Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 10 Dec 1971

Vol. 257 No. 9

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.

—(Deputy Creed).

Mr. Hogan

Last evening I was dealing with regional policy. While I recognise that there will not be a regional policy available to us in the near future under Community conditions, a considerable amount of money has been spent for the purpose of such a policy. At present it would seem not to be a negotiating issue. However, as the concept of regional development was accepted a good while ago, and an outline policy has apparently been before the Community for two years, I understand that final acceptance of a policy was to be considered some time last October. I do not know what transpired.

The National Investment Bank and the Farm Fund have already invested huge sums in the Continent and the decision to move towards economic and monetary union has as one of its aims the elimination of regional under-development. I understand a regional development committee has been established to approve and give financial aid to regional programmes from each State. Now, our population density, particularly in the designated areas of the west, is only half that of the rest of the State and the State itself has the lowest population density in Europe. Again, personal income in the western areas is much lower than it is in the rest of Ireland; the per capita income as a whole is only about half that of the EEC average. Regional policy is, therefore, of the greatest importance to us.

The Community's regional policy will supervise and co-ordinate State regional policy and provide help and advisory services. To avoid abuse of the system and to promote genuine decentralisation, the Community has provided that the net subsidy value of all incentives will not exceed 25 per cent. That 25 per cent limitation will obtain only in highly populated areas. As far as we are concerned, the West of Ireland certainly would be in the same position as southern Italy and the eastern part of Germany. The West of Ireland would, in other words, be exempt from this 25 per cent ceiling limitation.

There are at the moment two proposals which are of importance to us. There is a proposed 25 million dollar fund to finance, on an interest basis, a rebate loan. This will be administered by the European Investment Bank. There is also a similar amount set up to provide grants of £625 to industrial firms for each farmer, part-time farmer or agricultural labourer taken into industrial employment. This will be financed from the European Agricultural Fund. As well as that, the social fund will be available for the purpose of placing redundant workers in new industrial projects in the less developed areas.

It is believed, if we have our homework done, that we should be able to participate in this aid from the time of our accession. It must be recognised, however, that member States must be prepared to co-operate with the European Regional Council. This body will not help non-viable enterprises. I understand it is the purpose of the Commission to help the Community rather than a specific national interest. Difficulties which arise between the Commission and member States may be appealed to the Council of Ministers of the European Court of Justice. This, of course, impinges on what we have been discussing here for the past few days, namely, our sovereignty as a people.

I said that, while there is no hard and fast regional policy as yet—Mr. Crotty laid emphasis on that in his anti-EEC pamphlet—at the same time a large amount of money has already been spent on regional projects. This type of help may appear to be in conflict with the EEC concept of free competition and the free movement of men, money and materials, which is the basis of the Treaty of Rome. One of the objectives mentioned in the resolution on monetary and economic union which was adopted by the council on 9th February last is the correction of regional imbalance and this is probably more important to us than to any other member State of the Community of Ten by reason of our geographical position and our economic circumstances because we are a peripheral area in the European block.

As I understand it, every member country already has a well-developed regional policy. It is under such regional policies, once they are approved, that this help will be forthcoming and it is in this area I feel we have not done as much as we ought to have done. We have not centralised our effort and we have not directed it properly; it has been dealt with by too many Departments and no one has been responsible for decision making.

We must recognise the limitations which membership will place on individual regional policies in respect of co-ordination and ultimate decisionmaking. The Belgian Government has been brought before the European Supreme Court of Justice about her regional policy which proposed to give more than 25 per cent aid to certain areas in an industrialised country like Belgium. This is important for us because it shows that a serious attempt is being made to cater for the less well-off areas of the European bloc. Aid up to 65 per cent can be given to less well-off areas where there is a high agricultural content, a sparsity of population and a low per capita income, whereas the ceiling in centralised areas is 25 per cent. The purpose of this is to prevent undue competition and centralisation of industrial development in the European bloc.

What has passed for a regional policy here has been expenditure on roads and tourist areas—known as infrastructural development—and special incentives and grants for industrial development in designated western areas. We must recognise that special aids by way of tax concessions may be contrary to EEC policy. Special tax concessions on exports which have already been entered into will be honoured up to 1990 but the question of giving tax free concessions to new enterprises on their exports after we enter the EEC is problematical. I have read the document issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs about this and I do not think we have any assurance that we shall be able to continue this policy. If processing industries are trying to export, I do not think we can use the form of subsidisation or help which we have been giving for our industries generally up to now. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is under the impression that this is still open to negotiation but I have some doubts about this.

Another matter which I want to talk about in a little more detail, because it is of vital concern to us, is the question of the right of establishment— the old problem of land acquisition by foreigners. This is a very sensitive area in Irish political life.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is responsible for this. The settlement of land division and land sales is the responsibility of another Minister.

Mr. Hogan

The right of establishment is part and parcel of the Rome Treaty. It was adverted to by the Minister in his speech. I have put down a number of questions to the Minister on this particular problem and a short memo was circulated to us from either the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, I am not sure which, on this particular question. It is a matter of particular importance to the Irish worker farmer who will be placed at a grave disadvantage if he has to compete against foreign capital, because a year from now there can be no discrimination. This matter has been discussed by various farming organisations at different times and at seminars up and down the country.

The position at present is that the citizen of any country in the Community has the right to acquire farm land which has been abandoned or neglected for two years and, furthermore, any such citizen who has worked as a paid agricultural worker for an unbroken period of at least two years has the right to acquire a farm or farms in any other member State. This particular article in the Treaty is what is termed an enabling one. It must be implemented by specific directives of the Community. Draft directives providing for this right of establishment have been before the Council since January, 1969, but nothing has been done about them as yet. If the position remains like that we may, as members, be able to state our case and point out that wholesale competition from sources outside this country would place our citizens at a grave disadvantage and that as 28 per cent of our people are engaged in agriculture this would cause difficult economic circumstances for us. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that this particular enabling clause will not be implemented at any stage.

Under our 1965 Act non-nationals of less than seven years residence must get consent to acquire anything more than five acres of land for non-industrial purposes. There are no such restrictions against non-nationals on the Continent but special arrangements exist in France, Denmark and other countries. One of our difficulties will be the question of the establishment of foreign controlled companies. This matter was debated at length here some few years ago. Apparently the position is that a foreign-controlled company can only purchase non-urban land here if the company obtain a certificate from the Land Commission showing that they are acquiring not more than five acres for private or residential purposes. They must also obtain a certificate from the Department of Industry and Commerce stat ing that the Minister is satisfied the company are purchasing the land for industrial purposes only. Where arable land is involved, the Land Commission must give consent and the granting of consent is reserved for the commissioners.

The same procedure applies to Irish-controlled companies but a more difficult situation arises in respect of share transfers. In 1965 Deputy Moran dealt with this matter at considerable length and he went to some trouble to devise legislation to protect Irish interests. I do not know how perfect or imperfect the legislation proved to be. The transfer of control of a company by means of transfer of shares is governed by section 45 of the 1965 Act. If there are loopholes in it, that could be a means by which property could be acquired.

In 1961 Fine Gael introduced a Private Members' Bill proposing the establishment of a land register for non-nationals; this provided that if any device was employed to avoid that obligation the sale of land would be null and void. This was a simple, straightforward measure but it was effective in that it avoided the complicated manoeuvring introduced into many complex Bills.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy again but I consider this matter is the responsibility of the Minister for Lands.

Mr. Hogan

I am asking the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to consider introducing a land policy. He can get the Minister for Lands to do this if he wishes. In fact, the Minister for Lands wants to give up his portfolio to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. In any event, whether it concerns the Minister for Lands or the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries——

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy is advocating legislation, or if this requires a change in legislation, it would not be in order to discuss the matter on this Estimate.

Mr. Hogan

I am asking the Minister to consider taking some action to protect our farming interests if he considers it necessary. I am drawing his attention to a Bill introduced by Fine Gael in 1961 regarding the setting up of a land register for non-nationals. The Minister may be able to take some action in this regard without passing any legislation; he may be able to embody it in regulations. In any event, I am suggesting the idea to the Minister; it might be of some help in this difficult matter which is causing considerable disquiet.

The Minister dealt with some of the changes we will have to face in the very near future. Within the next year we will have to deal with such items as duty harmonisation, price harmonisation, and payments to a common European fund. Here, apparently, we are on a winning wicket in that from the beginning we will receive £30 million from the European fund, which we are now paying as subsidisation of our agricultural exports. Our payment to the fund will be only £4 million, increasing over the years and culminating in a payment of £16 million at the end of the transitional period. From that point of view, our immediate accession to the EEC will be of benefit to us.

There is also the matter of the abolition of quota restrictions of our agricultural exports to the United Kingdom. These restrictions have ceased but they could be reimposed. In any event, from the time of our transitional period quota restrictions on butter, cheese, and sugar will disappear; for some reason I do not understand negotiations are in progress regarding bacon.

Regional assistance will be available to us from the time of our accession and this is important to us. Our income per capita is low; a very high percentage of our population are engaged in agriculture and the level of income of people engaged in that industry is on average £6 or £7 per week less than the average income of the rest of the community. These factors make us eligible for favourable consideration under the European regional development proposals.

Our preferential position in the British market for most of our agricultural products will disappear during the transitional period and this applies to our home market also. We must accept the fact that we cannot build a wall around our country and keep out agricultural imports. We will be open to competition from Denmark, for instance; Danish butter and eggs may be sold on our home market and it is up to the Irish companies to ensure that their products are competitive. Our preferential position on the British market vis-á-vis these countries will disappear. Even as it was, we have suffered badly from competition from continental countries on the British market.

These deficiency payments which helped our store cattle trade will be phased out and during the phasing out period cattle and sheep will continue to benefit. These deficiency payments were, I suppose, a considerable help to our store cattle trade plus the fact that they were free of foot-and-mouth disease. About half our exports are still cattle and there is still a tug of war going on between the cattle producers and the carcase or dead meat trade. There was a time in the early 1930s when practically all our exports were live cattle. That position has altered considerably and it may well be that the trend will be towards increased processing and increased exports of carcase meat in more sophisticated forms than we visualise now.

The immediate future for beet is not clear. We all know the difficulties some of our beet processing plants face. As a cash crop beet is important to farmers particularly in the south, in the Tipperary and Cork areas. In present circumstances beet production quotas are fixed—and beet is quite an important crop on the Continent—in the EEC until 1975. It is not yet known what production quota will be fixed for Ireland during the transitional period up to mid-1975. What will happen to the quota after 1975 is not known. This position is unsatisfactory and one would like to see it clarified by negotiation at this stage. I do not know if the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has consulted his colleague in Foreign Affairs to ensure that the position will be clarified if possible. I have already mentioned that within a year if things evolve as we expect we shall have access to a farm fund to which we shall have to contribute £4 million while at the same time being relieved of an Exchequer payment of £30 million.

The position in regard to the market that will be open to us for butter and cheese did not evolve as some people thought earlier. Britain has secured for New Zealand, a great competitor of ours on the British market, a certain position but, nevertheless, we have achieved a situation in respect of the prices we shall get for butter and cheese superior to that obtainable by New Zealand or Australia. This is something we did not easily get and one must pay tribute to the Irish farmer for improved milk production, processing and particularly marketing.

It is not inappropriate to mention warble fly inspection and control at this point and, perhaps, I could also refer in that context to food hygiene in general. I understand we have pretty effective hygienic control of our agricultural exports. All milk going to creameries is now pasteurised and I think the Department give financial help towards the provision of pasteurisation plants for creameries. It is extremely important to secure continuing inspection control over the pasteurisation of milk. As we move towards bigger centres of distribution, any error will mean a more widespread epidemic. In the old days when the milk producer merely supplied people up and down the street, if anything went wrong with his milk there was only a very localised spread of infection. Nowadays, with bottled milk, if pasteurisation fails you are sending a bottle of bacteria into every household.

We had an experience of that in South Tipperary and it cost a great deal of money. We had to send away a number of people as a result of a typhoid epidemic which spread through the failure of a pasteurisation plant in a local creamery. Infection from the bottled milk of that creamery could be traced with extreme accuracy all over the county. South Tipperary ratepayers had to meet a substantial bill to get all the people who got this type of infection sent away to infectious diseases hospitals. Therefore, I wish to stress the importance of continuing inspection and control of the efficiency of our pasteurisation plants. I do not know what inspection arrangements the Department have but it is not sufficient just to install a pasteurisation plant and then hope everything will be all right. The plant must be tested periodically and culture media placed in the plant to see if it is effective and capable of destroying living bacteria. This is important not only in regard to typhoid but also in regard to brucellosis which is a very damaging disease and an almost impossible disease to deal with in the human being; it is sometimes quite impossible to eradicate it. From the point of view of animal and human health the control of these diseases is vitally important. I assume there is proper inspection control of the efficiency of our pasteurisation plants in all dairies throughout the country.

A booklet has been circulated to us. I would recommend that every Deputy should read it, particularly the chapters dealing with the recommendations on hygiene control of meat and milk. Meat and milk are natural media for organisms to grow in. Every laboratory uses meat and milk as a pabulum on which to grow bacteria. The importance of hygiene control of meat and milk cannot be overstressed. I endorse everything said in the report issued to us by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I hope the Minister will as soon as possible, introduce the necessary legislation or regulations to implement the suggestions in it. All controls are irksome. If a local butcher is told that he must put a few tiles somewhere to improve part of his shop he resents it, but in the interests of our people's health and in the interests of the agricultural industry, I strongly urge the Minister to accept the recommendations made in this little blue book issued by his Department.

I am glad that there has been a good response to the warble fly eradication scheme. This is heartening because the position was not always so satisfactory. It is not for me to say who was right or who was wrong in the tangled arguments that occurred a couple of years ago in respect of warble fly eradication. We had made considerable progress. Perhaps somebody thought that once they were eradicated they were eradicated finally and the disease would not recur but, as in the case of TB, that is not so. There must be eternal vigilance. The warble fly pest must be costing us a couple of million pounds a year. It is possible to estimate the loss in terms of hides but it is not so easy to estimate the loss in terms of waste and loss of flesh in cattle when they become infected.

At any rate, I am glad to see that out of our 6,000,000 odd cattle 5,000,000 have been treated or dressed with approved preparations for the eradication of warble fly. We can look forward with optimism to an improvement in the position in the coming years. I want to stress that you can never say that this disease has been eradicated for good. I do not know for how many years the present intensive campaign will have to continue. We should not ease it off gradually, as happened in the past. We stopped the campaign for one year and the disease returned.

The last matter I want to mention is the question of pollution. Like regional development, pollution is everybody's baby. I suppose there is not a Department in the State who have not had something to do with this problem. The Minister said:

On the subject of pollution, which is a matter of serious concern, my Department are represented on an inter-departmental working group set up by the Minister for Local Government to examine the problem. At the same time my Department have been pursuing their own investigations on problems arising or likely to arise in the agricultural sector, for example in relation to silage effluent, farmyard waste and effluent from creameries and meat and poultry processing factories. The results of these investigations have been transmitted to the inter-departmental working group for consideration in connection with their work on the overall problem which is one that calls for increasing attention if we are to succeed in overcoming this danger to our environment.

Pollution is of importance to the Department and particularly to the fisheries section. It will cost us a lot of money. It is estimated in Britain that it may cost them about £500 million, and that is probably an under-estimate. I do not think anybody has any idea what it will cost us. All Departments— and perhaps the Department of Local Government would come in for major criticism—have been inclined to drag their feet in respect of pollution.

It is now several years since there was a conference in Dublin which dealt extensively with this question and suggested new legislative measures, and so on. So far nothing has been done. We are all the time awaiting new reports by inter-departmental committees. I asked the Minister a question the other day and he did not even know the number of silos in the country, although grants are paid for them. Silo pits are a source of pollution and one would think that the Department would know how many there are in the country. However, that is a matter for another day. I wish the Minister good luck in his efforts to ginger up the other Departments on the question of pollution which we have been neglecting over the years.

Before I sit down I want to express my thanks to the Department for the booklet they produce every year giving us up-to-date information on the work of the Department. Under Mr. Dillon the Department were the first to issue these booklets describing the main activities of the Department. Annual reports are all right in their way but they are nearly always out-of-date. By the time you get them they are old hat. The idea of giving information in this form to Deputies before the departmental Estimate is taken is excellent. I wish to thank the Department very sincerely for the manner in which they have drawn up this booklet and the considerable amount of very important information they have given to all Deputies on the most important Department in the State.

Mr. McLaughlin

I do not intend to delay the House very long. I want to thank the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department for providing us with such a detailed report. This booklet makes it very easy for us to speak on this Estimate. We have all the details before us. There is much talk about the EEC and much literature has been issued in connection with it. However, representatives of the Government would need to travel throughout the country, meet the people and explain to them what exactly joining the EEC means. It is all right for us to talk here about the Communities but the people must be made aware of what is to be gained from membership because otherwise they will act as they did on previous occasions and reject the referendum. So far they have not been informed fully on the subject. It must be made clear to them that if we join we must be prepared to participate in a very competitive market. This raises the question of whether we are geared for such a market. In the past products have been exported from this country that were not up to the standard they should have been.

I have tabled questions here on previous occasions in relation to the beef cattle incentive scheme. I suggest again to the Minister that this scheme should cover a complete herd. As a Deputy coming from the West of Ireland I know many farmers who only qualify for the grant in respect of some of their herds. A man with six cows will receive a grant covering four cows while a man with eight cows receives a grant covering only six cows. It would be a great help to these small farmers if their entire herds were included. Farmers in the West are considered for the purpose of this scheme in the same way as extensive farmers are considered in such counties as Tipperary and Limerick where herds usually consist of between 50 and 100 cows. The taking of, say, grants in respect of two cows from each of these extensive farmers would hardly be missed by them and these grants could then be paid to the small farmers in the West in respect of each cow. A special case should be made for the western counties such as Sligo and Leitrim. Perhaps it would be possible to deprive those with herds of more than 20 cows of the grant in respect of two of the animals. It is only fair that a farmer with a herd of up to 20 cows would get the total grant. Many people are availing of this scheme especially those in the older age group who would not be able to continue in dairying. For them this scheme is the means whereby they can maintain a herd of cows and ensure a young stock each year.

Another reason why so many people availed of the scheme was because they were discouraged with the price they were receiving for milk. On this point I would like to say that as a Deputy from the West I am very much aware that dairying is on the decline. Regarding the new deal offered to the dairying community my information is that this is not all what is appears to be. I am open to correction on this but I have reason to believe that when the increase is being paid it will amount to about one old penny per gallon for those supplying less than 10,000 gallons. That will be no incentive to people to take part in dairying, particularly in the part of the country from which I come, because there are very few people able to produce 10,000 gallons. There is the odd farmer who is very efficient and puts great effort into it but the vast majority produce under 10,000 gallons.

Many people went into pig production and intended to pursue it but the costs were so high that many of them decided there was a big risk involved and got out. In an agricultural country like ours we should be able to produce pigmeal at a much lower cost. If it were not for the effort that is being made by some co-operatives and by young men who have gone into the milling business it would be much dearer. If meal had to be transported into my part of the country from somewhere else I do not know what the cost would be. We have some fine concerns there. The creameries have done some milling and young men have established mills for the production of pigmeal and are doing a great job. If it were not for that there would be far fewer people in pig production.

I have mentioned potatoes and other farm produce here before. Farmers are growing only enough for their own use. We have farm produce coming from Dublin to Sligo and other towns and that should not be the case. Greater incentives should be given to people to produce those commodities in rural areas. Production has fallen off because of the fact that if there was a surplus in a good season there was no market and they were left to rot. When that happens to a farmer in two successive seasons he gives it up. There was a great effort made in my area a few years ago to establish a factory to absorb surpluses and to encourage people to produce vegetables. A substantial sum of money was collected but when it came to the final point the Department did not meet the committee. There is up to £10,000 in the bank. That is the position.

Father McDyer addressed our meetings and gave us every encouragement. We are spending substantial sums of money on the establishment of factories, some of which never get going. Some of them are in Sligo. If the same money was spent on agriculture it would give far greater returns.

We have pilot areas in Sligo and in Leitrim. Those areas have shown what can be done by the people if grants are increased. There was a substantial increase given in grants for work done in those pilot areas and the people really availed of them. The Department should take note of this and ask themselves: "If this were done on a larger scale what would it do for our country, particularly the part of the country in which improvements are needed on every holding?" Every farmer in those areas carried out improvements to his buildings and to his farm. That is a clear indication that if grants were increased the people would do the work. Noticeable improvements were carried out in those areas but much more would have been done on some holdings if the supply of electricity had been extended. Water schemes are held up for want of electricity. Where progress is held up for this reason, money spent on having electricity provided would be well spent.

We have been told that farmers in the future will be encouraged to retire between 55 and 65 years of age. I doubt whether we will ever get our people to do that. There was a scheme introduced a few years ago which got great publicity on television. Many people thought they would have a great time, that they could retire from farming and get a good pension. Very few availed of that offer. Unless the terms offered are really encouraging a man will be reluctant to leave his holding. The figure mentioned is an annual pension of about £250 or equivalent lump sum allowance. I do not know how a farmer and his wife could live on such a small pension. A pension of £250 may have represented an adequate income ten years ago but that is not the case today.

A farmer of 55 years of age today is a far different man from a farmer of the same age, say, 20 years ago. The modern farmer has equipment, transport and modern amenities. Of course, I refer to the majority of farmers. Farmers would not think of leaving their holdings at 55 years of age or even at 65 years of age. They love the farm and farm life. The only way in which a farmer would be induced to leave his holding would be to provide him with a nice comfortable home on the farm that he would sign over to his son. There may be a rare case of a farmer living in a remote area who would wish to come into a more central place. In other cases there would need to be a substantial increase on that £250 and the farmer would have to be given a comfortable home on his existing holding.

The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries should ensure that no land is left idle. There are thousands of small holdings lying idle. I would suggest that this land could be allotted in, say, parcels of ten or 12 acres. When we make representations about small holdings that are idle we are told that it is not the policy to buy a holding for one individual. That is terribly wrong. Another aspect of the policy is that landless men are not considered in the allocation of land. A man may be the finest agricultural worker in a parish and yet have no hope of getting land. These two aspects of policy are outdated and should be eliminated.

The warble fly eradication scheme was a great success and a matter of congratulation to the Minister. The job was perfectly executed and well supervised. Many young men were able to earn a considerable amount in working under the scheme. I know the Minister will ensure that the success of the scheme will be permanent.

In my constituency there was an amount of damage done by pollution. There is difficulty in tracing the source of the pollution. Lake Garadice has been denuded of fish as a result of pollution. This type of pollution has a serious effect on tourism. In some areas bird life has been destroyed. In one area a dam broke and there was very severe pollution with consequent loss of fish life. More time and money must be spent in an effort to prevent and to cure pollution. A great deal of money is spent on advertising tourist attractions but this money is largely wasted if the tourist amenity is destroyed by the effects of pollution.

I should like to congratulate the Minister and the Department on the success of the brucellosis eradication scheme.

In connection with the beef incentive scheme, the Department officials begin their check in September. They reach some farmers early but others do not have their animals inspected until quite late—some farmers are still awaiting this year's inspections. Therefore, while some farmers already have their grant cheques others are still waiting for them and that is a great disappointment to many small farmers coming up to Christmas. It would not mean extra Departmental staff to have these checks carried out over a shorter period. There could be an interchange of officials from one section to another during the testing period.

The same delays occur in the matter of the calf subsidy scheme. I suggest to the Minister that he reconsider the allocation of staff to these inspections so that the period during which they are carried out can be shortened considerably. I should refer here to the inspection of cattle. Many farmers have to wait long periods to have their cattle tested and this could mean that cattle ready for sales sometimes have to be held back for a fortnight or three weeks.

I should like to refer briefly to the necessity for more farm machinery, particularly forage harvesters. We have been raising this matter continuously at county committee of agriculture meetings. Grants are still being given by the Department for the purchase of such machinery and it would be money well spent if these grants were increased considerably because many farmers at the moment depend on two, three or four young men who go around hiring out tractors.

I want to refer now to the agricultural advisory services and particularly to the method of appointing agricultural and horticultural instructors. A young man answers an advertisement in the newspaper and he is most likely to apply for a post in a county where the best prospects of promotion are offered and where he will get the most experience. If all county committees of agriculture were to appoint these instructors on a permanent basis each county would have the benefit of these young officers and the young men themselves would be encouraged to get to know the areas in which they will have to work and the people in them. Accordingly, they will be encouraged to do their work far more diligently. At the moment because of the tenure of their appointments many of these men go around from county to county.

One thing that holds up small farmers in particular is the high cost of manures. This is being brought to the notice of public representatives continuously. I remember meeting a former Minister and he spoke about the desirability of the extensive draining of bogland. I said to him: "We have hundreds of thousands of acres starving for proper manuring. It would be much better to put this land into good condition for a start before talking about draining bad land." Encouragement should be given to manure the land instead of having large machinery working on bogland. We know what can be done. Thousands of under-manured areas should be tackled. Any reasonably good land when put into condition will double or treble its output. Any farmer availing of the small farm incentive scheme is doing a good job, and can treble his output. The Department should encourage farmers to avail of this scheme. Farmers are afraid to avail of the scheme and improve their land in case they would lose the dole. The Minister should assure farmers that they will not lose their dole if they avail of the small farm incentive scheme. The dole is a great stand-by to such people. They should not be deprived of it.

Mr. Coughlan

I will speak briefly on this wide-ranging subject. I wish to be constructive. It is seldom I congratulate anyone on doing his job well. The only way to judge a man's labour is by the results he obtains. In the past we had demonstrations and marches from all parts of Ireland to Dublin. There were pickets, and people were sent to jail and punished for agitating for a normal standard of living. We are glad that such demonstrations have not taken place for the past few years. The Minister is adopting a wise course and is leaving the way open to discussion around a table in order that negotiations can take place.

I come from an agricultural area. Every parish priest has to look after his own parish, and I wish to highlight the situation with regard to agriculture in my area. Each Deputy must put his own case and the Minister's job is to carry on from there. My views are meant to be helpful. The whole agricultural industry can be broken down into sections. There are parts of our land which are suitable for one type of production and other areas suitable for other purposes. During the war years there was compulsory tillage. There was tillage in parts of my constituency where the land was too rich for it. It is a waste of time to plant crops in unsuitable land. The Minister must decide on the suitability of particular areas for particular crops. The land in my constituency is suitable for the production of milk, bacon and pigs. There should be some rationalisation. Some areas are very suitable for the processing of milk, cream and butter and there is no place more suited for such work than Limerick county.

In my area we have the unfortunate legacy which was left with us after the 1914-18 war—the Condensed Milk Company—and as a result of that the Dairy Disposal Company. No one knows what is being done by the Dairy Disposal Company. They are incapable of doing anything. In 1950 we tried to put suggestions to them of how certain things could be done with their property. We were told not to interfere. The company are still wrong in their approach and I suggest to the Minister that the day of reckoning has come for this body. They know absolutely nothing about their job nor do they try to improve matters. It has been suggested that for the 25 creameries involved in my area of north Tipperary, Clare and Limerick the centre should be situated in north Tipperary, which means, in effect, that from the ground up the organisation has to begin now in north Tipperary, whereas there is no better place for the centralisation of this group than Limerick. The organisation is there, the plant is there and every other facility. There is little or no unemployment in Nenagh because of the development of the Silvermines and other places. We have the whole structure in the Condensed Milk Company in Limerick. The creameries concerned have met on many occasions. There are matters on which they have agreed on principle, but there are certain details to be ironed out. They are all looking to their own interests and independence. That is understandable, but as these creameries, be they branch creameries or main creameries, have been working efficiently in the past and have been run by committees elected by the suppliers, is there anything wrong in handing over the Dairy Disposal Company to a co-operative? The creamery managers will have to have their say, because they will be the main suppliers.

Let us see the end of this defunct inept body called the Dairy Disposal Company. There are no better people to handle milk production than the people concerned, not the civil servants and the people appointed to the Dairy Disposal Company. I remember the type of people appointed to the Dairy Disposal Company: one of them never saw a field in his life; another was a dental mechanic; another was something else. Because they did good jobs in other spheres they were appointed to this board. That was the composition of the Dairy Disposal Company. I had many a dispute with them and I will not be happy until I see that body scrapped and handed over to people who know their business, that is, the suppliers and the creamery managers. This is a good industry giving good employment, seasonal at times certainly but capable of great expansion, provided the injection is given to it and the authority is given to it which is not being given by the Dairy Disposal Company who run it.

The Dairy Disposal Company took over the creameries in Kerry and Clare. Maybe it had to be done at the time but that is a long time ago and things have changed. If we do not change with the times we might as well not be here at all. We must be competitive and we must have the incentive to be on the job all the time. Any fool can sit down at a telephone or dictate letters to a typist in an office. What we want today is the man with imagination, the man who can think. When we talk about rationalisation and about the duplication that is going on in relation to the processing of milk, we must agree that the centralisation of creamery products has been a success. Mitchelstown and Charleville have proved it. I remember a time when Mitchelstown was the funeral town of Cork; it is now one of the best towns in Cork. The same thing applies to Charleville. The days of the Civil Service running the dairying industry are over. We must get practical men who came up in the business. The Minister himself, being a practical farmer, often sat up at night, I suppose, waiting for the sow to come around and doing other chores connected with farming. These are the people I want to see running the dairying industry, because these are the people who know what they are talking about, instead of the lad who got six honours in his leaving certificate, went into the Department, stayed there all his life and the nearest he ever got to a green field was a golf course.

When I talk about milk I am thinking of butter, chocolate, powdered milk, condensed milk, casein, whey and so on. We all know what separated milk is and what a useful food it is to the bacon industry. The bacon industry is giving good employment and producing a first-class product that can be put on any market. The days of the half dozen pigs are over. Any man who wants to go into pig production must think big; he must talk in hundreds. On the Limerick Health Board we are formulating a scheme for a 100-sow farm, the result of that being a bacon industry city with two bacon factories where we had four. I piloted this scheme in Limerick and I am glad I did so because I believe all these things count. The be-all and the end-all of agriculture is the employment of our people and exports. I would ask the Minister to be flaithiúlach with these people who are adventurous enough and farsighted enough to go into the bacon industry. They should get all the financial help they need. This is the only way in which the bacon industry can be made to pay.

The price of pig feeding should be controlled. The price can vary by as much as 15 or 20 per cent in different counties. This should not be. The bacon factories in Limerick handle well over 2,000 pigs a week. Naturally one wants to see these factories supplied. One wants to ensure that employment in them is maintained. It is most essential that pig feeding should be available as cheaply as possible. This brings me back again to centralising the 25 creameries concerned in Limerick. Whey is a first-class food. I have actually seen the River Shannon running as white as milk because that was the only way in which the condensed milk factory could dispose of the whey. It would not pay the farmers in Cork and Kerry to transport the whey from Limerick. The health board in Limerick will produce over 1,000 pigs weekly. We will be able to take the whey because we will have to transport it over only a mile or two and therefore the cost of transport will be low; it will be an economic operation. The people in the area can go into pig production because they will be able to get this cheap food.

Limerick is not a tillage county and vegetables and so forth are all brought into Limerick from elsewhere. The Minister should ensure that the producers in Dublin, Wexford, Galway, Donegal and elsewhere who supply our needs are paid a fair price. Those who bring us these vegetables must be paid a fair price for transporting them. The shops must be paid a fair price. All these are good employers in their own way. They carry heavy overheads in the way of rates and so forth. Direct trading is simply not possible. There has to be someone in between. All those involved are entitled to a living. But there should be proper communication between these people. That does not exist at the moment. I approve of free trade and competition but, at the same time, I do not want to see anyone exploited.

The employment content in the bloodstock industry has never been properly appreciated. Neither has its value to the country generally. I congratulate the Racing Board on the magnificent work they are doing. This is an industry in which the small farmer can play a part. It is an industry which must be preserved at all costs. One has only to look at the sales returns at Newmarket, Doncaster and Ballsbridge to appreciate the incomparable worth of this industry to the country. The employment content in the industry as a whole is very, very big indeed. Conditions of employment are excellent.

I should also like to pay tribute to Bord na gCon. We are now exporting greyhounds to all parts of the world. This is another industry which gives excellent employment. The best advertisement this country has is the fact that people are coming from all over the world to buy our bloodstock and greyhounds.

Hunting is any man's game here and for £10, £15 or £20 a year a person can become a member of a hunt. It is much more expensive to hunt anywhere else in the world. We could create an off-season tourist attraction by providing hunting holidays. I am sure this was one of the reasons why Bord na gCapall were formed but as yet I have seen no results from this board. In 1951 I organised a seven days hunting holiday in the Limerick region for 50 American tourists and they have been coming back ever since but unfortunately the problem now is that the horses are not there. If such holidays were properly organised, managed and advertised we could have enough tourists during the hunting season from September to March to keep the tourist industry alive during those months. I would ask the Minister to consider this suggestion.

I want now to deal with the fishing industry. I know a little about sea fishing. I know what the Dingle fishermen are doing. I know how the industry is developing there. Co-ops have been formed and I have read in the newspapers that this is now being done on a national scale. I must congratulate the people who are doing this. Fishermen cannot work every day of the week; they can only work under certain conditions. They also have to face foreign competition. I have seen foreigners fishing within 200 or 300 yards from where we were fishing because the protection was not there. We may have an opportunity of talking about that later on this evening.

If ever a group of people were exploited in this land it is the fishermen. I cannot understand why fish caught off the west coast of Kerry which are boxed, iced and sent off to Dublin are then sent to Tralee which is only 20 to 30 miles from Dingle. Did anyone in his right mind ever see such codology? One needs to consume fish within 24 hours of its being caught if it is to be palatable. I am glad the co-ops have been formed because these people know their job, unlike the Bord Iascaigh Mhara "buckos" in Dublin with their telephones, typewriters, pens and inks, who are not fit to run any business. I hope the Minister will give these co-ops every help. It is an expensive business. I know what shell-fish cost at home and what they cost in "gay Paree". I have done as much lobster fishing and cray fishing as anybody and I know that the men who spend their day going from lobster pot to lobster pot miles out in the Atlantic are not paid sufficiently for the work they do compared with what is charged at the other end.

I want now to discuss our proposed entry to the EEC. Cattle went up £5 last week and this means that the half-pound of steak in the butcher's shop will cost more. It is all very well for the Government to tell the farmers they will get this, that and the other price in the EEC but what about the unfortunate people earning £10, £15 or £20 a week with a family of five or six children to keep? If things are allowed to drift on I can foresee the day when we shall be very lucky if we can afford a joint of roast beef for Christmas Day; we will get the hanks, the necks and the hocks but all the other cuts that we can get at fair prices today will be gone. It is all very well for the farmer to get an extra £5 for his bullock or his heifer but when the butcher goes to market he has to compete against exporters and pay this increased price; he also has to pay wages and other expenses arising out of his business and it is only natural that the price to the housewife will go up. These increased prices are quite acceptable to the millionaires in "gay Paree", West Berlin and Oslo but the people who are living here on a moderate wage must be protected. I want the Minister to see how he can rectify this matter of increases, because arising out of these increases in food prices will be fresh demands for increases in wages.

If the Minister does not take some steps now to balance one against the other, I do not know what will be the outcome. They did this long ago when they gave 10s each for calf skins. I do not ask anything like that; I hope I shall never see those days again, but these matters must be considered. I do not know what is in the Minister's mind regarding the future, but this problem will have to be tackled and it will have to be spelled out clearly and definitely before any referendum. I am speaking for myself now and I know I speak for the other Members of the Labour Party: this will be one of our lines in regard to entry to EEC.

I want to conclude by asking the Minister—I do not know if he has authority to do so or not—to demand an inquiry into the running of Erin Foods, Ltd., a concern that has given all of us grave doubts. It has worried us because of the explosion some months ago in regard to many of their products and in regard to the running of the business generally. From my experience I think that there again the civil servants have taken over. It is tragic to see this great industry, for which we entertained such great hopes and which we all helped, in its present position.

We have an Erin Foods factory in Limerick where we can process carrots, peas, beans and all the other things that grow. It is bad management that has put Erin Foods in its present position. If the enterprise were made a co-operative business, all of us having a share in it and each man sending his half-ton of carrots or ton of peas there and all having a say in its running, as I want the Minister to do in the case of the Condensed Milk Company and the Dairy Disposal Board. I am certain that there would be sufficient ability among the people directly concerned to pull the firm out of the mire in which it is struggling at present.

It is a big problem. Many hundreds of people are concerned directly and indirectly in Erin Foods and in its future. I now ask the Minister to get down to this business; he has got down to many things in the past couple of years. This is the time for action and not for dragging our heels in the muck. We must be competitive. If we do not keep up, the other fellow will be ahead of us and it is our business not only to keep up with him, but to forge ahead.

Mr. Cowen

Any Deputy speaking on this Estimate should focus his attention on our entry to EEC. About a year ago we were told by the gloomy prophets on agricultural policy that we had blundered in the big drive we had made in intensifying and dramatically increasing milk production and production in the milk products industry. It happened that there was a slight slackening-off at that time and immediately the Government were blamed. Organisations which had previously pressed for more and more incentives to increase dairy production suddenly stopped in their tracks and did an about-turn.

They said the Government had led the farmers astray and that milk production had led the agricultural community into bankruptcy. Now, we hear nothing about headlong, panicky denunciation of Government policy because now, indisputably, there is a big task ahead of us to cope with the growing demand in all markets for our dairy products.

The Government, through the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department of Lands, are the principal agency for the promotion of agriculture. Sometimes some organisations can make these Departments seem to be wrecking our agricultural policy and economy. This, of course, does not happen at any stage but, on the contrary, a wonderful job has been, is being and will be done. I should like to see more information made available in easily-understood terms about what has been, is being and will be done for the farmer. This information should be made available to the non-farming community as well as farmers so that all citizens would realise the efforts being made in this principal area of the national economy. Sufficient emphasis cannot be placed on the fact that without a sound, practical, high-gear agricultural policy our future cannot be assured.

Rightly, we hear much about equality of pay and the status of women nowadays. Agriculture is one area where a woman can be on a par with a man. The woman farmer equipped with modern farm machinery and with a fair-sized, good-quality farm can hold her own with her male counterpart. Great work has been done by farmers' wives through the years and it cannot be ignored. Farmers' daughters should be made aware more and more of the lucrative and rewarding occupations that will become more numerous particularly in agriculture when we enter EEC.

We welcome the spate of openings of new agricultural colleges and we hail the promise of many more such colleges. The farmer of today and tomorrow needs as much technical knowhow as he can get. I would not say Ireland lags behind in this respect but the need for technical knowledge, knowhow and skill will become greater each year when we are in the EEC. The future farmer will also need a each year when we are in the EEC. The future farmer will also need a basic grasp of the subjects in the field of commerce and economics and farm accounts; he will need a fair knowledge of book-keeping. The students attending the agricultural colleges should get a good grounding in the subjects I have mentioned.

We are aware that our universities are overcrowded. Students who intend to earn their living on the land, after they finish secondary education, should attend agricultural colleges for a few years in order to obtain the necessary knowledge to enable them to work the land to best advantage. In the agricultural colleges they learn about the practical end of farming and this is essential. Farming in theory only is out. On the eve of our entry into the EEC, we need well-educated, practical young farmers, people not afraid of hard work and willing to listen to advice. If the Minister pursues this matter, I know that this advice and help will be given by the agricultural colleges.

Farmers will continue to play a most important part in the life of our country. They will contribute their talents, ability and efforts to this country. Society in Ireland has been based on farming life and this pattern will continue when we join the EEC. Having regard to this fact, it might be asked should not a greater proportion of school-leavers be orientated towards farming? I believe we should give every encouragement to people with a farming background, and to others, to attend agricultural colleges. Eventually many of our people will earn their living on the land but they attend secondary schools and universities where the emphasis is not on agriculture. The same applies to our technical schools. We should realise that the prosperity of our country is dependent on agriculture and this will still be so when we join the EEC. If we realise this fact we will see that our snob values regarding schools are outdated and misplaced.

The offers of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, in collaboration with the Department of Lands, to promote the idea of group community co-operative farms should get the support of every Member of this House. We should urge these authorities to speed up their efforts with regard to this approach to farming, irrespective of whether we have some failures. No financial considerations should be allowed to halt the progress of group farming schemes. Through the success of such schemes, rural life and the environment can be improved.

With the improvement in farming skills comes an improvement in the appearance of the countryside and an increased attractiveness about living in a rural community. A benefit already experienced in this regard has been the farm holiday scheme—a benefit to our tourist industry and to the farming community. In my constituency many small farmers have taken advantage of this scheme. County Offaly offers very good fishing and this is a considerable tourist attraction. Many small farmers have taken advantage of this and have benefited considerably. I should like to point out to the Minister that if enough emphasis were placed on the farm holiday scheme much more could be done. The growth of agriculture has brought a growth in subsidiary and ancillary industries. When we enter Europe this growth will be advanced to a considerable degree. We should see that industries such as farm chemicals and machinery, meat processing and dairy products are protected and are home-based. These industries can solve many of our employment problems.

An instance of the possibility of development of an industry directly dependent on agriculture is the sausage meat plant at Clara. This industry was established some six or seven months ago. It exports meat taken from pigs' heads and beef heads. The manager of the firm concerned is a Dutchman. It is my belief that the Irish people are lagging behind in establishing industries such as this. We have a lot of trouble with our bacon industry at the moment. Why do the Department not point out to the bacon factories the potential that is there with regard to the utilisation of pigs' heads? The factory in Clara export all their products and this is a good example of how we can gear ourselves to meet the increased export market when we join the EEC.

In Banagher, in my county, we have a very go-ahead vegetable processing industry employing in the region of 150 workers. The industry in Clara, which is due for expansion, employs about 80 to 90 workers.

I come now to the position in regard to Erin Foods. We all realise that Erin Foods are not doing too well at present. We all also know that 92 per cent of their total exports go to Great Britain. Erin Foods seem to be adopting the defeatist attitude of cutting back. This year, due to an organised effort by the Offaly County Committee of Agriculture, the farmers of Offaly are sending 6,000 tons of potatoes to the Tuam factory. Many acres of Brussels sprouts were also grown this year. In the coming year this acreage is to be greatly reduced.

This defeatist attitude on the part of Erin Foods will not get them anywhere. They should explore the great European market that is now opening to them. In fact, for years past they should have been exploring that market. Why should any industry depend totally or mainly on their exports to Britain? The Minister should emphasise to the directors of Erin Foods that this vast market is now opening to them and that they should drop their defeatist attitude and explore that market. I see no reason why the employment content in Erin Foods should not be maintained.

I am glad to note that cattle numbers have increased very significantly. It is even more gratifying to note that the numbers of our breeding heifers have increased to such an extent. I realise that the Minister and the Department have put a lot of work and effort into the cattle breeding industry down through the years. I believe that the Charollais breed of cattle were not given a fair chance. Many farmers experienced difficulty in breeding Charollais calves.

Herd owners within my own county, and men who have Charollais cattle at present, seem to think that the image projected was not true and that, in particular, a Friesian cow can calve a Charollais calf easily enough. Considering that the Charollais breed are the major breed on the European market, the Minister and the Department should encourage the Irish farmer to increase the number of Charollais cattle in this country. If this were put across in a proper manner, I imagine that it would be done.

It seems that Charollais cattle will thrive only on very good land. Good grazing areas should be mapped out and Charollais promoted in those areas. The fact that our cattle numbers have increased so significantly is due to the grants made available through the beef incentive scheme.

Our sheep population, which had remained static for a number of years, dropped by almost 1,000,000 in the past year. As a person concerned directly with the meat industry, and having some knowledge of it, it is my contention that the Minister and the Department will have to emphasise very strongly to the Irish farmer that early lamb is the only solution to the sheep problem: lamb that can be produced to go on the market from March to early in May. If we go back over the prices during the past few years, we will see that lamb produced in those months paid a lot better than lamb produced three or four months later, or even five or six months later, because they had to be fed on grass the whole year round.

This will not be an easy job. Only certain parts of the country are capable of feeding ewes properly so that lambs can be produced from March to early May. The ewe hogget incentive scheme, which was introduced a year or two ago, has not worked properly in my opinion. I know farmers who have benefited under this scheme and who eventually sold their ewe hoggets for slaughter. I do not suppose that the position would be rectified easily but, perhaps, the Department could arrange to have these flocks of ewes examined in, say, the month of December when it would be possible to ascertain whether they were carrying lambs. This would eliminate the possibility of certain farmers cashing in on the scheme. I know of one farmer who obtained the grant in respect of 50 ewe hoggets but who then sold these same sheep for slaughter. No doubt there would be fairly extensive costs involved in having officials of the Department visiting the various farms throughout the country but it is a matter that warrants the Minister's consideration. The incentive cannot help to improve the sheep population if the ewes are sold after the grant has been received.

There have been problems for some years in the pig industry. In his speech, Deputy Coughlan advocated pig rearing on a big scale. I disagree with that because many small farmers depend to a large extent on pigs to supplement their income and these farmers would not be able to keep a large number of pigs. Usually only what is produced on their own farms is used in feeding pigs but if they were to go to the mills for pig feed, they could not make a profit. Every possible co-operation and benefit should be given by the Department to these small farmers because they deserve anything that it is possible to give them.

It is forecast that, for the first time in history, our GNP will increase to £2,000 million and that exports this year will rise from £468 million to £542 million and will increase to £620 million in 1972. We must not forget that the bulk of goods themselves come from the land. I have referred to the industries that could be created from the subsidiaries of agriculture. We are told that it costs the IDA £1,000 to create one new industrial job. I compliment the IDA on the wonderful work they are doing but I think at this time, when we realise the potential there is for agriculture in terms of the EEC, there should be set up an industrial agricultural policy for the purpose of ensuring that the benefits we gain from membership of the Community would be utilised for the purpose of creating industries.

We are now moving towards the situation where the higher farm export prices we will receive can help to relieve the growing pains of many industries, but we must consider the dangers inherent in all this. People not involved directly in agriculture need agriculture's projected boom. Agriculture cannot be allowed to isolate itself from industry and from the people in general. The Government have an obligation to ensure that there is an even distribution of benefits which must accrue to the country as a whole by reason of the projected agricultural boom. The benefits must be spread more freely and to all sections of the community. The Government must heed farming bodies and must be prepared to make available aid for the purpose of gearing agriculture to the requirements of the competitive markets of the EEC so that the maximum benefits may be obtained.

The President of the NFA, speaking on a television programme the other evening, advocated the making available of such aid. We are told that millions of pounds will be required for this purpose but if the money can be made available it must be invested fairly and efficiently in respect of the farming community. There is an obligation on the Government to ensure that the small farmer is helped most. Dr. Mansholt is often quoted as saying that we need larger farms, but much more in keeping with the spirit of his message to Irish farmers is this sentence of his: "It is in your hands to plan your own future; we offer scope for farming to grow, expand and develop". His message is dominated by the theme that we need greater productivity. We might ask ourselves what is a small farmer? I would say that in many cases farmers who are classified as "small farmers" are men who think small. We have many small farmers with small holdings who think big, who have used our agricultural advisory services, who make intelligent use of Government grants, aids and incentives and who ensure that they are successful. I believe those men are on the same wavelength as Mansholt. However, we cannot condemn the other small farmers, the minority. Those men must be looked after through our advisory services. I believe that most of the small farmers about whom I am now speaking are men who are getting on in years and who have not got the incentive to work very hard which is essential in order to earn a living from a small farm.

I believe that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries with the Department of Lands, could create an agency to deal with the plight of small farmers. There might be a lot involved in this but I believe something could be done in this regard. If such an agency were set up I would advocate that any farmer who acquired land through this agency would have to be a qualified farmer, someone who would actually know what he is about. I suppose this entails a lot but with co-operation between the Department of Lands and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries something could be done. There are people at present buying farms who have no knowledge of farming whatever, one could almost say they are moneyed men who are speculating in the belief that land will be much more valuable when we get into the EEC. This could be controlled on the lines I have suggested. That again depends on the Minister teaming up with the Department of Lands because I would imagine the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is isolated from land sales et cetera on account of the situation in which we find ourselves with a Department of Lands and a Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. There is nothing to prevent these two Departments coming together and trying to solve the problem we have in regard to acquiring land. Something needs to be done in this respect and something must be done considering our entry into Europe.

Soon we will be joining a Community which, when complete, between January, 1973, and December, 1977, will have imports worth $56 million a year. Those are figures quoted for 1970 against the USA's $40 million, so who is afraid of a big European market? It seems that America is for a start, and Russia. The Americans are complaining behind the scenes to the Swedes and to the Six and indeed to the British Government about the implications of this massive market power. They have said that this new free trade is discriminatory and harmful to world trade. So what of the number of Opposition Deputies we have here who want us to opt out of the Common Market which on those figures will rival the great marketing nations and those are members who say, at times, that we are dictated to in many ways by America? I believe that this agricultural nation of ours in a united market of Europe will be strong. I believe also, that with the proper attention from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, our small farmer can be big and I believe that if the Department plan carefully the Irish farmer can be geared for Europe in such a way that he can stand side by side with any farmer within the EEC. We have the grassland to ensure that our beef exports will be at a maximum. While in the past most of our cattle have been exported to Britain on the hoof in this European market we can improve our agricultural industries because most of the meat we will export will be carcase beef and carcase lamb. This should bring about greater employment and benefit the Irish farmer.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Speakers have covered many points and there is no doubt that this is a very big field. I had the privilege of knowing every Minister for Agriculture since we got our freedom, from the late Paddy Hogan, God be good to him, to the present Minister. They all played their part in agriculture, they all did their best according to their ideas, but many things have changed since Paddy Hogan took over the Ministry of Agriculture. Things are probably changing more at the present time than they ever did before. The Minister's statement, after two and a half years in office, was welcome first of all because it was a belated statement. Many farmers were of the opinion that everybody in the Department was sound asleep for the last two and a half years. I am glad that the Department woke up and that there will be a Christmas box for the dairy farmers. People imagined that the Department were on holiday but the good news arrived in time for Christmas.

The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is the most important Department in the State and has been from the day, 50 years ago, when we achieved freedom for this part of the country. Have we handled the agricultural industry with the care and respect that should have been displayed? I cannot say that we have. As well as knowing the various Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries, I have known the majority of the officials serving in the Department for many years. I have worked with them on county committees of agriculture and on the General Council of County Councils and various State organisations. There is an excellent group of officials in the Department, persons who will meet you and discuss problems and give every help and co-operation. They are a credit to the Department. I have known officials, who have now passed to their reward, who in their time, like the Ministers they served under, made every effort to improve the condition of agriculture.

For the first good news we go to the dairying industry. That industry went through a very bad period, particularly in the past three or four years. One reason for that was the slump in world markets for dairy produce and the second reason was the lack of finance here to help the industry during that critical period.

The dairying industry is the most important branch of the agricultural industry, because of the immense market now existing for dairy products. A great deal has been done to improve both quality and quantity.

I remember when co-operative creameries were established. They were of great benefit to dairy farmers in the southern part of the country. They started on a small scale, financed by subscriptions and shares from the farmers. They were helped by grants from the Department. Now there are creameries throughout the country that are up to the standard of any creameries in the world. A great deal remains to be done. I do not think the Minister or the Department forced sufficiently the issue of rationalisation of the dairying industry. There are many small creameries that would benefit by amalgamation. There are various local and other reasons why they have not been amalgamated. I am glad to see that a change has been made in the regulations and that creameries are being urged to co-operate and to join with other creameries in forming viable units.

The Dairy Disposal Board, which controlled a large number of creameries, especially those in the poorer areas, should be given the opportunity now to hand over these creameries to co-operative societies so that their members can benefit from the increased prices being paid by co-operative societies. This is a very important point. The large amount of money involved will be money well spent. The dairy disposal creameries have not the drive associated with co-operative societies. They are under the control of a special section of the Department. They are not in a position to pay the prices payable by the good co-operatives and, under present direction, I do not see that they ever will be able to do so. It is no longer possible for the small dairy farmer to take 2p and 3p a gallon less for his milk than is being paid to farmers delivering to co-operative societies. I would urge the Minister to attend to this aspect of the industry as soon as possible. It is one of the problems facing us on entry to the EEC.

An improvement in the amount of money given to dairy farmers, especially those in a small way, would be of special benefit. There is urgent necessity for such an improvement and the only way to achieve it is by amalgamation of creameries into viable units so that they will be able to process milk and produce butter and cheese of the highest quality.

In this connection I would refer to the efforts of Bord Bainne who have done a tremendous job in the sale of dairy products. Bord Bainne have handled the marketing of our dairy products, especially during the bad period when the demand was reduced, in a very efficient manner. Now we can look forward to the day when we can export in competition with any creamery in the world in regard to quantity and quality. Quality is even more important than quantity. Our creameries and cheese factories have been modernised and we are in a position to put on world markets dairy products of as high quality as is obtainable anywhere in the world. I should like to see that applied to a big part of our output but, as I said at the start, some effort must be made to bring the Dairy Disposal Board creameries and the other creameries operating with bad equipment up to the level of the big concerns such as Mitchelstown, Ballyclough and the other big creameries throughout the country.

I am sorry the two-tier system of milk prices has gone. It helped the small farmers a lot and all the small farmer will now get out of the 5p will be 1p or 2p. I appreciate there cannot be a two-tier price system when we enter the Common Market but I had hoped that until that time arrived we would consider helping the small man in that way. After all, the dairy farmer is the foundation of our agricultural economy.

During the past year creamery milk production has decreased although it had increased during the past few years. With the new injection of money now, I am sure the quantity of milk delivered at creameries will improve again. Without the dairy farmer there would not be any livestock trade and, of course, the livestock trade is the biggest money earner we have. A great deal has been accomplished by all the Ministers of Agriculture who have given their time to this job during the past 50 years but I suggest that at this time in particular progress must be a lot faster than it has ever been because there is only a short time left before our EEC accession.

No matter what anybody says, it is the farmer who kept this country going and if he gets the market, if he is able to sell his produce at world market prices, he will continue to do so. I hate to hear people trying to create a difference between the farming community and the other sections. We are all one in this and the farmers' gain is the gain of us all.

As I said, there is big room for improvement and expansion in agriculture as in other sections of our economy. In the short time that is left to us we should take immediate steps to see that this industry is geared to supply world markets with the highest in quality and quantity in the years to come.

As well as milk, we have our meat industry. It is a long time since the free beef came out. I think that if the calves that were then given out at low prices and in not so hygienic conditions had anything to say at the moment, be they in Purgatory or in Limbo, when they see our present cattle being combed and brushed for the fat stock Christmas markets, they would complain that things were not so good in their time. We have always relied on our cattle trade and in this connection I should like to pay tribute once more to the late Paddy Hogan, the man who brought in so many schemes for the improvement of our cattle. Today our herds are better bred than ever before and are suitable for milk or beef. I should here praise the efforts of the Department to import various other breeds for the improvement of our stocks. I congratulate everybody concerned. I visited the quarantine station at Spike Island recently. Many of us were interned there towards the end of the War of Independence and I thought during my visit that the quarters of the cattle there are much better than were ours when we were prisoners.

The meat factories constitute one of the biggest industries in the country. I am glad to see that the farming community put their hands in their pockets and bought out the commercial interests in those factories. I am glad also that the Department are keeping a vigilant eye on the quality and quantity of the beef and the other products of those factories. The farmers and the co-operatives who took over the factories are now occupying a big business which requires expert handling. The men who built those factories were hard-headed businessmen who built up a world trade from America to Asia and Europe and I hope the farmers who succeed them will be able to bring expertise into the management of those factories when they finally take them over. It is something everybody in the country will be watching.

As I said when speaking on last year's Estimate, the salient point about our meat trade and our other branches of agricultural produce is that we have a ready market, a ready sale. From this point of view it is necessary that a certain section of the Department should be detailed to concentrate on giving advance information to every branch of the agricultural industry. For years we have been producing various things to find that when our production has reached a certain level the market has vanished. I do not want ever again to see this. A section of the Department should be engaged exclusively in a study of world conditions and marketing trends so that the agricultural community will get advance warning not to over-produce something when there is a danger that there will not be a ready market for it.

In the future we cannot afford at any time to carry a surplus of any product for which there is not a ready market. We must be able to sell what we produce and if necessary we must be able to vary our form of production so as to be able to hit the right market at the right time.

The next point of importance is animal health. Although we have spent large sums of money we do not seem to have achieved the desired results. Probably the farmers are to blame themselves. A small minority of them may not have given the necessary co-operation. The Government may have been slow in providing money. We should have eradicated these diseases by now. We probably started late on the TB eradication scheme, but did we ensure that the regulations were complied with? The farming organisations asked the farmers to co-operate and most farmers did so. We must ensure that this disease is eradicated. If that were done the health of the animals, and their sale value, would improve.

Much money has been spent on the eradication of warble fly. We were on the verge of success with this scheme a few years ago but suddenly it was stopped. This year we have tried to finish the job which should have been finished two or three years ago. The warble fly has been eradicated in Britain and in European countries. The advantages to the cattle trade have been obvious. The quality of the hides would improve with the eradication of this pest. The animals would fatten faster and food costs would be less. Anyone who saw a beast infected by warble fly would realise how important it is to eradicate the disease. I appeal to the Department to proceed with the work of warble fly eradication.

I come now to the subject of sheep scab. An effort has been made to eradicate this disease. Other countries have done so successfully. I am a member of the Animal Health Committee in County Cork. We have spent money, in conjunction with the county council, to improve sheep dipping facilities. We have tried to get farmers to co-operate in this scheme. In conjunction with Kerry Committee of Agriculture and Kerry County Council, we decided to make a joint effort and we have done much. The Department were not able to get us the identity tags for sheep that had been dipped. I appeal to the Minister to provide tags for us. We had samples of such tags in my committee and we picked on one plastic tag which we thought was suitable. We had been waiting for years to find a dye which would be suitable. Because of objections from the wool trade and others we could not get agreement on a suitable dye. I appeal to the Department to make a special effort to get rid of this disease. We cannot export our store lambs and this is a great loss. The position will remain like this until we can rid our flocks of this disease. I hope that something will be done to tackle this problem before we enter the EEC.

Deputy Coughlan spoke about the horse industry. I agree with him when he says that it is one of the most important branches of agriculture. Our horses are known all over the world. They have won on the racecourses, in the jumping field and in show rings all over the world. Much was done for the horse industry by the late Mr. Joseph McGrath who built a stud second to none in the world. This shows what can be done by a private individual. The late Mr. McGrath had the necessary knowledge and experience of running many businesses. One can see the successful results. He put Irish horses on the market all over the world. Other men played their part also in this very important industry. Much can be done to assist this industry by buying the right type of stallions and keeping the right type of mares in the country. In my area many people have been asking for thoroughbred stallions to breed with the local Irish draught mares. I know it is the policy of the Department to keep as many of these Irish draught mares as possible in special parts of the country. They are the foundation stock for our hunter breed. They have produced show jumpers which are internationally known. A poor area like West Cork cannot afford to keep these animals while other people are making money from them.

A greater incentive should be given to these people to keep Irish draught mares who are the dams of show jumpers. The owners should get special concessions and incentives to encourage them to keep the breeding stock. People have asked me to inquire from the Minister whether his Department would be prepared to arrange for a supply of thoroughbred stallions to these areas. I know the Department want to keep the area as a breeding centre for our hunting stock. I hope that the Minister when replying will refer to this point. This is a most important business in my part of the country. I suppose the horse population in the small farm areas there is higher than in any other part of the country; the type of mares there is excellent. These horses are the foundation stock of the show-jumping horses that are known all over the world.

Coming from a maritime county with a very big coastline, I wish to refer to the fishing industry there. A great deal has been done to provide harbours and facilities for the fishing industry, for instance, in Castletownbere, where it was badly needed and where there are so many good fishermen. There is a very fine pier there, and an ice plant which was built by the inter-Party Government is operating at Schull and exporting a considerable quantity of shellfish to markets all over the world. That is what we want. If fishermen are given proper facilities they will continue to work along our coasts.

For years foreigners have reaped the benefits of our fishing beds. As has been said by other Deputies who live near our coasts, we have not been keeping a watchful eye on the foreign interests that have been fishing here for years with better equipment, bigger boats and skilled operators. The Department of Defence have taken over that job, but more modern boats are required to ensure that our coastal waters are not destroyed by over-fishing by foreign trawlers. I have often seen the Spanish and French fishing there. They did not wait for the Common Market, and they know their way fairly well by now. This is very important for our southern coast, adjacent to Spain and France; trawlers come across from the Bay of Biscay and fish off the Irish coast when we should be doing the job ourselves. In regard to sea angling which has brought thousands of visitors to our coast——

Mr. Fahey

I wish to draw your attention to the fact that fisheries is a separate Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Fisheries is a separate Estimate and is not being discussed at the moment.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Parliamentary Secretary is responsible for that, and it is no harm to give him a few tips, for I might not have the opportunity later on. I might be out of order in what I have said, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will talk to the Department of Defence about supplying these vessels that are so badly needed to look after our interests.

Many Deputies here have spoken about the bacon and pig fattening industries. I come from an area that produces a large proportion of both store and fattened pigs. It is regrettable that, in spite of all the efforts made to establish a bacon factory in this area, we have not succeeded. On a number of occasions I have been involved with groups that collected money to build a factory but we were never able to get it erected, and the pigs that have been produced in west Cork have been sent to factories in the West of Ireland, Cappoquin or other places. I hope the day will come when we shall have a modern factory in an area where the knowledge and expertise connected with breeding and fattening pigs is traditional. I am glad to see that the co-operative society with which I am associated is building a pig factory, and I hope the Department will not be slow to provide at least a grant to which that station will be entitled when it is ready. This pig fattening unit will be of great benefit to the farmers in the area. They will supply store pigs to the factory at a price agreed between the co-operative society and the farmers.

The ideal thing would be for the small farmers to fatten their own pigs, but the day is gone when that would be profitable. I remember the time when every small farmer fattened three or four lots of pigs during the year and used up a lot of surplus potatoes, home-produced grain and skim milk, to help to fatten them. It would not pay now to take a profit of 25p or 50p on, say, 20 or 30 pigs fattened during the year. We must operate now in competition with other countries and produce them on a large scale. If you produce 1,000 pigs a year at a profit of 50p per pig, the total profit is £500, which is fairly substantial.

Improvement is also noted in the breeding of pigs. Farm stock is being imported that is of immense benefit to the breeder. I hope the Department will continue their policy of providing the best boars and gilts to breed with the pigs we already have.

Farming organisations are taking more interest in farming life and farming operations. It is only right that the farmers should come together and take an interest in their own business. It is up to the Department to help them in every way possible. In speaking about farming organisations I should like to refer also to our country women who are also playing their part. In conjunction with their husbands, sons and daughters they are doing good work to keep the young people interested, keep them at home and provide them with the entertainment, advice and instruction which they so badly need.

Our entry into the Common Market has been mentioned by every speaker who spoke. I would like to see more information available by the Department to the agricultural community and I would like to see greater co-operation between the Department and the various farming organisations as well as with farmers throughout the country to inform them of the conditions they will have to face and the opportunities which are waiting for them in the Common Market. We will soon have the referendum on our entry into the Common Market. I hope we get into it and I hope I live to see the day that Irish farmers can sell in the markets of the world in competition with farmers all over the world. They will be able to receive the same prices for their products as farmers in other countries receive. We have been for too long supplying the cheapest food market in the world where we had to subsidise our products in order to pay a small profit to our farmers. Now the large amount of money spent on subsidising our agricultural industry can be put to use in some other direction.

Many other branches of industry have been given increases of various types over the years and the farming community never complained. Small industries which were brought to rural areas often gave employment to farmers' sons when they could not get employment on their own farms. The farming community are glad to see increased wages and employment given by other industries. I would hate to see any effort being made to separate farmers from the other members of the community. I have mentioned a few things in the time available to me which I consider are very important to the agricultural industry. I hope we will have the co-operation we have always had from the Minister and the officers of his Department and I can assure them they will get co-operation from us in return.

Mr. Tully

I do not propose to detain the House very long. I know you have had lectures from the practical and impractical farmers here. Last night I listened for a period to some of them who know something about buying and eating farm produce but apart from that I could not see what connection they had with farming. Some of them are pretty good at paper work. My reason for intervening is that I represent a constituency which consists in the main of farming. I suppose the best land in the country is in my constituency but there is also quite an amount of pretty poor land.

It is a bit unfortunate that even in 1971 we still have the attitude of so many people that agriculture, while it may be the biggest money spinner in the State, is still regarded as some kind of second-class occupation. If anyone wants to challenge that statement all he has got to do is to look at the way people who are employed in that occupation are treated. Who works the longest hours under the laws of this land? It is the farming community and particularly farm workers. Who receive the lowest wages? Who receive the least number of holidays? Who do not get any pensions or extra benefits? It is the farm workers. It seems remarkable with all the pious thoughts on improving farming in this country that those engaged in farming and those whose job it is to see that farm workers are properly treated have never yet decided that a basic necessity to improve farming in this country must be to do something for those employed in the industry.

I cannot understand the attitude of certain Government Ministers who seem to think when they talk about jobs, loss of jobs and increased employment in this country that farming should not be counted. I recently had the experience of being on a television programme with the Minister for Finance, whose agile mind was able to think up quite a number of answers to questions put to him, who seemed to repeat what has been repeated here on a number of occasions, that an increase in the number of jobs should not be affected by the loss of jobs in agriculture. Maybe it is Government policy; maybe Dr. Mansholt has so many disciples in this country that the Government have been completely won around to what the late Mr. Lemass said a number of years ago: there is no room in agriculture for people who are not able to find full-time employment in it and that the 12,000 odd people who leave agriculture every year should not be counted at all. There should be some place which they disappear to; they should not be mentioned again. If that is the Government's attitude and the Government feel that is all right then it is okay for Ministers to avoid referring to the loss of employment in agriculture. It is unreasonable that they should do that.

I honestly believe, no matter what may happen, whether or not we go into the Common Market—we are as much opposed to going into the Common Market as we ever were—it is a fact that the backbone of this country down the years was the small farmer. It seems to be a good idea now if he can be ignored, if he just struggles along. If he has to pack in and to sell out to his neighbour that is all right. That is entirely wrong.

It has been suggested by the NFA, in order to give a good living to those in agriculture, that it is necessary to inject approximately £200 million. It is suggested that this be done over a four-year period and that this will prepare Irish agriculture for Common Market membership. I heard before that from an equally responsible group that it would require £1,000 million to put Irish agriculture in the position where it would be able to compete with European competition. I believe, no matter what happens, that there are certain sections of Irish agriculture which cannot or will not ever compete. It is all right to say that there will be a big market for beef. Of course there will be. Possibly the continentals may either change their taste in beef or we may change the type of beef which we are producing.

I am quite sure the Minister must know there is a pretty poor opinion of Irish beef in some of the Continental countries, Italy in particular. They feel that Irish beef is something which is not up to the standard they want. There is also the question of the way in which some diseases are treated in Common Market areas. What will happen if they are allowed to adopt the same system here? Do we accept that vaccination is to be the prevention rather than the cure for foot-and-mouth disease? If that is included and if we have another epidemic, the farmer will, I am afraid, have reason to rue the day Common Market conditions were accepted.

With regard to mutton, I am quite sure this will be used to boost the income of the Irish farmer but, apart from the fact that there are small producers who produce the calves and the lambs, which are subsequently sold to those who finish them and make big money on them, I would like to know where else money will be spread as a result of the beef or mutton bonanza.

Is there any guarantee that the present price of milk products will continue? Do not forget that a little over 12 months ago Brussels had 1,000,000 tons of surplus butter which they did not know what to do with; by Brussels, I mean the Common Market countries. They disposed of the surplus and thereby caused the shortage which is now creating a demand for Irish butter; they disposed of the surplus by turning it back into animal feed and fertilisers. Dr. Mansholt at the time had a solution and his solution was put into operation. Now, I wonder, will the Irish dairy farmer face up to it? Dr. Mansholt's plan was, of course, the slaughter of the cows. Again, this is a matter which should be put to the Irish farmers before they finally decide whether or not they want to go into the Common Market.

Another problem was touched upon recently by another expert. If there is one thing we have a lot of it is experts. We have experts on everything. The only trouble is they never seem to be able to agree and, when it comes down to a decision, it is very difficult for people like myself, who deal with the practical side of things, to understand which of the experts is telling the truth and which has not made a miscalculation somewhere along the way. I saw it stated recently that there will be a great future for both beef and wheat in the Common Market. I did six trips around the Common Market countries and I spoke to the highest and to the lowest in the groups who were dealing with the negotiations, dealing with the running of the Common Market, and I also spoke with the practical farmers I visited in the area. Now, if I am wrong, I should like to be corrected but, if there are two things for which there is no future as far as Ireland is concerned, they are beet and wheat. I understand the last time Dr. Mansholt was here he was wondering why sugar was so dear here. That would not seem to show any prospect of a big increase in the price of beet for this country if we go into the Common Market. The contrary will be the case.

I always understood that France produced so much wheat she could flood not alone Europe but Red China as well. I believe that is why General de Gaulle found he liked the Chinese a great deal better than many people thought he should. These are things which are confusing to the ordinary person. They are things which should be ironed out and explained fully.

There is another aspect. Can anyone make up his mind as to what is likely to be the increase in prices and costs whether we go in or not? Supposing things stay as they are, what will be the position? While it is grand for someone to point now to the difference in the price which will be paid for beef in the Common Market and the price paid here, if we level off before we go in, with the cost of everything else going up, does it not follow the profit will not be so great and the price will be somewhere around the same?

My constituency is an area in which a great deal of both fruit and vegetables were grown for the Dublin market. At the moment it does appear, from any evidence I can get that, as far as fruit is concerned, there is no future in it, particularly for the soft fruit grower. There is no future for the apple grower. Back in the fifties I complained about the failure of the Department of Agriculture to rationalise the growing of fruit. I complained also about their failure to arrange a market for apples. Foreign apples are on sale in this city and in country towns and villages at anything up to 8p or 9p each and at the same time our farmers are feeding equally good apples to the pigs or ploughing them into the ground because they have no other use for them. If this is happening now what is likely to happen when the market is opened up to foreign competition?

In the last couple of years it has become extremely difficult to get a price for soft fruit. Irish jam manufacturers have stopped using soft fruit. They have made all the excuses in the world for not honouring their own contracts. The first reason for this is because they appear to be able to import fruit pulp and the second reason is because of the amount of jam which is being imported. It is all very well to say that because of the increase in the standard of living people are eating less bread and when people reduce their intake of bread they consume less jam. In view of the fact that fruit pulp, which is used for jam making, is imported and processed jam is also imported there must be something more than a reduction in demand.

The Government have failed the fruit growers. I have attempted to get a fair price for them from the Department of Agriculture during the past few years. I am sure the people in the Department who have been present at the discussions with the buyers are aware of the difficulties which have arisen with regard to soft fruit. In some of the publications which have recently been issued we see that because of the better type of fruit which is available in continental countries— I assume this is because there is more sun and the fruit ripens more quickly —the prospect for fruit growing does not appear as though it is going to improve. The Minister for Foreign Affairs showed me a booklet yesterday issued by the Department of Agriculture which said that because of the deterioration in the quality of the fruit over a long haulage it was not likely that continental fruit would have any effect on the home market; but I am afraid the opposite is the case because, while the preserved fruit is allowed to come in, it can be moved anywhere. This shows that the failure of the Department to encourage the growth of the Irish fruit industry over the last few years was deliberate because with the Common Market in view they felt there was no future for the Irish fruit grower.

Who is the Irish fruit grower? He is either a small farmer who grows fruit as a sideline and sells it to jam manufacturers or fresh if he can get a market for it, or he is a cottier who works through the day and grows fruit on his holding. It is too bad that these people should be prevented from making the extra money which means so much to them simply because nobody seems to be interested in looking after their interests. The Department have not done what they ought to have done in order to help out these people. Unless the Minister makes a statement about fruit growing I can see many growers deciding they will not grow fruit any more. I also feel that orchards will be let go and probably the trees cut down because the market for fruit this year has been no encouragement at all.

With regard to vegetables we have the ludicrous situation that foreign vegetables can be bought in supermarkets all over the country. When one finds tins of imported potatoes the coals to Newcastle joke is pale in comparison. Carrots, cauliflowers, onions and every other vegetable are being imported in tins. For some extraordinary reason the potato crop this year has not been as good as it should have been. Perhaps something should be done about regulating prices. One possible reason why this situation has developed is because the price paid to the farmer or cottier for his produce bears no relation whatever to the price charged across the counter. I met a man last week who had brought 200 dozen cabbage into the city and he thought he was lucky to get 2p a dozen for them eventually, and deliver them from the market to a shop. While he was waiting for his few shillings in payment for the cabbage a little boy came in and asked the price of a head of cabbage and was told 2p, so that, in fact, one dozen cabbage was sold by the grower for the same amount as the boy was asked to pay for one head. This sort of thing has created much ill-feeling between country and city people in regard to vegetables and potatoes. Even in some of the village shops the price paid for potatoes to the farmer and the price charged across the counter shows that the middleman believes in getting an inordinate profit. Some effort should be made to regulate this business; otherwise growers will cease producing and we shall have to depend on imported vegetables, and even imported potatoes, which would be the biggest joke of all.

In regard to land drainage, farmers tell me that many of them have abandoned the idea of trying to drain land because, first, they cannot get anybody to inspect the land to decide if it is suitable and secondly, if somebody does inspect it and it is sanctioned they can get nobody to inspect the work when completed. Then, if it is inspected, it is almost impossible to get money out of the Department. I do not know how true this is. The same applies to buildings.

I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of what happened in regard to the pipe factories. Two of them in the south-east closed down— one has since reopened—due to Government policy. The State subsidised the erection of a factory to make pipes in Kilkenny. The fact that the Minister is from Kilkenny is, I am sure, purely a coincidence. This factory employs about 24 men. The traditional factory employing 35 men in Wexford closed down almost as a direct result and another in Wicklow, with 24 or 25 men, closed down but has now reopened. I hope it will be able to keep going. Those running the factory say that the main reason they had to close, apart from the competition, was that they cannot sell pipes if land reclama is not being carried out as was originally intended.

When Deputy Paddy Smith was Minister for Agriculture he threatened, many years ago, when somebody asked how he would enforce compulsory tillage, to fill the fields full of inspectors. If it is necessary to do so, extra staff should be employed to have land reclamation properly dealt with. Large arterial drainage schemes are being carried out and despite comments we hear, most of them do a tremendous amount of good. It is only right that if these do a good job farmers should be encouraged to finish the job by draining their land into the streams and rivers cleared by arterial drainage.

Since the Minister has now returned I should like to mention one matter, on which he might comment, in regard to the recent milk price and the adjustment in the method of paying. Perhaps because I did not fully understand the position I am not clear whether the increases he mentioned are on the top or on the bottom of the levy and whether it is true that the change in the tiers will result in certain small producers getting less than formerly or getting very little more than previously. This was commented on by the milk producers in recent weeks when it was said that small milk producers would lose as a result of the change and that the big producer would do well.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That is not correct but I shall deal with it at some length when replying.

Mr. Tully

I should be grateful if the Minister would do so. I do not know enough about it. This point was made and I should like to have it clarified because these things cause a certain amount of misunderstanding.

Let me conclude on the subject on which I began. If agriculture is to take its proper place it must be dealt with as the most important industry. Living as I do in the middle of a constituency where there is a large farming content I understand that unless those engaged in agriculture get an equal share with those in industry they will feel they are not being treated properly. I hear people talk of the necessity for derating agriculture completely. I do not go all the way with that idea; agriculture has been derated very considerably. Perhaps a better system might be adopted. If any restructuring of agriculture is being carried out the first thing that must be dealt with, and I am sure the Minister and the Department have certain views on this, is the question of the man with 150 or 200 acres of land that he is not using, which is giving practically no employment, and who is allowed to buy every bit of land that comes on the market in the area. This must be dealt with but no matter what happens the Minister must make up his mind that those engaged in agriculture must be treated as important persons, just as important as if they were in industry. Not alone the farm-owner or member of the farmer's family but everybody who leaves agriculture represents the loss of a job.

Everyone who remains in agriculture should get decent wages and conditions. If the law stipulates minimum wages and conditions for one type of worker and a much lower rate of wages and worse conditions for those engaged in agriculture, the latter can hardly be blamed if they complain that they are being treated as second-class citizens.

I wish the Minister would make up his mind regarding the use of poisons in agriculture. We have had very many measures introduced into this House but those of us who come from rural Ireland are aggrieved that legislation deals with agriculture quite separately from all other sections and that priority is always given to the other sectors of the community. With regard to poisonous substances, there has not been introduced into this country legislation that will deal with the use and abuse of weed control, pest control and other poisonous substances. It is vitally important that people engaged in agriculture should be protected not only against accidents but against their own ignorance of the use of certain substances. I use the word "ignorance" meaning that the people concerned do not know about the way in which they should use poisonous substances. In many cases this lack of knowledge causes injury and death. I know of one instance where a person used imported pesticide and this resulted in his contracting a skin disease from which he suffered for a considerable time. There have been many other instances where people suffered in this manner.

Mr. J. Gibbons

DNRC.

Mr. Tully

Yes. It is wrong that this kind of accident should happen. There was another instance of a man who dropped a match while he was spraying pesticide and he got badly burned. He did not know that it was highly inflammable; he invented a new kind of petrol bomb which nearly blew him up. It was not his fault because there was nothing on the container to warn him this could happen.

I would ask the Minister to ensure that some steps will be taken with regard to fitting safety devices on tractors. I have been campaigning for this for a long time and I have known people who were killed as a result of accidents on tractors. A system was introduced for the fitting of safety devices on new tractors and it was planned that they would be compulsory for old tractors after a certain period. The country is full of these old crocks, which are also a death trap on the roads.

The Minister might ask his inspectors when they visit farms to look at the tractors and inform the farmers how they can be made safe. The same thing applies to old trucks which are being used for hauling materials. Frequently they are parked on the roadside, with no warning signals; frequently the fork-lifts are left down, and the vehicles are driven after dark with no effort made to ensure that they are safe. People are not getting enough warning about all these matters and the Minister might consider taking some steps in this regard. The Minister's predecessor promised to do something about the matter; he did it in half measure and I hope the Minister will finish the job.

Mr. M. Smith

Most aspects of agriculture have been dealt with on this Estimate and I shall confine my contribution to a few broad remarks. We are on the threshold of new opportunities for agriculture. It is a time for action, clear thinking and a positive approach. It is natural that we should have searching questions to put to the Government because in this way we can plan most effectively to gear that industry for the future.

I listened to many contributions from the Opposition benches, some of which were constructive. On one occasion a front bench speaker from the Opposition spoke about the low morale in the farming community; another referred to the fact that 20,000 people were leaving agriculture each year. I wish to challenge these statements, both of which are designed to damage agriculture and can only have the effect of reducing the confidence of the farming community in their capacity to meet new challenges and to ensure that their remuneration is as good as that obtained outside agriculture.

This attitude which is preached not only from the Opposition benches here but by even more irresponsible elements outside this House, is damaging to agriculture and should be resisted not only by this party but by all people whose real interests lie in agriculture. It is a pity that these statements should be made by people who are not engaged in this industry and who cannot be fully aware of the implications of what they say. The farming community will not thank them for crying or moaning about difficulties.

We recognise that there are difficulties. In the last 50 years we have been tied to an economy that based its agricultural policy on providing cheap food but, despite this and many other factors, our farmers have made much progress. They have made use of the incentives given by the Government in milk prices, the beef incentive scheme, de-rating and the many other efforts that have been made to help the farming community. Farmers made a valiant effort to exist in an environment that was not always conducive to getting the best results because we did not have expansive markets or the opportunity to explore markets that would enable farmers to arrange their programmes accordingly. With such problems it was not easy to make the progress we all wished could be made. That opportunity is available now.

With the help of the advisory service, our farmers can plan their programmes and know what incomes they can obtain as a result of their efforts. During that time we heard too many people preaching too much doom. Our farmers do not want any more of that. It makes some of them think they are second-class citizens. That is not the way in which to establish a base from which people can operate and avail of the many opportunities that have presented themselves, are presenting themselves and will present themselves in greater abundance in the years ahead.

Mention has been made of the conflict between the natural agricultural interest and the urban or industrial interest. Both of those interests are entwined. A developing and more progressive agricultural economy will bolster up our non-agricultural people and eventually the many subsidies that have now to be poured into agriculture will become available for other things. This would be welcomed on all sides.

I want people to have confidence in our farming community. I want to say to those people who have been decrying the farming community, who have been talking about the pitiable efforts made to help them, that this is not in any way helpful to our farmers. Mention was made about people leaving agriculture. Everybody who is interested in agriculture knows that this trend is not peculiar to this country. It has dominated the agricultural scene in many countries. Even though the Opposition know that the river flows down to the sea and that, having reached the sea, it must inevitably flow into it, they seem to think that it is Fianna Fáil who are responsible for directing it into the sea.

Mr. Coughlan

Who said that? What about the Shannon? Talk sense.

Mr. M. Smith

I was happy enough with the contribution made by my non-agricultural friend in the Labour benches.

Mr. Coughlan

Who said I was non-agricultural? I sat under a cow on a one-legged stool before the Deputy knew what a cow was.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That was something of a trick.

Mr. Coughlan

I saw a sow farrowing on a kitchen floor. The Deputy should not talk to me about agriculture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Smith.

Mr. M. Smith

I am delighted Deputy Coughlan has referred to the time when he sat on his one-legged stool and the time when he saw a sow farrowing in the kitchen because that demonstrates clearly that we have moved far away from that time——

Mr. Coughlan

Why?

Mr. M. Smith

——and I am thankful that we have.

Mr. Coughlan

Why?

Mr. M. Smith

Because of the efforts of our farmers.

Mr. Coughlan

Because of the marches.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Coughlan must cease interrupting. Deputy Smith is in possession.

Mr. Coughlan

The Minister's predecessors, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey, caused them to walk from all over Ireland to Dublin to look for a living.

Mr. M. Smith

I am pleased that what I have said so far has had this rousing effect on Deputy Coughlan. I was talking about the fact that people leave agriculture. It sometimes seems to me that people who are involved in agriculture, and who cry crocodile tears for people who live on the land, merely want people to stay on the land so that they can take off their hats to them when they go, possibly only at election time, to visit the remote parts of the country.

No matter what the scales of incentives and subsidies are, because people want more remunerative employment, inevitably some small farmers and the surplus agricultural population will tend to gravitate towards the urban centres. We must try to maintain our own areas. We must provide greater incentives and better helps for the smaller producer who wants to make a go of farming. We must also provide loans at low interest rates. The small farmer needs to be encouraged to expand and, for this, he needs capital. We must try to allay his traditional fear in relation to credit. He also has to contend with rising production costs. All these aids must be made available to our smaller farmers to help them to become viable and gain the benefits which the larger farmers will gain on entry into the EEC.

The Government must also press ahead with the provision of part-time employment. We must get away from the idea—and this seemed to me to be the Government's approach in one or two instances—of building up some centres and neglecting others. This can lead to urban and environment problems and it costs more than the selective deploying of suitable industries in rural areas to maintain rural homes and social life in a happy rural environment.

I want to congratulate an industry in my own constituency. The Roscrea bacon factory has opted into the rationalisation programme envisaged for the bacon industry. It has been selected for development under this programme.

Mr. Coughlan

It lost its licence.

Mr. M. Smith

The capital investment which will be necessary for this expansion has been approved.

Mr. Coughlan

Roscrea bacon factory lost its licence.

Mr. M. Smith

I would remind Deputy Coughlan that he can verify the fact if he so wishes.

Mr. Coughlan

The licence was lost because the standard was not high enough.

Mr. M. Smith

This is a tribute to the management, the workers and the farming community as a whole in that particular region who have been progressing continually and who have searched for new ways of ensuring the survival of this industry in EEC conditions. The industry is of particular interest to me because I have watched its development with keen interest.

Because of this programme there will be fewer bacon factories and I would like to see special schemes being provided whereby those people who must inevitably become redundant can be retrained for other employment. Those of us who work through the various committees and who seek continually to obtain a little more for our farmers are delighted that the Minister has granted a further increase in the price of milk. Dairying is a very important part of our agricultural economy but because of the increasing costs involved in production the farmers are very glad to receive this increase.

Also very welcome is the increase in the small farm incentive bonus scheme which I mentioned earlier. On this point I would direct the Minister's attention to the fact that in the country as a whole the number of farmers participating in this very worthwhile scheme is rather small. Admittedly the scheme is a relatively new one but, nevertheless, through our advisory services and committees of agriculture, we must endeavour to involve more farmers in the scheme. We know from statistics that there are many farmers who could avail of it.

Regarding the sheep industry there are just a couple of remarks I wish to make. One is that the ewe-hogget scheme is not proving to be as successful as it might. It has been suggested to me by farming organisations and people connected with farming in various ways that when the inspections are carried out for the purpose of passing ewes for the grant, it is not always possible to ascertain at that time that the sheep will produce lambs in the spring and in the ensuing months many of these sheep are sold for slaughter. Perhaps a second inspection carried out late in winter or early spring would ensure that there is no abuse of the scheme.

The other matter I wish to mention concerns the eradication of sheep scab. This has been a problem for many years. In my constituency the local authority had tremendous co-operation from the farming community but many farmers are aggrieved that in some of the adjoining counties from which store lambs are bought, there has not been conducted a comprehensive scheme. This is a matter to which the Minister and his Department must give continuing attention in order that ways and means may be found of developing the scheme to a point where there would be 100 per cent participation.

Another matter to which I wish to refer but which may, to some extent, be outside the scope of this debate, is the question of allowing zero rating in respect of fertilisers and feeding stuffs under value-added tax. This may present some difficulties but these will have to be overcome. I hope the Minister will refer to this matter because there is much concern in respect of it on the part of the agricultural community at present.

In the debate on the Estimate for the Office of Public Works there was a statement to the effect that there was a moving away from the idea and the principle of the real effect of drainage and that because of the cost this entire question was under reconsideration. Unfortunately, I did not get an opportunity of commenting when that particular statement was made. Because drainage is such an important factor in the deriving of maximum results from farming, the Minister and his Department should involve themselves in the matter and participate in discussions relating to this question so as to ensure that there will be no question of a cutting back.

In conclusion I want to say a few words on the EEC. Deputy Tully mentioned the question of an increase in our cost of living if and when we join EEC. He went on to say that if we were not to join, it is likely that we would be able to maintain the present position. This is a fallacy which a minority not only in this House but outside, and in some of our universities, tend to promulgate. Of course, there will be changes if we join the EEC but regardless of whether we join, there will have to be very significant changes in our pattern of marketing. It is naive at this stage to suggest that it would be possible to maintain our present situation in relation to our cost of living if we were to stay outside the EEC. I do not think that suggestions on these lines merit any consideration by the House. It might suffice to say that in recent years, because of inflation, there have been increases in the cost of living but we do not anticipate that the increases during the next five years will be any greater than those that have occured already. It is a time for action, a time for thinking, a time for ensuring that this main plank of our economy and the one which in the short-term seems to stand to gain most advantages from entry will be capable of gaining the maximum advantage from our entry not only to give the kind of opportunity to our farmers which we want to see them have, not only to provide the kind of market opportunity which in itself will lead to better programming on our farms, but also so that the savings made by the Government on subsidisation can be re-channelled to the poorer sections and to people who are on static incomes.

Mr. Cooney

On the last occasion this Estimate was before the House I remarked that it was disappointing that the Minister's speech at that time did not give any indication that our premier industry, agriculture, was on the verge of what must be a revolutionary step into Europe and that his speech was a bread and butter speech in relation to the various activities of his Department. I regret to say that this year's speech is no different and that our premier industry and the one that I hope will always be the main feature of Ireland, our agriculture, does not seem to be getting that revolutionary approach or that injection of energy or new ideas from the Department that it should get to gear itself to enter into Europe and to take full advantage of all that Europe has to offer.

A vast investment is needed and this has been highlighted in the past couple of weeks. There was a lecture by Mr. Walshe, the agricultural economist associated with the World Bank, in which he pointed out the need for an immense investment in agriculture in Ireland to ensure that we could get the best out of Europe. He is a man whose advice must be listened to. His academic attainments are outstanding and, in addition, he has backed them, I understand, with highly significant practical achievements. The President of the NFA, as the Minister knows, in his recent consultation with him, as reported in the national newspapers, has also indicated the need for a vast increase in the investment in our agricultural industry.

These people have shown the benefits that must follow. They have, so far as I can see from the reports, quantified the benefits which will come from this investment, quantified them in terms of increased livestock and thereby increased national income, in terms of jobs in industries that will be necessarily ancillary to the increased growth in agriculture. These things are so patently desirable for this country that it is disappointing to find that the initiative, the thinking, in this regard comes from without the Minister. I would have hoped that during this past year the Minister and his Department would have been taking a global view of the activity of their Department and the industry they have to serve and that they would be at this stage announcing new attitudes, new stances, trying to inculcate a new atmosphere towards this, our premier industry.

Agriculture is Ireland and while exports of industrial products in money terms have now surpassed our agricultural exports, I would hope that the hallmark of this country would always be agriculture. That is why I say it is disappointing to find that the Minister's speech is a bread and butter speech, that there is no spark to it to indicate that he or his Department are aware of the gigantic step that this industry is going to take in the very near future.

I think he will find in the industry the framework of a structure that would be able to absorb this increased investment. The goodwill is there among the farmers. It is being provided by all the farming organisations. In addition to that goodwill, there is far more technical expertise and knowledge among the farming population than ever before.

I would have liked to have seen some indication in the Minister's speech, beyond a passing reference to the experiment in group-farming in County Meath, that his Department have actively in mind the assistance and encouragement of co-operation between individual farmers. If the lot of the individual farmer is to be improved, if he is to have the leisure available to his industrial counterpart, it can only be achieved if the structure of Irish agriculture is changed and it can only be changed, in my opinion, by voluntary co-operation between adjoining farmers. This will take a vast amount of education and indeed propaganda on the part of the Department because the history of Irish farming has been based on the three Fs. Much of our tradition comes from the Land League days when the desirable thing was to be independent on one's own holding. The system has evolved since those days and that fierce independence is no longer entirely relevant and should no longer be the sole criterion of a farm being independent. No more than the nation, in sharing its sovereignty by entering into Europe and thereby improving its lot, I think our individual farmers will have to be educated to be prepared to share their independence with their neighbours for the purpose of improving their individual lots.

The small farmer, if he wants to have an income and leisure and amenities which his industrial brother has, will have to change his pattern. If he is prepared to continue living as he has lived for the past 50 or so years, working seven days a week, 365 days a year, that is his business, he is an independent man, but I think the disadvantages of this should be highlighted to him. They are certainly becoming known to his family and his sons may not tolerate what he has tolerated. The Department should have active schemes on foot to take advantage of the change of attitude that I think will show itself among the rising generation of farmers. That is why I say the Minister's speech is disappointing. These aspects of our industry have not been touched on at all. It has been a speech going through the various activities of his Department and reporting on the past year and his hopes for the coming year. I should like to deal briefly with some of these activities.

The first one which concerns me and which is causing considerable hardship in my constituency is the practical operation of the beef incentive scheme. As the Minister is aware, the cows to qualify for grants under the scheme have to be accompanied by calves on the occasion of two inspections, one made in spring and one made in autumn. Very often when the first inspection takes place all the cows in the herd have not calved. Unless there is a second first inspection the farmer will be paid only for the cows which were calved on the date of the first visit. I know the farmer is supposed to call back the inspector to look at the herd a second time in the spring. The farmer is supposed to send a card to the local office informing the office that the cows which had not calved on the occasion of the first inspection have now calved and are available for inspection. What happens in fact is that the farmer forgets the card, he loses it or he does not understand the necessity for sending it back by the latest date, which, I understand, this year was 31st July.

On numerous occasions in my constituency farmers sent those cards back after 31st July and have been informed that they were too late. Maybe half their cows had not calved on the occasion of the first visit and they lost the grants in respect of these cows. In one particular case the man did not send back the card because he was engaged at the critical time in building silos. He was doing this by direct labour with the assistance of neighbours and he had to supervise and organise the work. He overlooked sending back the card and this man who had cows kept for the purpose of this scheme lost the benefit of the scheme in respect of four animals. This is a positive hardship on any farmer but particularly on a small farmer.

I would suggest to the Minister that it would be of no great hardship for his district officers if they were to note in an advance diary on the occasion of the first inspection that there were so many cows in the herd and the date that calving was expected, and arrange for the second visit before 31st July, to be initiated by the officer and not leave it to the farmer to call out the official. Irish farmers are not attuned to clerical work, even this apparently simple clerical work, because their activities at the particular time of the year are pretty intense and they can easily overlook reminding the local office to send out the inspector to make a second visit. I am personally aware that considerable hardship has resulted to many farmers. I would suggest that the scheme be reviewed with a view to changing the method of notification of calving.

There is another matter which causes hardship and which has already been mentioned. It is the system of removing brucellosis reactors. In parts of Westmeath there have been a considerable number of reactors in herds and their removal, with the loss of the expected calves and, of course, the loss of the milk crop, and the inevitable—I will not say unnecessary—delay in paying for the removed animals, is causing a great deal of hardship to farmers. In some cases it is putting them in a very serious financial position.

I understand that, medically speaking, there is no objection whatever to leaving the infected animal with the farmer until it calves provided, of course, there is no movement of stock in or out of the farm and no movement of milk. Many farmers to whom I have mentioned this and who have availed of it much preferred to do that rather than have their beasts taken away before calving and get their compensation. If the infected animal can be left until after she calves the farmer has his calf and his loss is considerably diminished because there is a tremendous capital loss involved in having to let a beast in calf go and the price given does not really compensate and does not enable the farmer to replace.

This is another matter in respect of which the present pattern could be changed without in any way harming the brucellosis clearance scheme or causing administrative difficulty but which in a big way would ease the lot of the farmer. All that I am asking is that the infected animal be kept in a locked-up herd until she calves. As I have said, I understand that medically there is no objection and I would be interested to hear the Minister deal with it and indicate that, in fact, it is permissible. I am advised that it is medically permissible. I cannot see why it would not be administratively permissible also. If it is permissible, I do not see why farmers who have reactors in their herds would not be informed of this and given a chance to get rid of the reactors immediately or of keeping them on until they calve.

The next point that I should like to deal with is one which the Minister did not mention in his speech. It is in relation to the horse industry. I see from the notes the Minister issued for the assistance of Deputies, detailing the activities of his Department, that the investment this year in the horse industry is just over £200,000. This is for an industry that is reckoned to be very typical of our country and a very important industry in relation to our balance of payments and national propaganda and advertising. The success of our bloodstock has brought the name of this country into many nations. This is good propaganda, good publicity, which is desirable for any individual, firm or nation. One of the best vehicles of propaganda that we have is the quality of our bloodstock. It is disappointing to find that the Minister did not deal with this aspect of the agricultural industry in his speech and that the amount for investment in it during the coming year is just over £200,000, particularly when it is considered that just half that sum is being invested in poultry. There is nearly £100,000 being invested in poultry. It seems to me that the proportions are wrong and betray a lack of interest or lack of knowledge of the importance to the country of the horse industry.

There is a sum of £10,000 set aside for the purchase of thoroughbred stallions for leasing. The scheme of leasing thoroughbred stallions is satisfactory but it would behove the Department to keep an eye on the various parts of the country in order to ensure that, if people get out of the business of keeping a thoroughbred stallion, no part of the country where there is a tradition for breeding hunters will be left without one of these horses.

I remember mentioning on the occasion of the debate on the Horse Industry Bill the situation which can arise where a thoroughbred stallion in an unfashionable area shows potential as a sire of racehorses but, by the time its potential is realised, is very often too old and his full potential cannot be capitalised. This is something that will have to get attention because, while scientists can apply the laws of genetics to some extent, nevertheless there is uncertainty in the breeding of thoroughbred racehorses and the capacity of a sire to beget winners can only be proved by the racecourse performance. An unfashionably bred sire, who can turn out to be capable of producing National Hunt winners, by the time this is realised, is too old to be able to get the quality of mare that his capacity deserves.

The Department should devise a scheme to encourage owners of mares which have produced winners to send them to unfashionable sires in an effort to see if these sires will have the capacity to breed winners. This would involve considerable sacrifice on the part of the owner of the mare and he would have to be compensated but, in view of the importance of this industry and of the growing market in England for National Hunt horses, this is something that will have to be looked into.

I know of one horse in the west and the number of thoroughbred mares that he gets could be counted on one hand. Yet he has had to date several winners under National Hunt rules. I had occasion to visit Kempton Park races and the favourite in one hurdle race was by this sire. Mostly, his progeny are to be seen in Ballinasloe Fair. This horse has potential and it would be a pity if that potential were to be wasted.

I see, too, that the Department provides some money for the promotion of the Irish draught. The notes we were given mention the class for registered Irish draught mares at the RDS Show in August. Again, there is a lot of criticism concerning this particular class and about the Irish draught mare class at shows throughout the country. That criticism is mainly directed to the fact that many of these mares are not what we call true Irish draughts at all but are actually half-bred and described as such in the catalogues, the name of the thoroughbred sire being given. There is some dispute among geneticists as to whether the Irish draught mare is a breed or a type but it is a type of such consistency and so widely found that it could be well qualified to be described as a breed and I propose to call it a breed and it is known as a breed. This breed is so well known and so easily identifiable that there is no excuse whatever for allowing half-bred mares into a class that is stated to be for Irish draught mares.

All this will do is attenuate the particular breed and the traditional type will become fewer and scarcer to our loss. In order to ensure the continuance of the type, it is necessary that the purebred be bred in increasing numbers. The sale for the pure draught is not as ready as for the half-breed, for which there is demand as a recreation horse or as a hunter. Consequently, the temptation is for the farmer to send his draught mare to a thoroughbred stallion rather than to a draught stallion. I recognise that there is a good premium of £25 where both the sire and the dam are registered Irish draughts. To encourage the production of pure draughts, I would suggest that the premium be increased to £50. The premium for the half-breed at £15 is adequate. To encourage the pure draught, the premium ought to be greatly increased. The Irish draught as such is in danger. It would be a scandal if the breed should become so scarce as to be in danger of extinction.

The Minister can see how the Connemara pony has progressed and how strong that breed has become in recent years. The Irish draught could be put into a similar position. It is essential for the general horse industry that there should be a plentiful supply of good-quality Irish draught horses. The only way that can be done is by making it profitable to breed them. This can only be done by paying a good premium for pure-bred Irish draught foals. The only other profit there might be would be on the sale, and this is limited to a certain extent.

It was disappointing that the Minister made no reference to the activities of Bord na gCapall. This board was only set up last February. Nevertheless, this board are charged with very serious duties and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister how they propose to go about those duties, and what scheme of activities have been arranged for the coming year. There have been rumblings, which appeared in newspaper reports, about dissatisfaction among people in the horse industry with some of the activities of the board. The board will have £140,000 to deal with their activities this year. They will have £100,000 this year and the £40,000 which was provided last year and was not used and presumably will be available to them this year. This is a substantial sum to enable them to commence their activities. It is disappointing that the Minister has not indicated how they propose to go about organising the horse industry generally.

I should like to refer briefly to the question of farm grants and control over farm buildings. The Minister is aware of what happened at Lough Sheelin and at Garradice Lake, near Ballinamore, County Leitrim. Both of these lakes have become so polluted as to exterminate fish life in them altogether. Lough Sheelin was the premier trout lake in Europe. There is great apprehension about the water being dead. So far as can be ascertained this has happened as a result of the erection of piggeries in the neighbourhood. The erection of piggeries and farm buildings is not subject to control under the Planning Acts. The Department, in order to prevent pollution on this massive scale, will have to take steps to control investment in farm buildings and to ensure that the increased production from farm buildings is not nullified by serious damage to the environment. I understand that practically raw slurry has been discharged from pig developments into drains and rivers which makes its way untreated and in a highly potent form into the rivers and lakes. It would be a tragedy if our country, which has the reputation of having a very clean atmosphere, should become polluted through careless investment. I ask the Minister to investigate this as a matter of urgency and to look at the Planning Acts to ensure that investment in agriculture does not harm our precious environment.

I should like to refer to the question of animal health mentioned by Deputy O'Sullivan. I had an interesting conversation with a small farmer some days ago. This man does some market research as a sideline. He was doing such research on proprietary veterinary products connected with a common sheep ailment. He had to interview farmers in two adjoining counties and was amazed to find that in one county every household had a sample of the product he was interested in, or of an equivalent product, and it was given regularly to the animals. In the adjoining county where he interviewed a similar sample of farmers he found exactly the opposite position and that the preventive medicine was not available and that when the symptoms of the disease appeared the vet was called in. Perhaps the vet was called too late but the mortality rate was high. In the adjoining county where the pattern of farming was the same, the preventive medicine was in stock and was applied as a matter of routine with the result that the incidence of disease was nil and the mortality rate was, of course, nil. There is a lesson to be learned from this. The mortality rate among Irish cattle and sheep is extremely high.

There are no statistics to show the exact position, but I know from meeting people in charge of hunts that there is no shortage of dead meat coming to the various kennels to feed the hounds. This is a pointer to the rate of mortality. Some kennels with large packs of hounds are getting more dead meat than they can handle. The mortality rate among Irish livestock is high. The reason it is high is that there has not been enough emphasis on preventive medicines. There are certain types of diseases or conditions which can be controlled if the proper medicines are applied by the farmers. This involves the education of the farmers and also involves the veterinary profession in such education. So far as I am aware, the veterinary profession would be only too glad to be involved in such a scheme. It is no pleasure to them to be called to treat beasts which cannot be saved. I do not know how high our cattle losses are. This means that if the investment which is needed in agriculture were made a good proportion of it would be wasted if the beasts died unnecessarily.

This is a matter of considerable importance which should get urgent attention from the Minister and his Department. It will involve the farming organisations in educating their members in the application of the medicines and the veterinary profession in lecturing to the farmers as to the steps they should take in looking after their stock and how they should spot the early symptoms so that if a vet has to be called he can be called in good time. This might also involve the training of lay auxiliaries to the veterinary profession. I do not know what exactly their work would be but they could apply simple veterinary remedies and assist in clerical and paper work, a lot of which takes up the time of vets at the moment and does not leave them free for field work. This is a matter the Department should give urgent attention to because apart from losses to individual farmers, it is a tremendous national loss. We will not be able to avail of the EEC to full potential unless livestock herds are kept at their maximum and losses at their minimum.

That is all I want to say on the Estimate. I will conclude by emphasising to the Minister the need for a new look at this industry. I am asking him to initiate whatever steps are needed to procure this vastly increased investment that has been called for by professional farmers. Their request for investment has been backed up by facts and figures and it must be met by the Minister and the Government if they are to serve in an adequate fashion what I consider to be our prime industry.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Estimate affords us an opportunity annually of expressing an opinion on the progress or otherwise of our main industry. It is correct to say that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries circulates to Members of the House lengthy and detailed statistical records in relation to the activities of his Department and these are extremely helpful to Deputies because of the vast volume of information they contain.

Nevertheless, we must take into consideration the overall picture. We are an agricultural community but our farmers are lagging a long way behind the remainder of the community in living standards. This is particularly incongruous when one considers the farmers' strenuous work from sunrise to nightfall with skill and industry. In spite of this the farmer lags far behind the other professions in living standards. We all agree that in recent times it has begun to be realised that farming is a profession. There was a time in this country when those engaged in the laborious work on the land were not so described. The time has come when all of us in the House appreciate that the farmer is a highly professional person engaged in the most important work of producing food for man and beast.

The 1950s brought about a change in relation to agriculture because it was then that those on the land began to think about themselves, began to take a look at their living standards vis-à-vis those in other industries, to examine in detail the problem besetting the agricultural community. It was at that time also that it began to be appreciated that agricultural education was necessary.

I want to direct the Minister's attention now to the still urgent need for State provided agricultural education. Vast amounts of money have been channelled into education for the other professions, yet agriculture has fared badly, considering that it is our principal industry. A great deal of leeway has to be made up here. We know that our county committees of agriculture, our agricultural colleges and our advisory services have contributed very much to agricultural education, but the responsibility for providing a high standard of education in all spheres of agriculture rests with the Department. All who avail themselves of the educational facilities in our agricultural colleges should be provided with scholarships. A scheme could be administered by the county committees whereby these scholarships could be provided subject to the Minister's sanction. If we are to get places in the years ahead, it is vital that everyone engaged in the land should possess a high degree of knowledge of every aspect of farming.

The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries should examine the State investment in agricultural education. I do not know what plans or proposals the Department may have, but I represent what can be described as a reasonably good agricultural constituency, and I have had the experience of meeting young farmers who were anxious to devote a good deal of their time to agricultural studies. I have known cases in which farmers have made arrangements for their sons to be admitted to agricultural colleges, but many of them were hampered in doing so because of the financial demands involved.

Again I say that the space available for those anxious to participate in agricultural education is limited. It is generally recognised that to be a successful farmer one must be an expert. One cannot be an expert without suitable training by qualified teachers and without the organised demonstrations and other educational facilities that should be available to those desiring to follow agricultural professions.

On the radio, in the Press and on television we are led to believe that the agricultural community are enjoying a very high degree of prosperity. That does not tally with the fact that so many are leaving the land and going into other occupations in the cities and towns. If farming is as profitable as we are told by the experts and by the Government and in the propaganda that comes from the communications media, why are so many leaving? The real fact is that nowadays, as in the case of most other professions, you must be either in farming and in it well or out of it completely. What has brought a certain amount of disappointment and uneasiness about the future to young people is the fact that they realise that unless they have substantial bank accounts, unless they are farming in the 150- to 200-acre bracket there can be no security. The small farmer with 80 acres and under is finding it extremely difficult to carry on.

If one asks the small farmers why they are finding it so difficult to carry on, they will give a very reasonable explanation. The explanation is that when they sell off their livestock they have to purchase replacements at very high prices, resulting in their margin of profit being considerably less than what they have really earned, taking into consideration their time, the expense of feeding and the other investments that must be put into a holding.

Surely the Minister for Agriculture must know, from his association with so many farmers, that one of the great essentials for Irish agriculture today is a very substantial financial investment in the industry. The Agricultural Credit Corporation are really only scratching the surface. I do not deny that the Agricultural Credit Corporation have assisted many a lame dog over a stile, but there is great difficulty in extracting money either from the Agricultural Credit Corporation or any of our banking institutions. If the farmer is purchasing livestock he must prove to the board of directors of the Agricultural Credit Corporation that the amount of money he gets will be devoted to that purpose.

Despite all the talk of agricultural prosperity, which, I may say, is organised propaganda on the part of the Government, organised propaganda on the part of those who want the community to believe that it is the farming people who are well off, there is nothing further from the truth. It is common knowledge that none of our Irish banks will provide the necessary financial aids for any Irish farmer. I have known many farmers in my own constituency who were put to the pin of their collars to exist and who have failed to obtain various types of financial accommodation from banking institutions. I have known of cases where loans obtained five, ten or 15 years ago have not, as yet, been paid off through no fault of the farmers concerned. We must bear in mind that the cost of living has risen for farmers the same as it has for those living in our towns and cities.

Farmers' overheads have increased. Rates are steadily increasing. The cost of labour has vastly increased and it may not have been possible for them to meet their commitments with the result that the title deeds of their property are still held by whatever financial institution advanced those old loans. The result is that there are thousands of farmers who have land but who cannot raise a penny on it because they cannot produce their clear land certificates. It is deplorable that the agricultural community should be in such a position that we can say without the slightest fear of contradiction that the Irish farmer is standing still. He cannot move forward because of the lack of money.

I am sure farmers' organisations and others have from time to time made this case to a very convincing degree to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. To produce more, to be more efficient, to embark on modern, scientific methods of farming, to modernise farm buildings, our piggeries and our cow byres, and comply with all the requirements for the eradication of brucellosis and with the requirements of the veterinary section of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will call for a huge financial investment. There is nothing in the Estimate this year which will bring that about.

The Agricultural Credit Corporation have no attractive scheme so that farmers can readily avail of substantial sums to finance themselves, clear off old debts, try to bring their land certificates clear to date, increase whatever amount of stock the land can carry, embark on new machinery, if necessary, and get out of the clutches of hire purchase organisations.

The time has come for the Government to tell Irish farmers that we are now on the threshold of our entry into Europe and that markets for millions are waiting to purchase at high prices what the Irish farmers produce. I want to say, and I think 99 per cent of the farmers would agree with me, the Government have failed in their responsibility to put the Irish farmer in the position that he is ready to walk into Europe.

If we are to enter the EEC, we cannot go in in distress, indecision, semipoverty, suffering from a lack of capital, lack of proper educational facilities and general all-round agricultural poverty. No serious effort has been made to invest in Irish agriculture the colossal investment which is required so that we can reach the stage at which we can compliment ourselves on having our agriculture brought up to the high standards of Europe. In relation to Irish agriculture we have been mainly dependent on the British market. Whilst we have other markets not as convenient, it must be recognised that because of our geographical position Britain is our nearest neighbour although it is questionable whether she is a good or bad one.

For too long we were dependent solely on the British market. Our Ministers for Agriculture have not been noted for their negotiating abilities. We know that on one occasion when a Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture was negotiating with his opposite number in Britain, he came back from the talks after losing some of the benefits he had when he went over. Nevertheless, the trade agreement of 1948 could be described as one of the greatest advances in Irish agriculture. That trade agreement linked up the price which the Irish farmer got for his livestock with the price which the British farmer got from his Government. Any increase given to British farmers was reflected in the price paid to Irish farmers for their produce. Of all the trading agreements which have been entered into with Britain the only one which meant anything in terms of money was the 1948 trade agreement which put millions of pounds into the pockets of Irish farmers which they would never have received were it not for the negotiating ability of those who negotiated that agreement.

We all recognise that our agricultural industry is mainly dependent on the British market. I have often wondered if it is reasonable to expect our farmers to be completely dependent on the British market. One of the arguments in favour of our entry into the EEC is the fact that there will be a market for cattle, sheep, pigs and indeed everything we can produce. I have yet to hear anyone who believes that the moment we enter the EEC we will be in Utopia. If we were to enter the EEC tomorrow is it not a fact that a large percentage of our farmers would be going in in a state of semi-bankruptcy, their lands in a state of neglect and their farms understocked?

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Cunningham)

That is not true, of course.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I have yet to see a different picture. I know of numerous farms which are understocked.

Mr. Cunningham

I know several which are overstocked.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am quite satisfied that there is a high percentage——

Dr. O'Donovan

Way up in Donegal?

Mr. Cunningham

The Labour Party are not going into the Common Market. Why should the Deputy worry? They are going to find a market somewhere else.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Flanagan.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If we make an effort to go into Europe——

Mr. Cunningham

We are making an effort.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

——and are accepted as a member it cannot be denied that our farmers are not in a position to go in at this stage because they have not been put into the position to do so by the Government. The industry has been starved of financial investment. Credit has not been available in sufficient amounts to put farmers on an equal footing with farmers already in the Community. The president of the NFA stated on television within the last week that there is no point in promising farmers that when we are in Europe they will get the ripest cherries in the garden. There is no point in promising the agricultural community that money will be available when we enter Europe; they want the money now. If we are going into Europe within the next two or three years those who are engaged in raising livestock for export will have to buy now in order to avail of the sale of these livestock in three years time. What are the farmers going to sell in the European markets which are supposed to be there to gobble up everything that they have at generous prices if they cannot buy stock now? The farmers do not have the money to buy now——

Mr. Cunningham

To buy what?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

To buy stock.

Mr. Cunningham

From where?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Where does anyone buy stock from?

Mr. Cunningham

If there is stock available for purchase it is within the country. Money does not increase the number of stock which are available.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I do not follow the Parliamentary Secretary; perhaps he does not follow me; I should not expect him to as he comes from a Donegal constituency. I represent a constituency which can be described as a first-class tillage constituency, a reasonably good dairying constituency and a fair constituency for the rearing of livestock for export. If farmers are expecting to sell at high prices in Europe within the next three years what are they supposed to sell if they cannot buy stock now? That is what the Parliamentary Secretary does not seem to understand.

Mr. Cunningham

Buy what now?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Livestock.

Mr. Cunningham

From where?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I have always had an abundance of sympathy for those engaged in agriculture and I am quite satisfied that they need and deserve all the sympathy we can give them. If we are to get record prices for whatever cattle we export in three years time, farmers who are being told that there will be no more poor days the moment we enter the EEC, need to buy now, in order to have something to sell. That could not possibly be any clearer.

Mr. T.J. Maher rightly said that an investment of several million pounds is needed to put our agricultural industry into a position to be able to stand up in a feeble way to our European counterparts. When the Minister is replying will he tell the House why there are so many poor farmers in France? I recollect that earlier this year there was a gathering of discontented farmers in the EEC and as a result of certain protests in which they were participating one or two of them lost their lives. While we want better and greater markets, we also want greater profits and security for farmers. I hope the Government in regard to EEC are not just dangling a sweetened carrot before the Irish farmers. It seems to be the prophecy of Fianna Fáil that as soon as we enter Europe there will be no more bad times for Irish farmers, that there will be an unlimited market for all our processed meat and all the cattle we can export on the hoof, that there will be a tremendous expansion of our bacon factories in which more workers will be employed, that sheep will be processed and numerous new factories opened, further increasing employment in the meat export industry. If we are serious in thinking that will take place overnight we must remember that before you can process livestock for export you must have the livestock and we have not got it. You must put the farmer in a buying position and he is not in a buying position. You must gear our meat and bacon factories for the future. I wonder what the position will be if we have to increase tremendously the pig population in order to export bacon to Europe. Why are some of our small bacon factories on the verge of closing? There are many points that should be clearly explained to Irish farmers. I am not so foolish as to believe there is no such thing in France or Italy as a poor farmer.

Dr. O'Donovan

They are still ploughing with white oxen in Italy.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Let us tell the facts to Irish farmers who do not know what farming conditions abroad are. They have been given information about the high prices they will get for livestock the moment we enter Europe. Why is there not greater prosperity among farmers already in Europe? If the Irish farmers and the Irish people want to go into Europe that is their business and they will decide by their votes. We have reached the stage in Irish agriculture when the present Minister and the Government are using the EEC as an excuse for their failure to have our agriculture up to the proper standard and as a promise of better times, more money and better markets. I trust that if and when we go into Europe many of our farmers will not be disappointed and disillusioned.

In the event of our entering Europe we shall have a very substantial market and regulated EEC prices will be paid. The farmer will get his money but he will have to buy livestock replacements at very high prices also. Many farmers think that they can put out their hands and get Common Market prices but they forget that they will have to pay Common Market prices for livestock to replace what they have sold and they will also have to bear their share of a very substantial rise in the cost of living.

The Irish farmers will bear anything and the Irish people will accept anything when they have, without registering a single protest, accepted an increase in the cost of living of 12.1 points in the past 18 months, the highest increase on record since the State was founded. On top of that, because of our entry to EEC whenever it comes, we are told that we must have the value-added tax in order to comply with EEC conditions. To that tax farmers will definitely have to contribute generously. In addition, their overheads will be very substantially increased.

I want to refer to the prices of beef, mutton, pork, bacon, fresh vegetables, flour, milk, cheese, eggs and butter. The dairy farmers were recently given an increase. No one in this House challenges the right of the dairy farmers to the very niggardly and meagre increases which have been promised to them recently. We know that the dairy industry is one of the most difficult sectors of Irish agriculture. During the years that industry has had to take quite a walloping. Farmers were asked to invest substantially in modernising cow byres, installing water supplies, installing modern electric milking machines, concreting farmyards and in complying with the highest standards of hygiene. There has been a tremendous investment by dairy farmers in all these items. Those who are engaged in this industry are well aware that their life is extremely difficult and taxing. Cows must be milked and fed, milk must be cooled and prepared for the creameries on seven days a week. The increase that has been announced is the minimum because, like the tillage farmers, the costs of production for the dairy farmers have increased out of all proportion to the amount of profit.

The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has gone out of his way in advising dairy and livestock farmers not to be niggardly with their fertiliser programmes for grassland. I remember a time when there was not an ounce of ground limestone to be had; lime or fertilisers were not available. In the late 1940s and early 1950s grasslands were in such a state of neglect that there was no nutritional value in the grass. At that time you could put cattle out on the grasslands, they could eat the grass all day but they could drop dead with the hunger at night time because there was no nutritional value in the grass. In the 1950s there was a realisation of the necessity for proper fertilisation of the land. Everyone knows that there are various types of grassland; there is the land with the good nutritional value and there is the land that has not any nutritional value. The more fertiliser and manures that are applied the better is the quality of the grass.

The Minister advised the farmers to use more fertilisers. He issued documents and leaflets; he wrote letters; he spoke on radio and television and to the various farmers' organisations. The farmers were told to nourish the soil, to manure the land, because in this way the quality of the grass would improve, as would the milk yield, and the stock would be stronger. However, just as the farmers realised that fertilisation was necessary and desirable, without consulting the farmers, the cost of fertilisers was increased substantially.

I wish to protest against the failure of the Minister in not making an effort either this year or last year to protect the farmers against the unwarranted and savage increases imposed on fertilisers. How can he expect better milk yields and heavier stock to be obtained when the cost of fertilisers is so prohibitive that farmers cannot afford to use it? I wish to protest against the price increase that took place in July, 1970. The Minister showed little concern about the increase in the cost of fertilisers.

May I ask the Minister—and I hope he will not think I am over-rude in addressing this question to him—why did he not send for the fertiliser manufacturers and the farming organisations and have consultations in his Department before the fertiliser manufacturers were allowed to make the price of fertilisers prohibitive for farmers? Where was the Minister? Why did he not speak out when on 1st July, the date of the commencement of the fertiliser year, the fertiliser manufacturers were told that they could increase the price by not more than 7 per cent—and 7 per cent was a sizeable increase. They had been allowed to increase their prices on the previous 24th August.

This increase in the cost of fertilisers has taken £2 million out of the pockets of the farmers in a full year. A further £70,000 was taken out of their pockets by the 5 per cent increase in the price of lime. Where is the encouragement for the farmers to buy fertilisers and lime and apply them to their land to get a better milk yield and to enable them to walk stock off their lands sooner because of the scientific application of fertilisers? The Minister did not even sneeze once in protest against over £2 million being taken out of the pockets of the farmers.

I also want to place on record the fact that while the manufacturers were allowed to increase the cost of fertilisers by 7 per cent by the Minister's silence and with the approval of the Government the retail price to the consumer went up by over 10 per cent. Will the Minister tell us that he agreed to a 7 per cent increase and that the farmers had to pay a 10 to 13 per cent increase? There is something very wrong with that. The price was increased by 7 per cent with the approval of the Minister and all concerned, and when the farmer went to buy fertilisers he expected to have to pay the 7 per cent increase, but he had to pay an increase of from 10 to 13 per cent.

The best way to illustrate it is by taking, for example, the popular 10.10.20. Prior to the last increase the price was £43.57 and the list retail price was £34.70. Seven per cent of the former is approximately equal to a 10 per cent increase in the retail price. I accuse the Minister of standing idly by—not even standing idly by but lying idly by and allowing £2.2 million plus £70,000 to be taken out of the pockets of the farmers. He failed to protect the farmers against an increase in the price of manures and fertilisers which they were advised to purchase for their land. Why did he not take the necessary steps to see that a public inquiry was held? These vast and substantial and unimaginative increases were put on the price of fertilisers behind closed doors and the farming organisations did not get a chance to present themselves before a public inquiry and to make their case as to why the cost of manures and fertilisers should not be made prohibitive by the Government. That is exactly what happened.

I want to ask the Minister why he was silent about this additional imposition on farmers. There has not been one single word from the Minister on the matter. We are now told by a very reliable source that during the current financial year, between now and 31st March, there may be a further increase in the cost of manures and fertilisers. Have we any Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries at all to protect the farmer? Is the farmer to be the target of every economic raider who likes to dive his hands deep into the farmer's trousers pocket? Surely there must be somebody left to protect the farmer from being the victim of highway extortioners.

Is it any wonder that our farmers are losing heart and confidence. They are losing confidence because agriculture is without leadership. The man to give the lead to agriculture is the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. He should give the lead before we take our first steps into Europe. Are we to treat Irish farmers, preparing for EEC entry, by making severe impositions upon them? The manner in which they have been fleeced by the unreal and unwarranted increase in the price of fertilisers should be investigated publicly. I charge the Government and the Minister with neglect. I charge them with having insufficient interest in the protection of the farmers. They allowed them to be the unarmed victims, and to be handcuffed and blindfolded, of people who can extract some millions of pounds out of their pockets.

The president of the NFA recently and rightly said that what is needed is an investment of many many millions. These millions must be invested now because Irish agriculture cannot afford to wait. There has been no voice in the country that would indicate real concern for the farming community. Is it any wonder, then, that the farmers are losing interest in the deliberations of this House? However, I am glad to see that at least we have reached the stage where the farming organisations and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries are on nodding acquaintance again but we must have more than nodding acquaintance. We want joint progress in which the recommendations of the various branches of Irish agriculture will be put to the Minister and whereby the Minister, in turn, will implement these recommendations in a way best suited to the interests of Irish agriculture. Some effort must be made to safeguard and protect the agricultural community so that they will not become the victims of unreasonable and severe impositions. I have in mind, in particular, the position in relation to fertilisers to which I have referred already.

I wish to refer to the many farmers in this country who were asked to produce vegetables and who were promised a ready market for these vegetables by Erin Foods. However, as happend in respect of fertilisers, there has been a dismal failure on the part of the Minister for Agriculture to safeguard the interests of these farmers who put their efforts, their labour and their money into growing substantial quantities of vegetables. There was no market for these products. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries may have no responsibility for Erin Foods in the sense of their being a firm but he must have some responsibility for those farmers who have been tricked.

How can agriculture be put on a sound footing if Irish farmers are to treated in that way? These farmers were thrown at the mercy of Erin Foods who, when it suited them, slammed the door in their faces and refused to take the vegetables. Yet we are told that the Irish farmer is in a sound financial position for entering Europe. It is my contention that a big percentage of small farmers in this country are on the verge of bankruptcy, both individually and collectively. Anybody who has any dealings with them will be aware of that. Not only that but the small farmers have lost confidence in the Government in so far as the future is concerned. No wonder they should when the Government lack leadership and, worst of all, lack confidence in themselves.

I ask the Minister to tell me whether his Department are being used exclusively for the benefit of the big farmers and the ranchers and to the detriment of the small farmer? As we all know it is the farmer who has a holding of between 20 and 55 acres who is the backbone of the nation. It was the small farmers who kept this country going during the 1939-45 war when they produced food for man and beast and did so in very trying and difficult circumstances. The concern of the Minister and the Government would appear to be directed to the benefit of the big farmer and the rancher and preparations are being made for what we can describe as the Mansholt-type farm. Where does the small man fit in in all this? Before the referendum he must be told what Dr. Mansholt and his advisers have in store for him because so far as I can read and, begging the forgiveness of the House and agreeing that my intelligence is extremely limited, there is nothing of a profitable character for the small farmer of this country.

Progress preported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 14th December, 1971.