Deputy Gibbons moved the adjournment of the debate. I would inform the Deputy he has 12 minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Farm Incomes: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy G. Collins on 28th January, 1975:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government (a) to seek immediately those changes in EEC Directives 159 and 160 which are necessary to permit the survival of the smaller farmers of Ireland; and (b) to introduce a scheme of financial assistance for those farmers who have been forced to sell young cattle at totally uneconomic prices, or who are trying to hold their cattle, or both, and immediately introduce a floor price for all young cattle.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"(a) notes that the schemes introduced in this country to implement EEC Directives 159 and 160 provide new and improved benefits and opportunities for small farmers and requests the Government to ensure that those schemes are adequately promoted and that farmers are not misled by false and inaccurate statements being circulated concerning their aims and effects; and
(b) approves of the various measures introduced in support of the cattle industry; notes the improvement in cattle prices which has taken place in recent weeks; and asks the Government to continue its efforts to safeguard the interests of producers."
—(Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.)
Our motion seeks to call the attention of the Government to the abiding problem of store cattle reared in this country. I call it the abiding problem because the prospects for the coming year in this area of cattle husbandry appear to be little better than in the last six or nine months when, because of the laissezfaire attitude of the Government to this vital sector, many thousands of small cattle producers were deprived of any income. Many of the cattle are still held with the niggardly aid of feed vouchers and the pathetically small loans available but even with the assistance of these props many producers will be forced out of business. In the context of the number of small cattle still on hands and considering the poverty of their prospects, it is difficult to think the situation will right itself in the coming year.
It sounds very much like whistling past the graveyard for the Minister to say the market has been improving in recent weeks. It has for forward beef but it is worth remembering that the general economic situation in Great Britain, our principal consumer, is tending to create a situation where the consumption of meat will drop considerably. It would be foolish for the Government not to take the view that our main traditional outlet for beef in Great Britain must be a diminishing market and, therefore, it is inescapable that we must sell increasingly large quantities on the mainland of Europe. We cannot do that unless the monetary obstacles that have been allowed to remain, to a large extent because of the negligence of the Government, are taken away.
We are aware of the very serious malpractices—to call them the least objectionable of many names one could think of—that occurred in the processed meat trade in the last 12 months. I am talking about the rackets that were operated in the meat factories that enabled certain privileged suppliers to buy from their neighbours at ridiculously low prices and to put the cattle from the marts straight into the factory at intervention price. They skimmed off £60 or £70 per head through that process because they were privileged people in what are allegedly farmer-owned cooperative meat factories and they pocketed the proceeds. This exploitation of the ordinary producer who has not such privileged access to meat factories must be stopped and the movement to stop it must be initiated by the Minister.
It is like locking the stable when the horse is gone for the Minister to say at this late stage that we will have an inquiry. Although the inquiry is better later than never, the only result will be information as to where the horse went and who got the profits to which the ordinary, underprivileged producer was entitled. It is certain that the profits went somewhere.
The unnatural imbalance that exists at the moment between the cwt. price for small cattle and forward stores and fat cattle will have to be corrected. As an emergency measure we are advocating that deficiency payments be made to producers of small cattle. This is absolutely vital in order to tide these people over this crucial period. There must be rapid action by the Government to correct a situation they allowed to develop. Probably it will be the death knell for many producers if this is not done immediately.
Two courses of action are necessary. First, immediate action on the monetary front to remove the obstacles which prevent the necessary movement of our cattle outwards to the mainland of Europe and, as a temporary measure, the introduction of a floor on the prices of small cattle. This is vital in the context of a total absence of any kind of livestock programme, or even an attitude that would give rise to one. We are not sanguine in our hopes that the Government will produce such a plan. In the context of pig producers who, a little more than six months ago, were told to get out of pig production and by the end of the year——
I contradicted that publicly three times already but the Deputy continues to repeat that statement.
The harm was done and the Minister's private secretary confirmed his original statement. The Minister knows that is true.
I would like the Deputy to produce the evidence when he makes a statement like that. He has not got it.
It has been written by the man to whom the Minister's private secretary confirmed it.
The Deputy has not got the evidence. It is a false statement.
At this stage it is futile to engage in an argument about who said what first but it is beyond question that it was generally assumed this advice was given. Before Christmas bacon was making £1,000 per ton on the British market but we did not have it. There is no recognisable policy with regard to pig production, but we should have one because it is vital in the small farm area. There is no policy with regard to the marketing of sheep. The Commissioner said we would have some kind of sheep arrangement before last June but there is no policy yet.
In the short time at my disposal I would beg the Minister and the Government to realise this central fact— the vital necessity of our cattle herd. It is the most important thing the Minister should be preoccupied with. There is no such thing as having too many cattle. What is wrong is that we are not selling our production. The blame for that rests on the shoulders of the Government. I am afraid there will be a drop off in cattle numbers, that the size and quality of our herd will shrink. Lasting damage has been done because for the past 12 months the quality of breeding has dropped.
I beg the Government to take radical measures to save this industry which is vital to our economy. Let the Minister also resolve that our pig industry will thrive, that it will be based on small farms and that there will be centralised fattening. We have good reason to believe there is no faith in the future of the Irish pig industry.
I wish to advise the Deputy that his time is just up.
I urge the House to accept our motion because it is vital to the future of our main industry.
Cavan): If it is necessary to do so, I second the amendment proposed by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
It is not necessary.
(Cavan): The motion in the name of Members of the Fianna Fáil Party calls on the Government:
To seek immediately those changes in EEC Directives 159 and 160 which are necessary to permit the survival of the smaller farmers of Ireland.
I propose to confine my remarks in the main to Directive 160, which encourages farmers to leave farming as that directive comes within the ambit of my Department. So far in this debate only three objections have been made to this directive as far as I can see. In the first place the Opposition complained that the scheme does not apply to land left by farmers who wish to retire. Secondly, the Opposition complained that the scheme is confined to farms of 45 acres. Thirdly, they faulted it on the grounds that the scheme gives priority to farmers who have a development plan under Directive 159.
I will later on deal with each of these objections. At this stage I should like to say that I am somewhat surprised the Opposition should find fault with this directive because I find from the records of my Department that it came into operation and was adopted by the Council of the European Communities in April, 1972. We completed our negotiations and signed the Treaty of Accession on the 22nd January, 1972 and we entered the European Community on the 1st January, 1973. When this directive and Directive 159 were being negotiated we had a right of audience in Europe. If that is too strong a claim it is certainly correct to say we were consulted regarding these two directives. The records of my Department show that my predecessor in office was consulted regarding Directive 160 and asked for his observations on it. It is equally true to say that none of the objections now being put forward by the Opposition as being faulty in the directive was drawn to the attention of the European Community at the time.
I do not believe the directive is as faulty as the Opposition would have us believe. If it is they have been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty and of gross negligence in not trying to amend the directive when they were consulted about it. That is simply a statement of fact and I cannot be contradicted when I say that the former Government were consulted about this matter. I see Deputy Bruton has now entered the House. He put down a parliamentary question about this matter when he was in Opposition. The question was answered on Tuesday, 30th May, 1972. It is clear that none of the points so eloquently made last night by Deputy Collins was made by my predecessor or by the previous Government. I want to say, having said that, that when I assumed office as Minister for Lands I was confronted with Directive 160 and I was required to draw up a scheme under it. I prepared a scheme of incentives to encourage farmers, who were not happy in farming or were not profitably engaged in it, to retire in dignity and financial security as required by Directive 160.
This scheme is a purely voluntary one. I want to drive that home. There is nothing compulsory in it. A farmer may avail of it or he may ignore it as he chooses. The scheme came into operation on the 1st May, 1974, and as I hope to show in the short time at my disposal that it is a much more generous and a much more attractive scheme than the minimum requirement of Directive 160. The financial benefits are much more generous than the payments which will be subvented by Europe under that directive.
I am glad to say that the scheme received a generous welcome from the farming organisations all of whom I consulted before it was finally settled. I consulted them several times. I listened to their suggestions and I implemented as many of them as I could. The final product was a scheme that was accepted by the farming organisations as a good one. It was also welcomed by the national Press and the farming Press as a good scheme. More important, this scheme has been welcomed as a good scheme by the people whom it was intended to help, the farmers.
To date over 1,100 applications under this scheme have been received and are being processed. These applications cover an area of 45,000 acres of land. I do not expect the House to believe that everyone of those applications will be accepted and will go through. However, the applications received since 1st May last cover 45,000 acres, and that is in marked contrast to the estimate Deputy Collins gave yesterday evening that the scheme would bring in only 25,000 acres of land in total during the currency of its operation. The record shows, that in the teething days of this scheme, before other farmers have seen the example of the people who will enjoy it, it has brought in 1,100 applications covering 45,000 acres of land.
Farmers retiring under the scheme qualify for the following benefits: an applicant who is 55 years of age or over may sell or lease his farm for cash, and in addition he will receive from the Land Commission a life annuity of £600, if he is married, or £400, if he is single or widowed; and a premium or bonus of 10 per cent on the sale price, up to a maximum of £1,500 or double the annual rent, up to £3,000. The directive requires payment of an annuity of only £400 for a married man, whereas we have given £600; or £280 for a single man, whereas we have given £400; and it requires that the pensions be paid only from 55 to 65 and does not require payment of a premium or bonus at all where the annuity is paid. Those are very much in excess of the minimum standards laid down by the directive.
I said the former Government made no representations in regard to the directive. That is not strictly correct. The pension will be subvented by Europe only between the ages of 55 and 65. We are giving the pension for life, but the former Government wanted the limit extended, and the basis of their argument was that the non-contributory old age pension in this country should not become payable until 70 and, therefore, the pension should go on until then. That means one thing to me, that the former Government had no intention in the then foreseeable future of reducing the old age pension non-contributory qualifying age below the age of 70. Of course, it is now at 67 and the point is not so important. Nevertheless, our scheme is a pension commencing at 55 or the date of surrender and going on for life.
It will be seen that for the applicant over 55 our scheme is much more generous than the model EEC scheme, and the extent it exceeds the directive will have to be paid for entirely by the Irish taxpayer, and is being so paid for. For the farmer who wishes to retire under 55 there is no annuity, but there is a premium on the sale price or leasehold rent I have already mentioned, and, again, Europe will not contribute to this premium or bonus. It will have to be paid for entirely by us.
If a married applicant under the scheme who is in receipt of £600 dies, his spouse becomes entitled to a pension of £400. If a person leases his land he retains the right to sell it or leave it by his will to anybody he likes, subject of course, to the lease. The scheme also provides for a cash grant to enable people to put their title in order. That is a very valuable benefit in most parts of the country, particuarly in the west, where titles have not been looked after, perhaps, for generations. The farmer can also retain the dwelling house and up to two acres of land.
Furthermore, the farmer may continue to work as a paid hand for other farmers. This is another advantage over the directive and something I fought for and gained. He may take on any other employment he can get, but the main thing is that under the directive he would have been precluded from working for another farmer. I pointed out that in our circumstances it was in the interests of the retiring farmer and the continuing farmer that the retiring farmer should be able and permitted to work for the continuing farmer if he wanted to do so.
As I said, during the course of this debate only three objections have been raised to this scheme: the first is that it does not apply to land which is being let; the second is that it applies only to holdings of 45 acres; and the third is that development farmers under Directive 159 will get priority. I should like to deal with these very briefly.
First of all, I concede that it does not apply to farms which are being let at the date of the application. My predecessor in office might have been able to exclude that when the directive was being drawn up if he had bothered his head to make representations about it. However, it is not a fatal flaw in the scheme because all it means is that a farmer who is letting his land will not qualify for the benefit of the scheme, but the Land Commission have plenty of machinery at their disposal to acquire that land for the relief of congestion or for bringing up transitional farmers or other farmers to a viable state. It does not put the land that is being let outside the reach of the Land Commission. The Land Commission can acquire the land, give it to congests, uneconomic holders, transitional farmers, development farmers——
And pay in land bonds.
(Cavan): That is something my predecessor could have attended to, too, when the economic position in Ireland and the world was better than it is today but, please God, before I leave office the economy will be booming again and we shall deal with that matter.
In regard to the second complaint, that the scheme applies only to farms not exceeding 45 acres, I would point out that that means 45 adjusted acres, which in most parts of the country would be 60 or 70 acres. But there are very important exceptions: there is no limit to the area of the farm that may be acquired if there are not sufficient small farms in the area to comply with Directive 159. They can acquire any size of farm under the scheme, give the pension and give the benefit.
Furthermore, there is no limit on the area of the farm which a disabled farmer or a widow of a farmer may surrender under the scheme. Therefore, this 45 acres provision is really not important here. It is not important because the important thing in the scheme is the fact that, if there are not enough small farms, we can move for larger farms and give the benefits of the scheme to them.
The third objection is that development farmers under Directive 159 have a priority claim to land surrendered under Directive 160. That is not correct because, in order to have priority, the farmer must have a development plan which certifies that he requires more land. If he has such a plan, I concede he has priority. In my opinion a fully fledged development farmer will rarely require more land. He may want credit. He may want fertilisers. He may want machinery. He will not want land. If, however, a transitional farmer goes to the advisory services and gets a plan from them and a certificate saying that, if he gets more land, he can become a development farmer, then he will fit into the scheme.
The objections put forward by the Opposition are put forward against their own directive, against the directive negotiated and accepted by themselves, and they seem to me to assume that this scheme is to replace all other powers at the disposal of the Land Commission for acquiring land. That is not the case. This is simply an additional bit of machinery given to the Land Commission to enable the Land Commission to acquire land and it complements the powers already at their disposal. The Land Commission will continue to use their existing and, as I describe them, traditional powers to acquire land. Where there are progressive farmers who show they can make a job of what they are doing, farmers who show they can become viable, the Land Commission will not hesitate to go after land that is let, land that is derelict, vast ranches, or land that is not producing, under their traditional powers and hand that land over to deserving farmers.
I am very glad to report that the Land Commission acquired an exceptional amount of land in the nine months just ended, both in terms of acreage and in terms of money. In regard to this directive and the scheme drawn up under it, the scheme is a good scheme and one which is working more than reasonably well. It came into operation on 1st May, 1974, and the House will accept as a reasonable statement that no one could expect that application forms would be rushed out, returned and processed immediately. There had to be a breathing space and time to get the scheme across but, in the seven months from the time the scheme came into operation, 1,114 applications have been received in the Department; 200 of those have been accepted as eligible and 120 have been rejected. The rest have yet to be processed. In 65 cases the price has actually been fixed and agreed upon with those wishing to surrender the land. Up to 50 have got as far as the solicitor's office to complete the legal technicalities and some pensions are already being paid to those intending to benefit.
I would say to the Opposition not to run down this scheme but, rather, to speak in favour of it as the north Connacht Co-Op has spoken in favour of it and likewise the national newspapers. I would say to the Opposition that they should encourage those intending to avail of the scheme and, if they do that, they will be doing a good job for those who are unhappy in farming and unable to make a job of it. They will also be doing a good job for those who want to continue in agriculture.
My colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, has been queried on a number of occasions as to what the position will be after 1977. The impression has been created that there will be an end to 65 per cent of farmers after that. Again, I appeal to the Opposition not to play politics with small farmers, not to try to terrorise them. I appeal to the Opposition to be frank with the small farmers because this is too serious a business about which to play politics. There is no reason why anybody should be worried about what will happen after 1977. There is no question whatever that grants will come to an end. That is simply not the case. What Directive 159 says is that the special concessions under which transitional farmers get the same grants as development farmers for most things will be reviewed in 1977. Even if the concession is not continued, that will not mean no grants for transitional farmers. At worst, it will mean only that they will get slightly lower rates of grant than they do now. That is the worst that can happen. But that will not happen because the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Clinton, will see to it that it does not happen. Someone says he may not be there but, if the forecast of the Leader of the Opposition in The Sunday Press last Sunday is to be taken as serious, we will certainly be here because he says there is every danger of their losing nine seats and, he says, they could win, but it is very unlikely. That is poor solace and poor encouragement for the henchmen down the country. That was The Sunday Press.
Any decision on this will be a decision for the Council of Ministers and not for the Commission and it is as near certainty as it can be that many Ministers will want to continue the present system. Certainly this country will want to continue it. The essential point is that there is no question at all of grants ending in 1977. Fianna Fáil will not be in power but, if they were, they would not stand for grants being ended. We will not stand for them being ended; we have an independent voice and we will see to it that grants will not be ended.
Another point made was about the floor price for store cattle. Deputy Gibbons suggested there was no problem at all about this, that it was done in the UK every day in the week. First of all, there is no comparison between our system of cattle rearing and fattening and the British system. Cattle reared in Britain are born on the farm from which they are sold for slaughter. Here they change hands several times, from the west to the midlands, from the midlands to the east, and so on. My information is that, notwithstanding what Deputy Gibbons said, there is no floor price for young store cattle in England. It is simply not a fact. It does not exist and it never existed. There is some sort of a bonus or a bounty for bigger cattle.
I know what it is to be in Opposition but Fianna Fáil are playing a game saying that grants will be ended after 1977, that only 35 per cent of the farmers can become commercial, and so on. Deputy Collins' forecast about only 35 per cent becoming commercial is just about as accurate as his estimate of the amount of land which would be surrendered under the retirement scheme. We know he was very far out there. The fact of the matter is that far more than 50 per cent of the farmers will become commercial, will become viable in one way or another. They will buy up small farms beside them, or they will get farms under my scheme, or they will get farms from the Land Commission, or they will go into intensive farming. The day of the 45-acre farm criterion being sacrosanct is over and finished with. One farmer could be viable or commerical with 30 acres and it might take 70 acres for another. The question of the 45 acres will have to be looked at.
When he was concluding his remarks yesterday evening, Deputy Gibbons made an attack on the Taoiseach in reference to his speech in Galway. He was out of order but he made the remark before he could be pulled up. He looked as if he were going to develop it but he did not. It was reported. Last Saturday in Galway the Taoiseach appealed for a sense of responsibility all over the country. He referred to the industrial arm of the economy and he appealed to the best growers to be responsible and not to put the economy in danger.
The Minister's time is almost up.
(Cavan): He made a reference to upholding law and order and in that he was referring to tyres being cut on lorries which were bringing manures from one place to another for beet growers. Surely that was illegal, and surely it should be condemned. The Taoiseach asked for responsibility right across the country. If this country were to rely on its industrial arm entirely, it would be a poor country. If it were to rely on its agricultural arm entirely, it would be a poor country. It is only by both arms of the economy pulling together and cooperating with the Government of the day in this difficult time, that we can pull through. If the Opposition are to be responsible they will not cash in on any temporary difficulties and encourage people to do things which might damage the entire economy. I appeal to the House to reject the motion in the name of the Opposition and to accept the amendment in the name of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was absent from the recent Fine Gael conference held in Galway. One of the reasons for his absence was the fact that he was afraid to meet the small farmers of County Galway.
(Cavan): Lousy.
The Deputy knows only too well why I was absent. I was doing the business of the country in Europe.
He knew the opposition which would have faced him if he had come to Galway and listened to the problems affecting the small farmers in the west. The Minister for Lands asked the House to reject this motion put down by Fianna Fáil Deputies. I cannot understand how any rural Deputy who knows the problems affecting the small farmers, whether they be in the west, or in the south, or in the north, can vote against this motion. I will read the second part of the motion:
...to introduce a scheme of financial assistance for those farmers who have been forced to sell young cattle at totally uneconomic prices, or who are trying to hold their cattle, or both, and immediately introduce a floor price for all young cattle.
When the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries spoke here yesterday he said this would be impossible. I cannot see why it should be impossible. We know that when something like this is promoted the first thing to be said is that it would be administratively impossible. There is no reason why it should not be administratively possible. Deputy Gibbons and Deputy Collins outlined how this scheme could be introduced.
We know that 1974 was a disastrous year for Irish agriculture. The recession in the beef trade throughout Europe affected all producers, but none worse than the Irish farmer. In November, the average price for adult cattle in Ireland was only £11.36 per cwt, whereas in Europe it was £20.92. The intervention system which was designed to offset the glut which occurred in 1974 failed because of the serious practical shortcomings in its implementation. We have seen those shortcomings ourselves over the past few months.
Neither the Minister, nor his Department, nor the specially chosen intervention board, anticipated the peculiar problems which would arise when we in Ireland adopted the EEC intervention scheme. We all know the trouble which has occurred at the marts particularly in relation to people breeding small cattle. Those of us who have attended marts during the past 12 months saw the low prices obtaining. Farmers were forced to sell their cattle at ridiculously low prices because they had no feedingstuff. They could not afford to run the risk of holding those cattle for the winter months and run the risk of losing them through starvation.
The problems in Ireland are different from those obtaining on the Continent because on the Continent the small cattle are fattened on the same farm on which they are born. The Irish store producer sells to the fattener who in turn sells to the fresh or processed beef markets in Ireland or abroad. Consequently, the intervention aid given to the Irish fattener does not always go back to the producer. This is exactly what happened this year. The intervention benefits which were supposed to be given to the farmers did not go back to the producer. It is unfortunate that this should be allowed to continue and that something is not done about it.
The people who really made money out of this scheme were the factory owners and the butchers. The intervention money did not go back to the small farmers. That is unfortunate but at this stage it is useless to talk about an inquiry because this will not compensate the small farmers who were forced to sell their cattle at ridiculously low prices. An inquiry will merely reveal where the money went to and this is no good to the people who have suffered. We had much criticism of Directives 159 and 160 and we know that when we went into Europe we accepted them but that is no reason why we should accept them for ever. Those directives should be revised from time to time and every effort should be made to ensure that the farmers are going to benefit by them.
The Minister for Lands has outlined the advantages of Directive 160 and I have no doubt that he is sincere in his belief that farmers will avail of the benefits under the scheme and will sell their land to the Land Commission and so make it available to farmers who are able to use it properly. In County Galway, a county where the scheme should operate and if it were attractive enough, should be eagerly availed of by the farmers, the results are not too promising. In a parliamentary question I tabled to the Minister for Lands on 10th December, 1974, I asked him the total number of applications received to date from farmers in County Galway who wished to avail of the farm retirement scheme. He said that 59 applications were received but that two were later withdrawn leaving a net 57. I do not know what the present position is but I thought that was a rather small number from a county where the scheme should be very attractive and where there is great fragmentation of holdings. Every effort should be made by the Land Commission to ensure that under this scheme, or under the powers they had prior to this scheme, the serious problem of fragmented holdings is eliminated because it is very difficult for small farmers to eke out a living but when the farm is divided into five or six parts it becomes extremely difficult. I hope that more money will be made available to the Land Commission because the big problem seems to be that they have not sufficient money to buy land and it is useless to offer land bonds because farmers are not prepared to accept them. The Minister might consider devoting some of the money brought in by taxation——
(Cavan): I do not want to interrupt but we paid £1,140,745 for land last year as compared with £130,271 in 1971-72.
You have to take into account inflation and the rising prices of land and I think the Minister will agree that even that money is not sufficient. It is an increase and I am not putting droch-mheas on it but much more money is needed and the Land Commission inspectors will tell you that they are hamstrung for lack of finance. They cannot go out and buy land on the market as they would like to do. Unless they can do this I fear Directive 160 will have very little effect in the west of Ireland.
(Cavan): Again, I do not want to interrupt——
The Minister is certainly succeeding in doing it.
(Cavan): So far as 160 is concerned let the Deputy bring on the farms and I will give cash for them.
The Minister had better tell that to his inspectors.
The Chair is very anxious that Deputies should be allowed to speak without interruption in a debate of this kind.
(Cavan): I am sorry.
The Minister would be well advised to pass on that information to his inspectors because that is not the impression they have. I do not think they have any money to buy land at present.
(Cavan): They have all the money they want for this scheme.
If the Deputy would direct his remarks to the Chair it would help to avoid interruptions.
If you asked the Minister to leave him alone the Deputy would make his contribution.
There are many points I should like to raise concerning agriculture but they have been covered by Deputy Collins and Deputy Gibbons and, therefore, I shall not deal with them. I have mentioned the case of the meat factories, the scandal that has taken place, and I hope we shall never see this repeated. It is a disgrace to Irish agriculture and to the Government to have allowed it to happen. Although the Minister might say he is not responsible or that he did his best to try to eliminate it, as the political head of a Department of Agriculture and Fisheries he must accept responsibility for what happened in the meat trade during 1974. Certainly, people have become millionaries overnight because of this scheme, to the disadvantage of the small farmers. Years ago, Cromwell drove thousands of farmers out of this country by brute force but the Government's lack of action in this field is driving them out quietly because they cannot hold on at present. They hoped that in the budget statement the Minister would have provided some benefit for them but the benefits made available are very little use to the farmers.
The Government made great play of the seed voucher scheme but it cost them nothing. The scheme was set up because one penny per lb was deducted from the meat processors who agreed to this to provide seed vouchers. That scheme has been totally inadequate, as the Minister admitted yesterday.
But there is an additional £2.2 million for it.
This is no great credit to the Minister because it is not a direct contribution by the Government. It is provided by depriving meat factories and other registered cattle buyers of VAT credit facilities and this amounts to something like a 1 per cent refund for costs. It costs the Government nothing. It is merely money provided through the factories just as when the scheme was first initiated.
It is going into the west where it is wanted.
Not half enough of it. We want it: That is why I am here trying to make a case for those people. When they applied for their vouchers they expected they would qualify but I fear something went completely wrong because people who made their applications in time were refused vouchers.
They will get them now.
Why did people who applied later get the vouchers? The administration of the scheme seems to have gone completely wrong. Farmers have suffered enough without this sort of messing continuing. I hope when the £2.2 million that the Minister boasts about is made available the scheme will be tidied up and that those people who have applied will be able to get their vouchers. Even if they do I am afraid that with the way prices are going it will not be a really great advantage but it will go some of the way. About 85 per cent of the applications for feed vouchers came from the west of Ireland, a clear indication of the plight of the people there. Farmers in the west are hard hit and for this reason money should be made available to them as soon as possible. If the feed vouchers are given to them they will serve as an encouragement.
The Minister for Lands stated that we were not to play politics with this thing of driving farmers off the land after 1977. However, I do not know how the farmers will be able to stay on the land unless they go into some kind of intensive farming such as pig production. Of course, we have all seen what happened to that industry in the past 12 months. The price of meal last year has driven small pig producers away from this type of farming entirely and I cannot see them returning to it. Pig production was a great source of income for the small farmers but they are prevented from continuing in this line because of the price of meal. The Government made a serious mistake allowing that situation to occur because the small pig producer made a noble contribution to the economy.
One of the most serious aspects of the whole situation is the question of fertilisers. The fact of the matter is that farmers cannot afford to buy fertilisers. I understood that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was to hold an inquiry into the stockpiling of fertilisers last year but I have not seen any result from that inquiry. Unless some kind of subsidy is given to farmers to enable them to purchase fertilisers we will be in a serious situation next year. The fact that fertiliser is not applied to the land this year will mean a drop in production in livestock and tillage next year, something which would be disastrous for our economy. A couple of years ago if a farmer had a suck calf he could go to the shopkeeper and order a ton of fertiliser but the same farmer would need to have at least ten such calves to be in a position to order the same amount of fertiliser now. The little nest egg small farmers had to tide them over a bleak period has gone on increased prices of fertiliser. If the sale of fertiliser drops the production on the land drops also.
I should like to remind the Minister that A. I. stations which have provided a very good service for farmers irrespective of where they live are in serious difficulty. Up to now a farmer who availed of this service had a good choice of breed of cattle but these stations are finding it difficult to continue because of lack of finance. Even though the price of the service has been increased the stations are in serious trouble. Unless the Minister comes to their aid there will be serious unemployment. The Minister should ensure that this service continues because otherwise we will have a bad breed of cattle and we will be back to the scrub bull situation. If this is allowed to happen it will be disastrous for our national herd. There is no reason why money cannot be provided for this service because foreign industrialists are given grants and every facility to establish industries here. The A. I. service is essential for the country's most important industry, agriculture. No money has been provided for the creation or maintenance of jobs in agriculture and that should not be so.
I should also like to point out to the Minister that there has been severe criticism of the brucellosis scheme. A constituent of mine has informed me that he has been held up by this scheme since 1973. In that year he had an income of £1,400 from milk and since then he has been trying to get his herd cleared so that he can return to milk production. Unfortunately, through no fault of his own, he is held up with the result that he has suffered a great loss in his income. It will take him many years to get back on his feet again. In my view the difficulty is that reactors are not removed from the farm quick enough. That complaint is common among the farming community. The Minister should ensure that reactors are cleared as quickly as possible. The scheme is costing the Exchequer a lot of money to administer but the farmers are suffering because of the delay in removing reactors. The fact that this man's herd has not been cleared has cost him in the region of £3,000.
Animal health committees were established with the approval of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries some time ago but I understand they are not functioning—at least the committee in Galway is not functioning— because the Minister has refused to sanction travelling expenses for the members. I have been informed that expenses were paid to the Cork members. This matter has been raised by many Deputies but we have not got anywhere. The committees serve a good purpose because they are composed of veterinary surgeons and those connected with farming. They should not be allowed to go out of existence because of a trivial matter such as the payment of travelling expenses.
The Deputy should relate his remarks more closely to the motion.
I have raised this because these committees could make a good contribution to agriculture and the elimination of disease in animals.
Sheep are very important as far as farmers in Galway and the west are concerned. I should like to ask the Minister if in connection with the French market at the end of the full transitional period Ireland, Britain and Denmark will have equal access to it as that which now applies to the original five members. This is a very important question with regard to the sheep industry and to producers who in County Galway are very numerous.
At present the position is that Ireland, Britain and France are treated in a similar way to non-EEC countries. Irish lamb exports can be stopped overnight when prices reach a certain threshold level. In addition, Irish exporters must pay France import levies. In 1973 we exported £7.6 million worth of mutton and lamb and £1.3 million worth of live sheep and lambs, which constituted a considerable contribution to our economy. France took £4 million worth of mutton and lamb and, thereby, constituted our major market. Irish exporters have established good contacts in France and foresee considerable scope for development but, all too often, they find themselves cut off with little notice and having to return to the United Kingdom market. It would be unfortunate were this allowed to happen at present because the main effect of such an occurrence is to disrupt planning totally both at factory and farm level. As a result our sheep population has remained static at approximately four million. Uncertainty prevents expansion, particularly when account is taken of the repeated delays in achieving a common agricultural policy for sheep. Therefore, I think this question should be pursued. Sheep provide a very good income for the economy. Every effort should be made to develop this market and ensure it is not lost to the farmer.
Deputy Collins dealt at length with the anomalies as he saw them in Directive 159. We know there are many things inherent in that which are not to the advantage of the small farmer. I am told by our chief agricultural officer that at least 75 per cent of the farmers of County Galway would not become development farmers under Directive 159. This is a very serious situation if one considers that those who are not classified as "development" farmers would not qualify for additional lands or for subsidised loans from the Agricultural Credit Corporation or any other agricultural agency. Where possible, I would request that the Minister try to gear that directive to suit the small farmer in the west, thereby ensuring that as many of them as possible remain on the land and continue to live and support their families there.
I appreciate that my time is exceptionally limited. Let me say that debate on our agricultural industry is always welcome. In the few moments at my disposal I want to say that, so far as Labour and Fine Gael people are concerned, we are quite satisfied the Government are doing a good job for our agriculturists, be they big or small.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
(Interruptions.)
Despite the decision of 1974 and despite the despondency being preached by Fianna Fáil, preached here today and last evening, the gloomy pessimism, the contention that we are all sinking—according to Deputy G. Collins last evening 65 per cent of the farmers are to be lost and 35 per cent only will survive under present conditions—I want to say in the few minutes at my disposal, and I shall say it here standing directly behind him, that we are fortunate in having Deputy Clinton as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in 1974, in 1975 and, I am sure, in the eighties, never mind the seventies. We all know and appreciate the job he is doing and the hard work he is putting into this Ministry. In the 30 minutes at his disposal last evening he outlined a fair account of his stewardship.
We heard from the Minister for Lands a statement on Directive 161. I should like to have, not the three minutes at my disposal in which to contribute to this debate, but rather an hour because it would be quite easy to tear asunder the ridiculous statements made by the Opposition last evening.
(Interruptions.)
In conclusion, I shall say that farmers——
(Interruptions.)
——of west Cork, mid-Cork, south Cork, Donegal, Connaught and Leinster are all satisfied that the Government are doing a good job for them in difficult circumstances.
First, I should like to comment briefly on the contribution of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. I should like to have it made known that but for the fact that this motion tabled by the Fianna Fáil Party was placed before the House, Deputy M. P. Murphy, as Parliamentary Secretary, would not even have had the two minutes he did have in which to make his contribution.
Might I further say that if he is sincere in what he has just said— that he would always welcome debate on agriculture in this House—then he might remind himself that the last time we had a discussion on the Estimate for Agriculture was on the one introduced by his Minister in October/ November, 1973. That was the last time we had open and free discussion on the activities of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I respectfully suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he use his good influence on the man of whom he speaks so highly—and rightly so he being his Parliamentary Secretary— and let the Minister use his influence on his Government colleagues to bring the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries before this House for discussion. Then we might have an opportunity of hearing contributions from other members of the two political parties which make up the Government because, let me say this, the man who for years portrayed himself the defender of the farmers and of their rights, whether big or small, the man who was front bench spokesman for Fine Gael for many years, Deputy L'Estrange, has not come into this House since this debate began. So well he might not because the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries at least knows full well what would have to be the contribution of Deputy L'Estrange if he were sitting in on this debate, as would be the contribution of many members of his party had they an opportunity to speak.
I, like Deputy Hussey, heard a little about the Fine Gael conference which took place in Galway last week-end. It is no secret that there, amongst those who are solidly and politically committed to the Minister and his Fine Gael colleagues, very harsh criticism was voiced.
(Cavan): The Deputy knows that is not correct. I am surprised that the Deputy should put an untruth on the record.
If the Minister for Lands would allow me, I will tell him where I got the information. I received it from two people who attended that conference and who came away in disgust. If Deputy M.P. Murphy wants to make a contribution on agriculture in this House at any stage, we would indeed welcome the opportunity of hearing it.
The purpose of the motion we have tabled—and, I might say, drafted by the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy J. Gibbons, and myself on behalf of our party—was deliberately to highlight in our Parliament the plight of the farming community and, in particular, the disastrous situation obtaining at present. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was far more honest in his contribution than was the Minister for Lands, because at least the former admits that there is a very bad situation. If Deputy M.P. Murphy, the Parliamentary Secretary, believes there is nothing wrong in the agricultural sector I might ask him to cast his mind back only a very short time to when there were farmers picketing Leinster House. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what motivates ordinary people to break the law by picketing outside this building?
Fianna Fáil should never ask a question of that kind in relation to farmers.
I am glad the Minister has interjected in this way because when, on a previous occasion, farmers sat outside Government Buildings——
Night and day.
——those who were urging farmers to stay there are now Members of this Government and Deputy Clinton was one of those people.
That is not true.
Let me remind the House, too, that at no time during the almost two years that we have been in Opposition have we attempted to use farming organisations in the political way that Fine Gael used them when that party were in opposition. No Member of this party went to any part of the country for the purpose of organising individuals to march to Dublin but this was done by the Opposition when we were in Government. It was an attempt to embarrass us. If the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister for Lands believe that everything is bright and rosy in so far as the farmers are concerned, we may take it that the situation is much worse than we see it. It is common knowledge that many Fine Gael supporters are asking whether the Government know of or have any interest in what is happening in rural Ireland. In my constituency many Fine Gael supporters have approached me saying: "What is wrong with that shower in Dublin? Have they no commonsense?" That question might be said to have been answered for them now by the Parliamentary Secretary when he says that nothing is wrong.
During the course of this debate we were told by the Ministers who contributed, as we were told on a previous occasion by the Minister for Defence, that we should not highlight the situation. We were told that to do so would create harm. It is our responsibility and our duty to bring to the notice of Parliament the situation as we see it, and we see it as a dark and dismal one. We tabled this motion in the hope that the Minister and the Government would do something positive and quickly to alleviate the problems. Knowing the Minister to be an honest man, I can only conclude that he approached the Clerk of the Dáil tongue-in-cheek when tabling the amendment to this motion. It took a lot of political neck to put down such an amendment and to pretend to have believed in it.
Hear, hear.
It did not take nearly as much neck as it took to table the motion.
How can the Minister ask that Dáil Éireann approve of the various measures introduced in support of the cattle industry, notes the improvement in cattle prices——
(Cavan): A £21 improvement is not bad.
——which has taken place in recent weeks and asks the Government to continue its efforts to safeguard the interests of producers? This amendment will be passed tonight by the Deputies who make up the two parties opposite, but in conscience they cannot vote for it if they are aware of what is happening. The situation is very bad. The softly-softly approach will not help them. Words will not ease the problems of those who are in such difficulty.
Regarding the farm modernisation scheme in particular and the debate in general, I have been extremely disappointed with the contributions of the Minister. I had hoped to hear from him of some positive steps to deal with the situation and that he would have held out a light at the end of some tunnel for those unfortunates in difficulty. This was not to be. Many people were waiting for something worthwhile to emerge.
I want to see the farm modernisation scheme in operation and operating as freely as possible. I would not accept the sly innuendos of the Minister for Lands who, falling back on his legal brain and training, tried to say that I meant otherwise. That is not so. I should hope that this scheme would operate as quickly as possible, but there are not enough staff available to put it into operation. It is a scheme that is top heavy with documentation. The keeping of accounts is a big problem, but something definite must be done. The farming community distrusts this Government on the question of accounts. While some of them might trust the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, I do not think any would trust the Minister for Finance.
(Cavan): Mischief and sabotage.
I appeal to the Minister to amend the farm modernisation scheme as quickly as possible so that those who are eligible for benefit within its terms may get them without further delay. Yesterday afternoon I put some suggestions to the Minister. All I can do now is to ask him to consider them.
I receive advice every day in the week from all places.
The Minister is not taking advice from the many people who are giving it to him. I am offering the advice to the Minister here in Parliament because this is what Parliament is all about. These amendments are vitally necessary if these many thousands of small farmers, who the Minister for Lands seems to think I am trying to scare, are to be given a chance to remain on the land. Otherwise, many small farmers will have to leave the land.
Nonsense.
Not so long ago the Taoiseach said there is no use for farmers who have less than 100 cows, that these people are not wanted and cannot survive.
That is another misquote.
I have a copy of the relevant speech on my file and shall let the Minister have it if he wishes.
I should be glad to see it.
I could tell the Minister the time and the place that speech was made.
The Deputy would make any sort of statement.
At this stage the soft words and high-powered political gimmickry on behalf of the Minister and his Government by this most expensive arm of government, the GIS, which specialises in manipulating news, are being found out, because people get tired of this sort of gimmickry when they see nothing worthwhile coming across. Might I suggest that even the director of this gimmickry section sees the situation for what it is—I understand he wishes to leave the GIS. Therefore he must know that the people whom the GIS are trying to con see the situation also and that so far as the Coalition Government are concerned his mission is practically over. The Minister and the Government stand accused rightly, of fostering unrest in our country as far as the European Economic Community is concerned, as a result of the manipulation of the media by those involved in the Government Information Services. People have seen too many headlines such as "Minister Clinton wins a fantastic deal for Irish farmers", "Minister Clinton makes a fantastic fight for——"
On a point of order, Sir, before the Deputy concludes it is my duty to point out that he has made an attack on a civil servant by saying he was trying to con the public.
That is quite right and I repeat it.
(Interruptions.)
I believe the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries stands rightly accused as a result of——
Deputy, I must put the question.
Question put: "That the amendment be made".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 61.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Thornley, David.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.