take responsibility. We had an opportunity of supplying a substantial extra quantity of butter to the British market some time ago and we were unable to supply it. I understand that, for years, we have not been able to fill our bacon quota on the British market. Surely nothing more clearly proves the stupidity of Fianna Fáil policy in their whole approach to the problem of economic development than this miserable failure. The First Programme for Economic Expansion, the Second Programme and the Third failed hopelessly because there was no adequate recognition given in those programmes to the important role agriculture plays, and should play, in the national economy. The National Industrial and Economic Council was set up at the time of the Second Programme but agriculture had no representation on it.
There are other ways in which Government agricultural policy has fallen down. If there is one subject that has been talked about more than any other by the experts, the pseudoexperts and everyone else it is the co-operative movement. In the last 40 years we have heard more about this than about any other single thing in relation to agriculture. What have the Government done? What has been the history of the various Fianna Fáil Governments in relation to the practical application of co-operative principles and methods to agricultural production and marketing? How do the efforts, of the Fianna Fáil Governments we have had, compare with the efforts of governments in Denmark and other countries which have made the maximum use of this outstanding method of agricultural production?
Once again, we have the Minister for Agriculture talking about co-operation and group farming. There has been an experiment in group farming carried out by the Irish Land Commission in Meath. One would think this was a revolutionary idea. There is nothing new in this. Group farming is not original. It is certainly not a Fianna Fáil idea. The idea of group farming was preached by Macra na Feirme and by the late Canon Hayes many, many years ago. Group farming is a common practice on the Continent. It is a common practice in developing countries. In group farming, farmers come together and pool their resources for the purpose of large-scale production; ten small holders with 20 acres each will comprise a 200 acre holding; and, by working together and pooling their resources, these ten farmers can employ the most modern techniques and the most modern equipment economically. This has been done.
The Minister for Lands has talked about this great new experiment in County Meath. It might be new so far as the Department of Lands is concerned, but it is not new so far as the agricultural industry is concerned. Dr. Tom Walsh of the Agricultural Institute talked about such a scheme many years ago. The late Canon Hayes was a great pioneer of this idea. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will endorse everything I say about the late Canon Hayes and the tremendous work he did in rural Ireland. He tried to encourage farmers to co-operate with one another and apply modern techniques so that they could obtain a decent standard of living. He pointed out that they could not do this by each working his own holding but they could do it by co-operation.
We talk about small farmers in the west and we talk about western development but the graph of the number of small farmers leaving the land goes up every year. There were two alternatives: one was consolidation, which meant encouraging some farmers to leave the land thereby making bigger holdings for those who remain and the other was by co-operation and group-farming. The Government's policy has been one of clearance and in the last ten years 14,000 have left the land every year. I do not have figures of the numbers who have left the land during the past 20 or 30 years.
The late Canon Hayes, who was the founder of Muintir na Tíre, had a great influence on my life and my outlook. I had the great privilege of working for Muintir na Tíre for a number of years before I became a member of this House. The late Canon Hayes pointed out that the way to solve the small farming problem was by co-operation. The great modern architect of this idea is Father McDyer of Glencolumbcille. The experience of people such as Father McDyer, who have the foresight, vision and energy not merely to formulate, but to implement a scheme such as the Glencolumbcille scheme has been one of frustration. Instead of being given the full blessing and co-operation of the Government and the Department of Agriculture they have met with obstacles, opposition and objections. We can only keep the maximum number of viable family holdings by applying the principles of co-operation and community development to agricultural production. While the initial experiment by the Land Commission in County Meath is a welcome development it is 30 years too late.
The Minister referred to the advisory services which are a very important part of the agricultural industry. On the whole the advisory services have a good history and a good record but like many other sectors of agriculture they have suffered from the lack of a realistic policy on the part of the Government. The present manner in which the agricultural advisory services are organised is not satisfactory. There has been a good deal of discussion on the advisory services within the context of the reorganisation of local government — I am not going into that aspect of it. I am concerned to see that the farmers get the best possible advisory service that can be provided. The service should be organised in such a way that farmers will get the maximum benefit irrespective of how it is organised.
I fear that we are going to have months and years of futile discussion as to who should control the advisory services. I do not care and the majority of farmers do not care who controls the advisory services. I do not care whether agricultural advisers are provided by local co-operative creameries, as they are in many cases, or whether they are provided by committees of agriculture. All I want to ensure is that farmers in need of advice will get the best possible advice from agricultural advisers. The present system is not satisfactory. The services available, and the use being made of them by farmers, are not the best. Changes are necessary and it is up to the Minister to say how they can be made.
The big problem, in my opinion, is that the men on the field have had no proper link-up or co-operation with the Agricultural Institute, the research departments of universities and the Department of Agriculture. If the Agricultural Institute is to be of the maximum benefit to farmers the most effective lines of communication between the Agricultural Research Station and the farmer working on the land must be devised in order to ensure that the information is brought to the farmers' doorsteps as quickly as possible.
The parish plan will, I believe, go down in history as one of the greatest experiments in the agricultural advisory service, not merely in this country, but in Western Europe. It was the brainchild of the late Canon Hayes, and it was implemented by a former Minister for Agriculture, my distinguished colleague, Mr. James Dillon. I have already said that I fear time is going to be wasted on futile discussion as to who should control the advisory service and in the same way the parish plan was bedevilled from the outset with futile discussions as to who was going to control the parish advisers.
I have no doubt that the parish plan was the outstanding social concept in Western Europe. It was the first real attempt to bring the Department of Agriculture from Merrion Square to the farmer's doorstep. From the point of view of the efficiency of an advisory service, nothing could be better than to have the agricultural adviser live in the rural parish where he works rather than in a town or city from which he would operate, rather like a veterinary surgeon. The advisory service should not be confined merely to offering technical advice on matters relating to agriculture. The agricultural adviser has an important role to play in the life of the rural community.
The concept of the parish plan in the areas where it was introduced, and particularly in the parish of Bansha, was well in advance of anything Western Europe had to offer at the time. When Fianna Fáil came back to power in 1957, unfortunately one of the first things they did was to scrap the parish plan. This was a tragedy for Irish agriculture. In whatever reorganisation is done in the advisory service we should get back to basic principles. I hope the agricultural adviser will not be a person who goes out to take soil samples and sends his prescription to the farmer. He should live in the rural community and assist in all aspects of development and parish life. An adviser cannot gain acceptance by the local community unless he becomes part of that community, in the same way as the clergy and teachers live and work in the community. I am completely opposed to an agricultural adviser taking up residence in a town 15 miles away from the area he serves, travelling to the area each morning but returning to the town every night and at weekends. I do not care if there is an unpopular reaction among the advisory service staff with regard to my suggestion. It is vital that the adviser should gain the confidence of the farmers and he must be on the spot all the time if he is to gain this confidence.
I am concerned that we have not a specialist advisory service. In 1960 I was involved for Muintir na Tíre in an experiment in group farming. I found it was impossible to get specialist advice on this matter; no such advice was available from the Agricultural Institute, the Department of Agriculture or from the universities. In these circumstances it is extremely difficult for a group of farmers to work together and pool their resources to best advantage. No method of co-operating in this manner has yet been devised and I have attacked the Agricultural Institute for failing to do proper research in this matter.
The lack of research done on this problem is a sad reflection on our agricultural policy. It exposes the hypocrisy and cant we have had in regard to a co-operative movement. In every county, in addition to the advisory service, there is need for a number of specialist people. We need experts on co-operation and group farming, experts on animal diseases, on animal nutrition, on milk production and on many other items. The worst feature of the advisory service is the abominable system of appointment. After spending four years at university, the young graduate having spent another year at an agricultural college, in order to get his first appointment in the advisory service, must canvass the votes of members of committees of agriculture. I have condemned this system before and I repeat my condemnation of it now. It is degrading, demoralising and it is 100 years out-of-date.
Having secured the majority vote— often by political influence and perhaps without reference to the qualifications of the candidate — he is appointed on a temporary basis, on a six months renewable contract. I have known cases where an agricultural adviser was for ten years classified as a temporary instructor. In such cases the adviser does not receive any increments and those years of temporary service do not count for pension purposes. In fact, the adviser could be kicked out at the end of six months. There was also the case of an adviser who took up a situation in a county; who spent a few years there and had become fully acquainted with the type of farming in the area, but, in order to get a permanent appointment, he might have to go from Limerick to Cavan, Mayo or Wexford. In the Limerick area there is mainly milk production and the experience gained by an adviser in that area is wasted when he has to go to Wexford where the system of farming is different. In Limerick we were fortunate enough to have an adviser seconded from the Limerick Committee of Agriculture in the early days of our group experiment. He spent four years in the area and worked very hard. He did a considerable amount of research, and did much to get the experiment off the ground. After four years he applied for a permanent appointment and, despite the fact that we pointed out to the Department of Agriculture that this was a pilot project of great national interest and value, the adviser had to go to another part of Ireland, where he is at present.
This system of temporary appointment is disgraceful. If an adviser is appointed, let him serve the usual Civil Service probationary period but let us do away with this system of transferring him from one part of the country to another. Some agricultural experts may say this is good in that it gives the adviser experience of different systems of farming but I do not share that view. The man who is born in the area, who is familiar with the type of farming carried out, can be of best use in that area when he becomes an agricultural adviser.
I warn the Minister about this because I know that concern is being voiced by certain vested interests about the reconstruction of the advisory services. The Minister will have to be ruthless about this. I am not concerned about who controls the advisory services: I am concerned only to see that the Irish farmers will get the advisory services which they want to enable them to make the maximum use of the manpower and expertise that are available.
I will mention in passing the Agricultural Institute. In the past I have been highly critical of the institute in the sense that I did not agree that certain highly scientific research projects undertaken by them could be of practical value to ordinary farmers. I have been critical because the institute have not concentrated sufficiently on research into the social problems of Irish agriculture. In the institute there is a rural economy division but I am not aware of any major contributions having been made by that division to rural development.
On the whole, the Agricultural Institute have made an important contribution in relation to dairy research, of which I am very conscious. The Dairy Research Institute in Fermoy have made an outstanding contribution to the development of modern dairying methods. The work they have done can be seen particularly in my area in Limerick.
However, I am not at all satisfied that other research stations operated by the Agricultural Institute have carried out lines of research which could benefit Irish farmers practically. Surely the whole aim of agricultural research and of the advisory services is to benefit the Irish farmers, not to provide academic pastimes or pursuits for the gentlemen engaged in that research. Agricultural research must be aimed primarily towards assisting the farmers. I wish to pay a tribute to Dr. Tom Walsh and the Dairy Research Institute for their outstanding contribution but it should be possible to ensure that, throughout, agricultural research undertaken by the institute would be geared towards practical assistance for farmers in the field.
Reference has been made to agricultural credit and the Minister said that investment is necessary to gear up agriculture in the context of EEC entry. If we are to gear our food processing industry particularly to EEC conditions a colossal injection of capital will be necessary and the Minister and the Department will have to show leadership in this. As far as credit is concerned in agriculture, the ACC, in so far as they find it possible to do so within their terms of reference, have been doing good work. I may have been critical of all aspects of our agricultural policy but I must say that the ACC have been remarkable for their courtesy, for their consideration and for the humane manner in which they deal with farmers' difficulties. I am particularly pleased with the regionalisation of the ACC. They have set up regional offices and this is an excellent idea which will be of great service to the farming community. The ACC form one sector of the State agricultural services about which I have no criticism to offer.
On the other hand, I am not satisfied with the capitalisation of the ACC or with their terms of reference. I do not agree these are anything like adequate to meet the needs of Irish agriculture in the immediate future. As I have said, colossal capital investment will be necessary and the Government will have to take responsibility and show leadership to ensure that this capital, this finance, is available to gear agriculture properly for EEC entry.
That is the gist of what I want to say. There are other aspects of agriculture dealt with in the Minister's speech which one could speak about at length but I am sure my colleagues will be anxious to deal with them.
It is always with a feeling of trepidation that those of us who may be regarded as townsmen or urban dwellers dare to speak on a subject such as agriculture. Nevertheless, since my election to the House in 1961, as part of my duties I have taken an active interest in this important Department and have spoken on the subject on occasions.
I have read the Minister's speech carefully and I was particularly disappointed that he did not deal in greater detail with the repercussions which are bound to arise for our agricultural community in the context of our imminent entry to the Common Market. In my opinion the Minister deliberately evaded this vitally important matter. One would have imagined that on the threshold of our entry to Europe the Minister would have spelled out in great detail the effects of entry on our agricultural community. He evaded his responsibility in this matter, not giving us an idea of precisely which changes will have to be made in our various schemes and services. Instead, he spoke about the introduction of a White Paper on our terms of entry which we understand will be circulated early in the new year.
This evasion is to be deplored because there is no doubt that membership of the Common Market will have serious consequences for various facets of our agricultural economy. Even spokesmen for the various farming communities who a year or two ago were very enthusiastic about entry and about the possible benefits that would accrue to the agricultural community are now speaking in more cautious terms.
The Common Market is no longer regarded as the great bonanza for the Irish farmers that we were led to believe it would be. We are told there has been a great measure of agreement in the negotiations on most of the agricultural issues with the exception of the important matter of fisheries. I would like to pay tribute to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the stand he is taking in respect of safeguarding the lives of our fishermen and those who depend for their livelihood on the harvesting of fish from our seas. It is gratifying to see a stand being taken on some issues, because, already, too much has been conceded, industrialwise, by reason of the indifferent approach by the Minister on so many other factors of our economy, especially in respect of industries, which are vulnerable to free trade. It is a good thing to see a stand now being taken on this fundamental issue, and we wish the Minister success, at least, in maintaining the 12 mile limit which will adequately safeguard our fishermen in this regard.
We are told that prices in applicant countries will be harmonised with the common price levels of the Community in the Six on six equal stages over the transitional period. I feel, if the Minister was to spell out clearly the repercussions that would arise, it would come as a very great shock to many Irish farmers. Is it not true to say that free trade means in effect the free exchange of men, money and materials? In competing on that basis this will be an excruciating exercise for many small Irish farmers. This free exchange of men, money and materials means that the laws we passed in this House in respect of preserving the land of Ireland for the people of Ireland no longer applies. The Land Act will be as dead as a dodo. Foreigners will be able to buy up large tracts of land without restriction, and this is bound to militate against the small farmers of this country, who will be unable to seek additional land to overcome serious congestion and economic privation.
The Minister has carefully avoided any mention of the Mansholt Plan. We all know that that plan constitutes a most serious threat to the small farmers of this country. It rings the deathknell for them. Mr. Mansholt has clearly stated the qualifications for viability in respect of farming in the Common Market and in Ireland, and from that, it is evident that many thousands of small farmers will be forced out of existence. This is one of the great tragedies of entry into Europe for our agricultural community. It is not good enough to say that this is the trend in Europe, this is what is happening in other countries throughout the world.
We are in a peculiar position in this country. We had a long tradition of fighting for the land of Ireland, a fight for the reconquest of Ireland against foreign domination and the confiscation of our land. We hoped, when we secured the partial freedom we enjoy, that the ranches would be divided up and the land given back to Irish farmers. An endeavour has been made along those lines but now a halt is being called. There seems to be no further prospect for the small farmers in respect of obtaining more land.
The great fight of the land war for the three "Fs", free sale, free rent and fixity of tenure is no more. In accordance with the Mansholt Plan these people will be enticed to give up farming altogether. They will be bought out, if they so desire, and larger holdings will be created. We are moving back to the era of the rancher all over again. This will accelerate the drive from the land which has been going on for a number of years at approximately 20,000 a year. We applaud the voices which are raised against this. I sincerely hope that the small farmers of Ireland will fight as tenaciously against Mansholt and others as they fought against the land barons of the past. I extend to them, on behalf of this party, my hand and my heart in achieving victory over the struggle.
We are told that farmers aged 55 to 65 years of age, who, of their own accord, decide to leave the land and make their farms available to those who are in a position to carry out a planned improvement programme, will receive an annual pension of about £250 or an equivalent lump sum allowance. There are also provisions for the retraining of farmers for other activities and a scheme of educational grants for children of poorer farmers. It is fair to say that we already have legislation passed in this House providing for entitlement of pensions and lump sum payments to small elderly farmers if they decide to give up their land in order to create larger holdings.
I think it is fair to say that the scheme operated by the Department of Lands has been a dismal failure. The number of aged farmers, who opted for this scheme of retirement on pension or lump sum has been pitifully small. That being so, it seems that what Mansholt has in mind and the Minister refers to in the notes so kindly made available to us on various aspects of the Department, will not be any inducement to farmers to get out of the business. I believe there are misgivings among the agricultural community about entering EEC. The Minister has done nothing to allay fears and anxieties in that regard. It is evident that foreign participation in any aspect of agricultural activity cannot be prevented by the Minister or the Government whether it is buying land, to which I have already referred, or competition in the dairy industry on which Deputy O'Donnell spoke at length.
Neither can foreign participation be prevented in respect of any products of the soil. Meat processing factories giving valuable employment have, in many cases, already had setbacks and there is evidence of redundancy and a rush to merge. Likewise, production and processing of vegetables can be threatened, and, in general, the production and processing of everything appertaining to agriculture could be seriously affected when we enter Europe.
I am pleased that voices have been raised against acceptance of the Mansholt Plan. The only alternative the Minister can suggest is the group idea, grouping of farmers together on a co-operative basis. Other views have been put forward by Father McDyer and the Bishop of Kerry, Dr. Casey, and others who are alerting their people and organising them in a bold endeavour to hold on to their farms and make themselves as efficient as possible to meet what is to come. I am pleased that this frontal attack on the small farmers is being met and I believe the Government could do much more to assist in that regard. We have always contended that much of the assistance, and it is pretty lavish in certain instances, which the Government provide, in the main benefits the large farmer. Clearly, the small farmer cannot avail of many State helps and aids because he does not have, in the initial stages, the capital required. While some Deputies were loud in praise of the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the manner in which they do business, I cannot concur. There is a marked reluctance on the part of the ACC to assist the small farmer. The tests applied are rigorous indeed. Advertising by the ACC that money is readily available seems to be unfair, and misrepresents the true position by holding out false hopes to farmers that money is there for the asking. When one comes to seek a loan, one quickly gets the answer. That is my experience of the ACC, that they tend to provide money for the larger farmer.
The whole emphasis nowadays, especially in the light of the Mansholt Plan, is that little or no help will in future be given to the small farmer. From now on a deliberate policy is being adopted even by our own Minister to pressurise the small farmer out of business. That is evident in the abolition of the two-tier price system for milk, which was designed particularly to help small suppliers. Again, we have evidence of Government policy deliberately discriminating against the small farmer. It seems we are conforming to the Mansholt Plan and accepting its inevitability, and the Minister and the Department and other State bodies are applying pressures that will eventually put small farmers out of existence. The repeated advertising of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, giving the impression that money is freely and readily available to all farmers of all types, is misleading in the extreme and has caused too much disappointment already to too many small farmers. It is time for the Minister to cry halt to that farce.
I am grateful for what is left to bolster up the small farmer. I should like to see greater supports in respect of making money available, in respect of providing better housing accommodation, water supplies, sanitary services and greater supports for mountain sheep rearing, pig rearing, turkey rearing and glasshouse development. I would ask the Minister in particular to have regard to the intrinsic worth of increasing our stock of pigs. More and more small farmers and cottiers and, indeed, some townspeople would be anxious and willing and ready to embark upon pig rearing if it could be made more profitable for them. In the Ireland of unhappier days it was the pig who paid the rent. Pig rearing is still a very important factor for small farmers and cottiers and many others. If the Minister is sincere in wanting to have our production increased, I would ask him to consider providing a better deal for these smaller producers.
I understand that at present a reorganisation of the agricultural committees is being considered. I would be grateful to the Minister if he would avail of the opportunity when he is replying to refer to this important matter which is the cause of anxiety and worry to very many people. In the kind of restructuring which is likely to take place, it is feared that the agricultural committees as we know them will be abolished and something else constituted instead, perhaps regional boards something on the lines of the regional health boards which are in existence at present.
I feel it my duty to reflect here the resentment felt by very many long-standing members of the agricultural committees who have worked tenaciously and dedicatedly on behalf of the farming community. They feel it is very wrong, indeed, that the system they have known, and which has operated so well, should be disrupted or destroyed. I would oppose the abolition of committees of this kind based at local level and serving relatively small communities as against regional bodies. They know intimately the requirements of the farming folk in their areas and they reflect fully the wants and the needs and the aspirations of the farming community.
They have been providing an excellent service and I would appeal to the Minister to be very slow to disrupt that service and to assist and stimulate still further the activities of our agricultural committees rather than abolish them and create larger boards. Those of us who have served on larger boards, such as the health boards, know that very quickly large bodies can become aloof and indifferent and, indeed, at times hostile to the needs of certain local communities far removed from them, people who are of little concern to them and from whom they do not derive their support or their votes. There can be indifference of a very callous character in the creation of the large bodies to which I refer.
Deputy O'Donnell referred to the method of appointment of agricultural officers. Very largely I share the views he expressed about the appointment of these officers on a temporary basis. Having granted them a job, and having allowed them to settle down and get to know the community and provide a service, we compel them to sit for a competitive examination under the Appointments Board and then invariably they are transferred elsewhere. I am mindful in particular of a situation of this kind which has arisen in my own constituency.
An agricultural officer was appointed on a part-time basis in the Ardfinnan district. This man fell in love with the area and it can certainly be said that he fell in love with the people as well. By reason of the outstanding service he provided for them at all levels he could be regarded as one of their greatest benefactors. He was available on call to the people night and day. He served farmers large and small without distinction. He participated actively in the social life of the community. He helped them in every way on the farm and in the home and in respect of recreational and sporting activities. He was there on a temporary basis.
The job was advertised on a permanent basis and he applied for it. The people of that area hoped and genuinely prayed that this man would not be lost to them, that he would not be taken from them. I should imagine that it is fair to say that the strongest possible representations were made for the retention of the services of this particularly dedicated man. One can imagine the shock and dismay and disappointment experienced all over the Ardfinnan area when it transpired that this man did not get the job, the job that he had been performing so magnificently for so many years previously. Another had been appointed.
The Minister, of course, would have no responsibility in the making of that appointment.
I appreciate that. I am merely seeking to point out how one can destroy all the good work achieved by an officer of this kind by a radical change of this nature. To conclude the story, very briefly he was appointed to another area, to Wicklow. I feel that it is true to say that the people of the Ardfinnan district of Clonmel will never rest happy or feel consoled again until the services of this officer have been restored to them. There is obviously something fundamentally wrong with appointments when a man who has done his work so diligently and effectively is not appointed to that area. It is a very serious blow to that community and one they will not easily get over.
The Minister referred also to the rationalisation of the dairying industry, and he gives us much more information on the subject in the Main Activities of his Department. We all appreciate the need to rationalise nowadays. However, I would appeal to the Minister, in the amalgamation of creameries that is envisaged, to have regard in particular to the human factors involved and strive to ensure as far as possible that there are no redundancies. Too much has happened in this regard. Too many mergers have taken place without regard to the effects on the local community.
Deputy O'Donnell referred briefly to a creamery in an area converging on my electoral area, namely, the creamery of Knocklong which is on the borders of Tipperary. I want to refer further to that catchment area also, Tipperary town. The Minister will, no doubt, recollect that this area provides a superabundance of milk. There is excellent grassland there and many farmers are involved in milk production. By reason of the large amount of milk available in the area a predecessor of the Minister, Deputy Charles Haughey, made a positive promise that a milk processing plant would be provided in Tipperary town. That was a number of years ago and despite adverting to the matter on many occasions in the House and despite deputations, protestations and representations, I am afraid that the much vaunted promise of a milk processing factory for Tipperary town has not been realised.
Much political capital was made out of this proposal, and I am sure my colleague, Deputy Paddy Hogan, will agree with me that very many votes for the Government party were secured in our constituency and especially in the Tipperary area on the basis that this large plant was going to be provided. We have had election addresses which contained this promise, and indeed, it has been reiterated by the Minister who is now in the House with us. Certainly there was no going back. That is five or six years ago now and we are still no nearer the processing plant for Tipperary.
They will tell us when an election is coming.
No doubt it will be resurrected before the referendum and certainly gullible people will fall for the promise. I am asking the Minister to avail of an opportunity of telling the House whether this was simply a political fraud perpetrated on the people of Tipperary or whether there is any real prospect of this factory being erected there. Was it merely a political gimmick, because that is what the people are beginning to believe? The situation in Tipperary town is such that the existing creamery there which is under the aegis of the Dairy Disposal Company has been for some time past in a rather insecure position. There have been redundancies and threats of redundancies. Even in recent times there was a threat of the curtailment of an essential shift of workers which would have reduced the labour force by perhaps one-third. I should like the Minister to have particular regard to the promise made to this area, to the superabundance of milk which is available, and the need to provide suitability of employment and, indeed, much more employment for that district. Tipperary town has a very high incidence of emigration and unemployment. The Minister has a bounden duty to honour the promise made in providing for Tipperary town a milk processing plant.
The most important aspect of the Minister's speech and one which certainly will be greeted, in the main, with pleasure by the farming community is the proposal to increase the price of milk and skimmed milk by 2p per gallon. This is welcome news for the farming community. We on this side of the House support enthusiastically any proposal which will improve the prosperity and security of any section of our community, not least the farming community whose livelihood is precarious, depending very largely on unstable markets and weather conditions.
This is a pretty substantial increase in the price of milk. It will, of course, profit the big supplier principally. I have said already that there is evident discrimination against the small farmer in the abolition of the two-tier price for milk which heretofore operated. That concession to the small farmer has been taken away and he is being put now on a par with the large farmer, and in the kind of battle that goes on between the pigmy and the giant, it is selfevident that it is the large farmer who will profit by this scheme. While welcoming the increase in the price of milk to the farmers, for which they have been agitating for a long time, I wish to congratulate the NFA and the ICMSA for their consistent endeavours, many times in a militant fashion, to improve the lot of the farming community. These organisations have been dedicated to their members and have striven relentlessly to improve their lot. In the years to come it will be remembered that there were marches to the House to secure improvements. Their statements were listened to and their demands were acted upon. In the future when we have entered the Common Market we must remember that it is a very long march to Brussels.
It would be unfair of us on the Labour benches not to take heed of the milk price increases and the consequential effects on the cost of living. It is regrettable that in increasing the price of milk the Minister should find it necessary to increase the price of butter by 2½ or 6d. a lb. The price of butter has remained stable for some years past. This news of an increase will be received with shock and dismay by the Irish housewives. I agree with the advertisement issued by a State body which presents butter as "the cream." Nothing can replace butter. It is part of our way of life. There is no substitute for it. This increase in the price of "the cream of Irish life" will turn it sour for many unfortunate people. The Minister has helped to remove butter from many Irish tables. I am not against the increase in the price of milk, but it was the policy of a previous Government to cushion the impact of prices on essential foodstuffs. There was a policy of subsidisation of foodstuffs. It is a pity that the Minister did not have recourse to something of this kind in this instance rather than increase the price of butter.
The cost of living has risen steeply in recent times. Our agricultural produce, vegetables of all kinds, meat, bread and now butter have risen in cost. This increase comes at a time when there is a virtual standstill in wages and salaries. It is difficult to understand the attitude of the Government in raising the price of butter by 6d per lb. We cannot blame the workers or the unions who take cognisance of this act and who take suitable steps to maintain living standards for their people in the face of spiralling prices of this kind. Food subsidies were an integral part of the policy of a previous Government. When the Fianna Fáil Party came back in 1957 one of their first acts was to abolish food subsidies. We cannot expect the Minister to cushion the impact on this occasion, but it is particularly galling to know that we are subsidising the foreigner to the extent of 1s 6d per lb. to enable him to eat our butter while we cannot do something about subsidising the price here and keep butter on our tables at home.
It is ironical that our butter can be bought cheaper in Northern Ireland, Britain and elsewhere than here. I appeal to the Minister, if it is not too late to do something about the subsidisation of our dairying industry of which butter is such an integral part. The Minister should find some way of avoiding the steep increase in the price of butter.
There are many aspects of the activities of the Department to which one could refer at length. I do not propose to do so. I have been impressed by the excellent work done by the land project section of the Department. They have done much work in relation to drainage of land and the acquisition of additional land especially in congested areas. I have no doubt that this good work will go on apace. The farm building grants are most desirable. The small farm incentive scheme is an excellent one. It is sometimes difficult to secure these grants. The regulations are rigid. Even when one complies with the regulations laid down there is often considerable delay before grants are paid. This is not good enough. At the present time there is a problem about the sheep-dipping regulations in my area.
One would imagine that responsibility for sheep dipping facilities such as the provision of suitable tanks, whether fixed or mobile, would rest with the agricultural committees but, instead, the responsibility fell on the local county councils. Because of this, and despite the best efforts of both bodies to provide advice and guidance and active participation, sheep dipping services are not satisfactory to the farming community. This is particularly so in mountain areas. I would ask the Minister to consider this problem with a view to providing more effective co-operation between the agricultural committees and the county councils in respect of the provision of proper sheep dipping facilities.
As I said in my opening remarks, it is with a certain amount of trepidation that a person from an urban area participates in a discussion on agriculture, but I do so, because of the importance of this industry. It is an industry that is faced with great difficulties and dangers because of the changes that are taking place all around us, some of which we have no control over. It would be remiss of me if I did not advert to my concern in respect of certain aspects of agriculture because many of my constituents derive their livelihood from farming.
I appreciate that I would be converging on other Departments, in particular on the Department of Lands if I were to extend my views on these matters. In this respect one cannot but wonder why, because of the close relationship between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department of Lands, there is not a merger of these two Departments. If this were so, we would not have to transgress the rules of the House when speaking on matters that relate to both Departments. Furthermore, such mergers would ensure greater co-operation and understanding of the problems of the entire farming community.
Anything that the Government do to improve the lot of farmers and, in particular, the weaker sections of the farming community, will have the support of this side of the House and I express the hope that, despite what is contained in the Mansholt Plan, the Government will not acquiesce in it but that they will fight tenaciously, together with the small farmers, their spokesmen and respective organisations, to maintain in Ireland the rightful place of the farmer. With the support of the Government, that struggle can have a successful outcome.
I wish the Minister well in his future undertakings. I know that he has had a difficult time, and I hope that what has happened in respect of internal matters within the Cabinet has not affected adversely either the workings of his Department or the interests of the great number of people who are depending on his aid, his services and his administation.
I wish to refer specifically to items Nos. 3 and 4 on today's Order Paper. These relate to two motions of annulment of two statutory instruments. These are Statutory Instruments Nos. 36 and 37 of 1964. One refers to the Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Act, 1930 (Exporters' Licences) Fees Regulations, 1964; and the other refers to the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935 (Part II) (No. 3) Regulations, 1964. Both of these Orders increase the levy on slaughterings of animals, cattle, sheep and pigs, with a view to gaining increased revenue on behalf of the trade which was to be put towards the establishment and financing of a meat research institute.
I understood that I was to be allotted one hour of Government time to have these motions discussed fully and voted on but, apparently, the Government decided to take them with the Estimate on Agriculture and Fisheries. However, the Fianna Fáil Chief Whip has assured me that the Minister will reply independently to these motions.
At the outset, I would like to refer to the background of these Orders. The problem of research in the meat trade arose first as a result of the publication in 1958 of the First Programme on Economic Expansion in which it was pointed out that the industry would benefit undoubtedly from research in respect of such matters as packaging, transport, et cetera. Following the publication of that Programme representatives of the Department met representatives of the Bacon Curers Association, and of the Meat Exporters and Beef Canners Associations and discussed the problem. These discussions went on over a period of time beginning in February, 1959. At one point the Director of An Foras Talúntais, Dr. Walshe, was involved. There was agreement from the trade side that a research body was very desirable and whether this body would be within An Foras Talúntais or would be independent of it, became a matter for discussion within the trade. There was approval for State assistance to the project. This approval was given in a letter from the Department to Mr. J.J. Bastow who was acting for the trade on the 28th December, 1962. The letter indicated the amount the State would contribute to the project by way of grant and subvention. The balance was to be put up by the trade.
Subsequently, the trade requested that a levy be introduced to supplement the existing levy because they considered this to be the best way of getting the contribution from the trade side. The then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, regarded this as being the most acceptable way of financing the project. The Minister laid before Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann drafts of regulations under both Acts— the Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Act, 1930 and the Agriculture Produce (Fresh Meath) (Amendment) Act, 1935, providing for this increase in levy. In his speech on the draft regulations in Dáil Éireann on 11th December, 1963 he stated:
No revenue will accrue to the State by reason of the increased fees proposed, and my Department will pay over to the trade's own meat Research Institute an amount equivalent to the proceeds of the increases in the fees, plus the additional contribution being made by the State.
He made a similar speech in Seanad Éireann on 18th December, 1963 again stating:
I should like to make it clear that no extra revenue will accrue to the State from the proposed increases in the fees.
These draft regulations were approved by Dáil Éireann on 11th December, 1963 and by Seanad Éireann on 18th December, 1963. Both Orders were, in fact, made on 24th February, 1964 and in the intervening time there was a discussion on the trade side as to which would be the most acceptable way of establishing the institute, whether it should be attached to An Foras Talúntais or independent. That was the position at that time. The Orders became effective though not laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they were made. I shall refer to this later. During the early years of the collection of the levy the amounts intended for the research institute, being part of the general levies, were placed in a suspense account. However, since, in effect, there was no final decision on the establishment of the institute, the practice ceased and in effect the levies were silently diverted—the words used by the High Court Judge in his decision—to the general revenue of the State, apparently on the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The trade interests took the matter to court of law and it was decided in the judgment of the President of the High Court delivered on 30th July, 1970 in which he dealt with a number of matters. One matter which he dealt with and on which he gave a direction was in relation to both Orders. He pointed out that the actual Orders when made were not placed before the House of the Oireachtas in accordance with the relevant Acts as soon as may be after they were made. It is interesting to note that though the Orders were made on 24th February, 1964 it took a High Court decision to have them placed before the Seanad and the Dáil. They were placed before the Dáil on 20th October, 1971 and before the Seanad on 27th October, 1971, nearly eight years after they were made. I consider that this is a serious malpractice. The Act of the Oireachtas specified that the Orders should be placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they were made. I assume those words mean "without undue haste" but I would consider a period of seven years and three months to be an insult to the Houses of the Oireachtas in this matter. It is only when such Orders are placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas that any motion for annulment can be put down. I am not blaming the present Minister for this. This goes back to 1964 but it is a serious malpractice and a serious insult to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I hope such a thing will not occur again.
In relation to perhaps the most important issue—the actual collection of the levies and their use I wish to quote from the judgment of the President of the High Court delivered on 30th July, 1971. He says at page 19 of his decision:
The position taken up by the Minister may be strictly in accordance with the Statutes, that is to say, that the fees, collected from the traders concerned, are to be applied for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance may direct. In other words, these fees may be treated as part of the general revenue of the State and applied for any purpose directed by the Minister for Finance, regardless of the purpose outlined to Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann when resolutions approving of the draft regulations were passed.
He goes on to state:
Reliance on this argument seems to me to be a gross breach of faith on the part of the Minister towards the trade interests at whose instance the regulations were made, and to the Houses of the Oireachtas who approved of the draft regulations on the basis of the Minister's statement in each House. Nonetheless, it would seem that these fees, received for a very special purpose have been applied to other purposes, after being, for a period, retained in a suspense account.
he continues:
A strange position arises in regard to these moneys. They were, as I believed, impressed with a trust that they should be applied in a particular way, and were collected on the representation that they would be so applied. Under the relevant legislation the approval of Seanad Éireann was required before the increased fees could be imposed. One might think that it would be open to me at this stage to make a declaration that they are still held on the trust referred to, but it appears that they have been put into the general revenue of the State and dealt with each year under the Appropriation Act, so that by legislation——
These are the important words:
——they have silently been diverted from the purpose for which they were collected, and applied in other ways.
These are the words of the High Court judge. They point out very serious anomalies in relation to these increased levies, from two aspects. The first and more serious aspect is in relation to the position in which both the Dáil and the Seanad find themselves as a result of this practice. The fact is that on 11th December, 1963, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries came into the Dáil and, on 18th December of the same year, went into the Seanad, and gave assurances that no revenue would accrue to the State by reason of the increased fees proposed and he said that his Department would pay over to the State-owned meat research institute an amount equivalent to the proceeds of the increase in the fees plus the additional contribution made by the State. It was on that assurance that the Houses of the Oireachtas accepted the levies. It now transpires that the levies have been diverted— silently diverted, in the words of the High Court judge, to the general revenue of the State.
It is only right and proper that the House should deplore such a practice.
The funds were initially kept in a suspense account but later they were silently diverted to the general revenue of the State, a practice which must be condemned by both Houses of the Oireachtas and which involves a high principle of conduct in relation to the State's activities in this matter. There is a moral obligation on the Minister and on the Government to rectify and to resolve the situation by carrying out the original purpose for which the levies were intended.
The second principle involved is in relation to the Minister and the trade interests concerned. The Minister now stands in the position of being in gross breach of faith with the trade interests involved. As it happens, it is the meat trade that is involved; it could be any other trade. When an industry such as the meat trade, which is of vital importance to the economy, makes representations to the Minister in relation to such a necessary development as the establishment of a meat research institute and when there is agreement that such an institute should be established and that a levy be introduced to finance it, if at a later stage these moneys are diverted to other purposes, the Minister must stand in the position of being guilty of a gross breach of faith with the trade and it is up to the Minister to rectify the matter. It can be rectified by the Minister deciding, with his advisers, to meet the trade interests around a table and agreeing either to suspend the increased levy or to take positive steps to ensure that the project is initiated and is completed successfully.
There is, I understand, an appeal before the Supreme Court in relation to this decision of the High Court. It is my information that the trade interests would prefer, not to proceed with that appeal, but to meet the Minister and to take steps to ensure that the institute is established in accordance with the original intention of the Government, as explained in the First Programme, and of the trade, who are more than interested in the project.
When one considers our proposed entry into Europe and the developments which must come about in the meat trade, and the complex technical problems that will arise in relation to various activities, there would appear to be no room for the Minister to be in gross breach of faith with the trade. There is no room for arguments or for court cases. There is room only for solid, constructive purpose and this is what is being asked for by the trade interests.
There can be no doubt, from what I have said and from what the President of the High Court has said, that a gross injustice has been perpetrated on the trade and the onus for rectifying this gross injustice lies squarely on the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
It must be pointed out that in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Byrne versus Ireland and the Attorney-General, it was pointed out that failure to follow an obligation on the part of the State always leaves the citizen with a right of redress. That is the position, as I understand it. It cannot be disputed that a Minister is guilty of a grave breach of faith towards the meat trade interests at whose instance the regulations were made. The Houses of the Oireachtas approved of draft regulations on the basis of the Minister's statement in each House and it should be sufficient for the court to indicate that the moneys were impressed with a trust and should not properly have been silently diverted from the purposes for which they were collected, to ensure that the Minister would not seek to shelter behind a technicality that the court felt it lacked jurisdiction to direct the equitable remedy.
It must be obvious to the Minister, because of what the President of the High Court stated, that the Minister is morally responsible for the present situation and, therefore, morally bound to rectify it and it is in a spirit of compromise, of reconciliation and willingness on the part of the Minister to sit around the conference table that this problem will be resolved in the interests of everyone concerned.
Concerning the motions of annulment before the House, at this point I wish to declare a personal interest in the matter. I am a shareholder in a small meat factory but there will necessarily be no gain to me arising out of these motions. It is the express intention of the meat trade to have this institute established and to have proper facilities for research available to the meat trade. Indeed, these levies will be a liability on the firm in which I have a shareholding. I believe it is my duty to state my personal position in this matter.
Once again, I appeal to the Minister to come to the conference table with the meat trade interests and take positive steps to ensure that a meat research institute is established. I appeal to him, too, to clear his good name in the context of the judgment by the President of the High Court which I have quoted to the House. There must be harmonious relations between the Minister, his Department and the trading interests involved if we are to face the Common Market with any degree of confidence. I think the Minister is honourable enough and intelligent enough to recognise that the present situation is an unfortunate one and to take the necessary steps to remedy it.
I understand he will reply separately to my two motions. If his reply is conciliatory I am prepared not to force the motions to a division. If, however, he decides to continue collecting the revenue and apply it to general purposes, if he is not prepared to put the moneys collected into a suspense account to be applied later to the establishment and financing of a meat research institute, then I shall force the motions to a division. I will do so with reluctance. This is not a party political matter. It is a matter of the good name of the Minister and the good name and integrity of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is a matter of the High Court decision by the President of that court. I appeal once more to the Minister to have a reconciliation which will be acceptable to everyone.
Speakers on both sides of the House have asked for extra incentives, more subsidisation, more bonuses and greater protection for beef, milk, pigs and poultry. No speaker so far in the debate has adverted to the horticultural industry and to the tillage industry. I shall do my best now to remedy this deficiency in the debate so far. There has been utter neglect by the Department of both the horticultural and tillage industries. The Parliamentary Secretary is in the House; he was at a symposium recently in my constituency. He met many prominent producers, experts from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, from An Foras Talúntais and from the advisory services. He did not come away from that meeting uniformed as to the state of the tomato industry, for one thing. Over the past four years incentives have been given to the industry. A sum of roughly £450,000 a year has helped to increase the acreage under glass. This industry is very important in my constituency in places like Rush, Skerries, Balbriggan and all along the coast. Obviously, the idea was to get producers to increase the acreage and also the productivity of the industry.
However, the Department fell down badly on the job because they never at any time tried to find a market for this produce. The record will show that exports have fallen. Certainly they have not increased over the last year. Unfortunately, the cost of production has increased and the rate of increase has had the result of making our producers uncompetitive. They cannot compete on the British market because by the time tariffs and transport costs are paid he is back to square one as regards competitiveness.
The person producing tomatoes for the home market is not being adequately paid. Any producer who got ten shillings a chip for tomatoes this year did very well but out of that he was supposed to pay increases in the cost of oil, electricity, rates and labour yet no effort has been made by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to stabilise tomato prices. When we enter the EEC we shall be entering a highly competitive market. The Dutch Government are already exhorting their growers to be competitive in the EEC and as far as productivity is concerned they have already outstripped Irish growers.
We must have compulsory grading.
I have asked the Minister questions about this and on this Estimate every year I ask for compulsory grading to be introduced but this still has not been done. Compulsory grading is necessary for the protection of the home market and in order to meet competition from abroad.
The Government through grants and incentives have given a tremendous amount of money to the tomato industry. If we are going to be able to compete in the EEC we must get down to the job of selling the tomatoes we produce. It is easy to supply the home market. In fact those who grew tomatoes before incentives and grants were offered by the Department could easily have supplied the home market. Irrespective of what the Minister has said, and he glossed over it very well during his speech, the tomato industry will not be able to meet competition in the EEC.
The Dutch are giving incentives to their growers in the form of cheaper heating. Even at this stage will the Minister, along with his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power, devise a scheme for giving grants for the heating of glasshouses. During the months of April and May glasshouses need to be heated at night. Electricity costs 6p per unit; this is a fantastic charge. If a subsidy on electricity were given it would help growers to increase productivity which is what the Department have been asking them to do for years. Growers have increased productivity at their own expense and in fact they have done it to their detriment because they cannot sell their produce. The ESB have said that a scheme of cheaper electricity for growers is feasible, it is up to the Department to decide if they want to give such an incentive. Now is the time to help growers when they are at the climax of their production instead of waiting until there is a falling off before giving any incentives.
We introduced the grant system about four years ago and the maximum grant is £25,000 but delays in the payment of grants are as bad as ever. People who applied for a grant on 1st March, 1969, were not paid until March, 1970. People generally want grants for additional heating. When they apply for a grant they will already have contracted somebody to do the work but on applying they receive a note from the Department saying their case is being investigated. The fact is that their case is not investigated as the Department has no money to pay them anyway. The proper thing to do would be to sanction the grant and say that payment will be made in the following year's Estimate. Growers would accept this and go ahead with their alterations either with a loan from the bank if it is available or else by getting credit on the basis that the Department will pay them later. At present people who go ahead with the work are told that because they went ahead without the sanction of the Department they will not qualify. That attitude will have to be eradicated and the more realistic approach introduced. Grants for glasshouses are to be phased out and I would suggest the Department concentrate on marketing, oil and heat which are the principal sources of complaint from the tomato industry.
Progress in the agricultural industry, which has been made under extreme circumstances of rising costs, has been reasonably satisfactory. The industry should be complimented on the way it has tried to keep pace with the rising costs which have come about within the last 12 months or two years.
When I spoke on this Estimate last year about the potato industry I trod very carefully because of my position but my position has since changed radically. I can say with a certain amount of assurity that the Department's approach to the potato industry is that they want growers to get out of potatoes altogether. They have not shown any initiatives, they have not given any incentives and worse than that they had not tried to fix a minimum price and they have not even met the farmers to discuss what a rational price would be. The Department seem prepared to allow day to day price fixing by certain sectors of the community. Farmers cannot get a fair share of the profits from potatoes because other sectors in the community want a larger profit.
When the Estimate for this Department was being discussed last year I advocated that we should have a minimum price for potatoes. I agree that if there is a guaranteed price for potatoes many people will wish to produce more but the minimum price does not apply only to potatoes. It applies to all goods. Why must agriculture be treated differently from other industries? The manufacturer knows the price he will obtain for a tin of peas or a tin of potatoes but the farmer who produces the potatoes does not know what price he will obtain. The price depends on the whims of individuals, people who are prepared to take exorbitant profits and inflict high prices on the housewives.
I do not object to the housewives who are at present rebelling against high prices but the fault does not lie with the farmers. June is supposed to be a good month for potatoes; they are sold at £14 per ton. At this time there are many potatoes on the market but they are being sold in the shops at 4s per stone. Where is the 100 per cent profit going? If it is in handling costs something is wrong, and it is not true to say that it is spent on storage costs because at that time of the year potatoes do not keep.
The only way to correct this matter is to stabilise the price and to give farmers some incentive to grow potatoes. Money has not been made in the production of potatoes this year and the person who made £6 per acre was lucky. This was the average profit made from potatoes for the following reasons: fertilisers cost more; labour costs increased; farm machinery costs increased and the cost of potato seed also increased. The farmer must take the price he is offered.
The price varies according to the weather. If it is raining in the peak period in June few people can dig and, therefore, the price is fairly good. However, when we have sunshine there is a glut of potatoes on the market and the price declines sharply. There was much talk last year because the acreage increased by about 1,000 acres but this year it decreased and I predict that the position will have deteriorated to a greater extent next year.
The housewives are forced to pay exorbitant prices for potatoes. The potatoes are packaged in plastic packs but the housewives pay a considerable amount for the packaging. The same thing applies to vegetables in general. However, the Government are very quick to tell the man who produces all these items what price he will obtain. Because he employs a few individuals there is a stabilised price for him. It is good that people get employment but it is not fair that the people who produce these goods should be penalised.
I have been interested for a considerable time in wheat and barley production, and I can speak with practical knowledge about wheat production. Any person who is naïve enough to tell the farmers that they made money this year out of wheat needs to have his head examined. The wheat producers did not make any reasonable profit and I shall try to explain the reason.
Farmers are penalised by way of levy for growing wheat and a lot of calculations come into this matter. It may be said that the levy has a specific purpose, namely, it pays for the surplus of millable wheat. I do not accept this argument. If we did our job properly any additional surplus wheat could be utilised in animal feeding stuffs. People may say that we use this surplus and that we do not throw it away but we use it with material which we import. I would say much of this imported material is no better than dirt. It is the worst type of feeding stuff and yet we are glad to import it while our own wheat is not used. The argument may be put forward that our wheat has no protein value but I do not accept that. We have given some kind of an undertaking to France, Russia and other countries whereby we import this material. If one goes down to the Dublin Port Milling Company after they extract the flour from the wheat one can see that much of the material is simply shell. We should realise that a better quality material is available here and not import from those countries.
We import milo maize and other items that are necessary to act as balancing agents. It is acceptable to everyone to do this if it is a balancing meal and is high in protein but to import barley is ridiculous. At the moment farmers are given a market price for this product at the beginning of the year but when the time comes for payment they are told that the money is needed for those people who did not produce quality meal. Farmers are told that perhaps they will get a refund later in the year but there is no mention of the time that elapses before payment is made. The Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries and Finance who get this revenue are using the farmers' money and the farmers must do without. It is not so bad for the big farmer who will survive in any case. I am not making his case. He has so many acres that if he only makes £2 an acre he will come out on top. The small man with about 30 acres altogether and about seven or eight acres of wheat has about £100 stopped out of his cheque for levy. That means £2 per week income which is a substantial reduction in his circumstances. By the grace of God he might get the money back at the end of January but during that period the Department use the money for their own advantage at the expense of the farmer who is caught no matter what he does.
People in general talk of the great weather and how well off farmers are but wheat yields are down. If one gets statistics from the Department or An Foras Tionscail, who compile their own statistics, you find that in general winter wheat yields were down last year because of mildew, the dry spell humid conditions and conditions which obtained from May to the end of July and eroded most of the wheat stem resulting in a loss in production. These are all significant factors.
We got five shillings more for barley, an increase which I welcomed last year and still welcome because I think it makes a pretty good price for barley and this has been reflected in the increased barley acreage this year, particularly feeding barley. But we also had a 10 per cent increase in malting barley. As soon as that increase was announced the scavengers, mainly seed merchants, producers of fertilisers and sprays, seeing this increase of five shillings per barrel, said: "This is our chance". They jumped on the band wagon and they hit the farmer as hard as they could by increasing the price of fertilisers; seed went up by £1 5s per barrel and spray by four shillings. The five shillings was immediately swallowed up but, in addition, farmers had extra light charges, extra rates and higher oil charges. We can speak of rates in two ways. We can talk of the big percentage of farmers who are working on reduced rates. That is acceptable but such farmers must work on a smaller reduction now than previously because of the increase in the rate. In general, the argument still holds that no matter what you give to agriculture, unless you control prices elsewhere, you are wasting your time because other sections of the community, like the vultures, are ready to gobble it up while the general public think that farmers are getting another increase.
The milk producers got an increase which was more than merited. Tillage and horticulture have remained static for want of someone to control prices. I do not know how we shall make out in the EEC particularly on the horticultural side because nobody has made any great endeavour to look after this sector. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, from whom I had a short memorandum some time ago referred to his negotiations on behalf of the horticultural sector. This is not enough. I am convinced that only when we enter the EEC will the horticultural sector realise the loss of protection which we have been overlooking for the past four years or so since this proposition was initiated. It will be too late then. We cannot tell the people then that it is their job to produce. They have done their work and it is our job to protect them and if we cannot do so we fail miserably in our duty.
To go back to wheat, I suggested last year that we should devise some new scheme instead of this impounding of a farmer's money by way of levy which we have practised for the past few years. This, I think, is the most unfair system that could operate.
I suggested a system of growing wheat on a variety basis. There are other methods but this would be the most flexible, in my opinion. Under it the Department would allocate varieties which could be grown as millable varieties while you would also have a soft or secondary wheat which could be used for feeding. A price of, say, £3 10s per barrel could be struck for that wheat, a little better than or even the same as the price for barley. On that basis you could produce soft wheat with the assurance that you would get a certain price for it and you could produce it as a feeding wheat which means you could add to your production by additional fertilisers. Various varieties have been tried and all of them are producing over two and a half tons per acre. With this rate of production there is no doubt it would be economic and no doubt that we could utilise this type of feeding rather than importing the dirt I have mentioned. We import about £10 million worth of feeding stuff each year and of this about 70 per cent is the worst possible type of feeding, spreading disease and dirt such as wild oats. We could save the economy £7 million or £8 million by producing the type of wheat I suggest.
It is not as easy as it can be made to appear on paper but it deserves a trial and the Department should try to implement some system of this kind which would be better than the levy system. That was imposed on a trial basis; it has not been successful but has been retained for want of a better system. Surely we have enough men in the Department with sufficient knowledge and intelligence—I know they are there—to enable us with the co-operation of An Foras Tionscail to arrive at another system and get away from the levy which absorbs farmer's money each year for the four months from the end of September until the middle of January.
There is another problem here and that is not knowing what the price for next year's crop will be. I asked the Minister if it would not be possible to announce early in November what the price will be in the following year. He said this was not feasible because of arrangements with the Grain Board and the millers. I do not know whether the millers or the Minister determines the price. I know the millers have a big say in what the price will be but the farmers are entitled to know what they will get next year for their products. The price should be announced as early as possible rather than allowing it to go until Christmas, or afterwards, as is often the case.
An interesting case comes to mind here. The other night on television we saw a programme involving Messrs. Arthur Guinness. I did not see it but I heard of it. It seems from an agricultural point of view that they will phase themselves out of production in this country to the extent that we are gradually losing our export market. This must be considered with a certain amount of care. I do not think that we really realise what the production of barley for Messrs. Arthur Guinness means to the farmers. If we did we would not allow this suggestion to go ahead without making some investigation about it.
If they have been contemplating this since 1936, surely somebody must have known something about it. If Messrs. Arthur Guinness were to pull out of this country there would be a considerable loss to the farmers. Farmers have contracts for the production of barley. Unlike wheat production, from the point of view of the Department, they have contracts to grow barley. It must be of a certain quality. It must be of a certain variety. It must be in good healthy condition. They get a contract price which is guaranteed. To the ordinary, rough, normal farmers about whom every one of us talks it means a lot to know that they have ten, 15 or 20 acres of barley, that they can assess how many barrels they will get, and that they will get £3 7s 6d for it.
Instead of just watching this industry being phased out, the Government should try to see if they can do anything about it. As was hinted on that programme it is possible that Messrs. Arthur Guinness might be ready for a takeover. That may be necessary for the sake of the economy as a whole. I am speaking for the agricultural section, but also for other sections of the community there are grave reasons why we should have negotiations to see what we can do to save our export market and to save the production of barley at home.
Varieties of corn have been experimented on over the past few years. Quern has been more or less pushed down our throats but there is no variety to follow quern. This is the first year in which there was an indication that quern is running out, perhaps because the mother seed is not available, or perhaps because we have let it run out by way of increased production on one type of land. Quern is no longer the really acceptable variety for which we have been looking. We have accepted it for the past four, five or seven years. We are looking for varieties now which will produce more, which will have a higher protein value, and which will harvest a little earlier. If we can get a variety which will harvest earlier, it can be used to a greater extent from the farmers' point of view as a crop which we can cut at the beginning of August. We can till our land, put in a type of green turnip and then graze it from the end of September. This helps the land and it also helps in the production of additional income for the farmer because he can also carry over stock until late November and December on this land.
All these things have to be taken into consideration. We badly need a new variety. Experiments are being carried out on three new varieties at present in the Department but they will not be on sale this year. There is a definite need for a new variety, a variety with an earlier ripening ability. We also need a change in the levy system. We should stop punishing the farmers for doing what we asked them to do. We are punishing them for growing wheat for which we allege they will get a price but in the end we do not give it to them.
We should also do something about controlling the price of artificials. Every year the farmer has to suffer an increase in the price of artificials without any redress. The only person he can go to is his own bank manager and, at the end of the year, he is ashamed to go to him. Every time there is an inkling of an increase for the farmer, every time there is even a murmur that there is to be an increase for the tillage section, the vultures are there ready to grab, and those vultures are fairly well fed as it is, without taking the slice of the national cake which they are prepared to take from the farmers and which they will take as long as we allow them to do so.
It is the Government's responsibility to control prices to an extent that they can guarantee to the farmers that the supply and demand business — which is antiquated in most other countries — will not prevail any more in our markets. If an ordinary individual went to the Dublin market and saw the system which operates he would think it was a Punch and Judy show. There is no unity about what goes on there. Nobody seems to care where the load goes or who it goes to. You have a tictac man. You go to him. He does the dealing for you. You go out at the other end. You are never happy but you just take what you get. You go home and get to work again. This system has been going on for years. Nobody bothered to do anything about it because the farmers sat down under it. The tillage section of the community were the last to raise their voices about abuses.
In my constituency the average farm would be about 30 to 35 acres. Most of the farmers are family men. What chance has a farmer with that acreage of buying a bit of land and adding it to his holding so that he can keep some of his sons at home? He cannot do it on present-day prices and under the present system. The developer has moved in rapidly on the outskirts of Dublin and made the price of land prohibitive. If you want to buy land in present-day circumstances you have to put your head in a halter. The ordinary farmer would love to buy land but he cannot do so. He has no guarantee that his market will be there next year. He can only say to himself: "We will go on as we are. We will divide whatever little profit we have and we will keep the son at home." The son gets tired of that and he gets on the Boeing and goes to America.
The people are flying from the land in County Dublin because there is no stability. The cost of production is too high. We must also consider the imposition of the rates and charges for oil and heating. There is also the cost of labour. This is a very complex area. The labour content is adjacent to the city of Dublin. The people in the county are trying to compete with the industrial sector. There should be specific emphasis on the fact that the farm workers who stay on the land deserve credit. They also deserve proper facilities and a decent wage. They should be given parity with the industrial sector. To achieve that the farmer must suffer. His income must be brought up before we can bring up the income of the worker. It is a vicious circle but it could be sorted out if we got down to the business of trying to control prices and to provide markets. If we do not do that we will be tying our heads in a halter and when we go into the EEC we will be asking: "Why did we not think of this before?"
In my experience the Land Project people are doing a very good job in our county. Why have the Land Project people down the country to go back up to Dublin for sanction for a small job costing about £150? Why do we not decentralise sections of the Land Project at least and give authority to officials working down the country to decide on individual applications? We could make a stipulation that if the decision is not accepted the person concerned has an appeal to the Minister. That would be the easiest way out. It is ridiculous that there should be a delay of four or five months in obtaining sanction for a job that may be worth less than £200. I am sure that any rural Deputy here has experienced these delays. An application is sent to the Department and if there is any query in connection with it, the applicant receives a letter about two months later telling him that there is a query. This, too, would be one way of recompensing those living in the areas to which decentralisation was promised. It was unjust to have created the impression that there would be decentralisation. There should be phased decentralisation to most counties.
I would like to pay a special tribute to the people in my area who are connected with land project work. The men involved are extremely helpful and deserve the appreciation of the farmers for their efforts.
In regard to An Foras Talúntais it has always been my opinion that their work was not recognised sufficiently by the Department. In my constituency this body of people are engaged to an even greater extent than people may realise particularly in respect of tomato growing and other aspects of horticulture. Very often I see these men going out late at night to see whether their plans are proving successful. They deserve to be complimented on the way they have assisted farmers down through the years. In respect of drainage, too, they have been of tremendous help and they are making rapid progress in their experiments as to what can be produced from our bogs and wetland. These men who have a high technical ability are prepared to don their rubber boots and raincoats and go out into the field to ascertain the condition of the soil in the various areas. They are active particularly in areas where celery and other soft vegetables are being produced.
I could speak for a long time on the cattle trade and its many anomalies, but I shall leave it to some of the other speakers to cover that matter.
One question on which I want to say a special word is that of the West of Ireland. For a number of years now there has been much talk about saving the West. The issue became a sort of swansong and it was one in which I. too, indulged. The West of Ireland must be saved but before attempting to save it we must get our priorities right. In my opinion the only way in which farmers could manage to exist in the West would be by engaging in part-time farming on the one hand and in industry on the other. Instead of flooding the city with industries and thereby creating additional problems for Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council, we should site these industries in the West. The small farmers could then engage in agriculture only to the extent of providing produce for themselves and their families while they would have an income from their work in the industries. The withdrawing of the dole from single men was something about which I was very grieved but that mistake was rectified partly by certain provisions of the Budget. However, my point is that it would be much better to create industries in the West in which part-time farmers could be engaged and in which they could encourage their families to become involved. In that way we would be making an honest effort to save the West rather than just paying lip-service to the idea.
As a farmer who comes from the West of Ireland, I am anxious to contribute to this debate. At the outset, I must congratulate the farmers of Ireland on their increased output this year. They have had to over-produce because of the increases in the prices of everything they buy. If they are not able to increase their productivity, they have no hope of survival. I am happy to see that our external trade in respect of agriculture has increased but when we enter the EEC and when all the subsidies and grants disappear, I wonder what will be the position of our people. This is something that I would like to hear the Minister's view on when he is replying. I can foresee the disappearance of such schemes as the land project scheme and I can foresee the disappearance of subsidies for fertilisers.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.