Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Jun 1976

Vol. 291 No. 6

Vote 39: Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £114,361,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st the day of December, 1976, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, including certain services administered by that Office and for payment of certain subsidies and sundry grants-in-aid.
—(Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.)

Before Question Time I was referring to various aspects of the working of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and trying to indicate some of the matters which may affect this Department now and for the future. The present year is a good period, as was last year, for the sale and export of beef. Unlike the year 1974, a good deal of progress was made in 1975 and up to now in the promotion of beef sales in Europe and elsewhere.

Again, we are entering a period of over-supply in beef. There could be a demand for cheaper beef, and once more the problem of intervention arises. It is apparent that in certain parts of Europe the market for beef is wilting, especially in Italy where a good deal of confusion exists regarding imports there. I would expect that the Minister will keep an eye on our trading relations with the Italians. Due to a crisis in their economy, there is an embargo on imports and this extends to beef as a product. Regrettably, the embargo provides for the operation of a 50 per cent deposit scheme there which extends over a period of three months. There is no return on the money which is invested in the product and, therefore, the customer stands to suffer and the market will tend to wilt. There are other signs, notably in the British market, of a trend towards trying to buy cheaper beef and they are looking at all aspects of this matter. We would want to be fairly active in trying to place our exports of beef in the best market. There could be a glut of beef, notwithstanding the fact that we have not the numbers available which would bring about a glut on our part but there are considerable numbers of beef cattle elsewhere.

If this trend develops, it could seriously affect our prospects in the coming year. I do not propose to make it a bone of contention on the floor of this House, but when a big country accepts the status of a partner in the Community it is highly questionable whether imports or essentials like foodstuffs should be taxed—because it is, in effect, a three months' tax; it is an embargo and the money is held for three months—and whether the authorities in Europe should permit such arrangements. I suppose the Governments concerned will argue that domestic conditions are forcing these arrangements upon their countries, who are in financial difficulties. However, if conditions like that continue for long, it could well bring about an imbalance in the sales of beef and could force intervention to the fore again.

While intervention was thought up as a means of evening out the marketing of certain commodities, and while it could be said to have achieved some of the aims for which it was set up, it can be abused and, in certain circumstances, it could cause a serious imbalance in marketing conditions if allowed to continue unchecked.

There is also the question of a sheep policy in Europe. I assume the French, who are leading members of the European Community, are not too keen on a sheep policy, but if it is desired to keep up the numbers of sheep, there will have to be leadership in this regard. There is no such thing as an intervention policy for sheep in Europe. I am not querying that aspect of the problem, but it is a pity that there is no arrangement at European level which would provide that the sheep-producing countries would know at any given period what the short, medium and long term position would be for mutton and lamb exports.

It is a matter which affects us very seriously and regrettably in recent years we have not depended to such a great extent on sheep as we did in the past. The price of beef has been so buoyant that we have rather forgotten about sheep and this is a pity. In a much more depressed period than now I argued that we should always try to provide a balance. The export of mutton and lamb was very valuable in the past and that situation could recur. No matter how well we may do with regard to sales of beef we should try to encourage the expansion of the sheep industry.

According to the statistics given by the Minister, the acreage of certain crops has fallen and this applies to wheat and barley. We should not allow this to happen no matter how good the market may be for other products. The Minister should encourage farmers to extend the acreage under barley, wheat and other cereals. We are very bad at providing fodder for livestock. We always go in for early and late grass but sometimes we may have bad weather extending far into spring. We are not very good at producing catch crops which could be a great standby to supplement the grass we produce and to feed cattle when fodder is scarce. Many farmers are debating these matters but I am afraid there may be a communications gap here. Last night I listened to a debate on milk production and the points made were most enlightening not only with regard to feedingstuffs but also with regard to herd management.

When we consider production we must also keep our exports in mind. In his statement the Minister said we should become export-orientated. It may be that this did not happen in the past. There are a number of elements that make up a good export-orientated programme for primary products. I am not only referring to the Department or to governments when I say this. There should be more reliance on discussions at farmer level and it should be approached in a co-operative way. The Department could provide a lead in this direction. I suggest to the Minister that he might consider having a series of lectures by experts in his Department who have studied the markets. These lectures might be held at regional level. I am not in favour of producing mountains of paper. There are mountains of paper in Europe as well as mountains of other commodities. The right thing to do with a mountain of paper is to put a match to it——

It would certainly leave more space in the home.

I was interested in the Minister's point about the desirability of becoming more export-orientated. I presume he has discussed it with his experts. The question arises how can we get people actively involved. I suggest we should try to do it in a practical way by contact, by sending out a few experts to the regions to encourage the producers to think in terms of exports. I am not blaming the producers or anyone else for not doing this already. We have had a peculiar history with regard to the sales of our primary products. We were in the shadow of a paternal neighbour who had enormous resources, who wanted cheap food and who could put the screw on us at any time.

We did not spend much money as an investment on our herds and we did not think up other methods such as those operating in central Europe. It should be remembered that in central Europe they have not the resources we have and they rely on catch crops to help out the other main feeds they produce. We have only come to realise that silage has wonderful attributes and we are only discovering ways of making better silage. However, there are other foods that can withstand the test when it comes to producing beef and milk. We should consider all those aspects in our efforts to get a better return for our producers. We have never thought in terms of producing a cheaper article because the State was always ready but the State will not be there in the future.

We should reconsider our whole approach to marketing. With our entry into Europe we got rid of the idea that Britain was our only market for our foodstuffs. Britain is still a good customer but at a better price. I accept that there are snags involved in selling to other European countries but we can surmount them. I should now like to deal with the farm building improvement scheme which will cease to operate shortly and the cattle headage payments scheme and the beef incentive scheme. A considerable amount of money has been set aside for these schemes. The headage payments scheme is not working well in practice. It was decided to operate this scheme on the basis of electoral divisions, but there should be a better way of applying this scheme. I have had occasion to write to the district offices in connection with this scheme and, although my query was dealt with speedily, the payment was not made to certain farmers on the grounds that they did not apply on time or that the application was mislaid. There should be a more equitable way of administering this scheme because it is not working well at present. The many complaints about it are well founded. The Minister should re-examine its operation.

In my view good work was done under the farm buildings improvement scheme. It was a simple scheme and many farmers extended their farmyard income as a result of it. I know of farmers who were in receipt of unemployment assistance and built up a farmyard income as a result of the encouragement provided under the scheme. I do not think the new scheme will work as smoothly. If it applies to certain categories of farmers, it will create difficulties. From our experience we know that the rules of the scheme were too severe for many farmers and they were not able to attain the status of a development farmer. Has the Minister thought of modifying these rules? In considering matters like this one must, firstly, consider the objective of achieving a certain standard of farming and, secondly, one is inclined to look to the past and become sentimental about the farmers with small holdings. For that reason it is a difficult matter to discuss without becoming scatter-brained about it. However, we should have a simpler set of rules to coax the farmer with a small holding who would have difficulty in achieving the status of development farmer.

We cannot have all development farmers. We started late in our efforts to change our farming pattern. The Germans are well ahead of us in evening out their farming system. The last time I was in rural Germany I noticed that they were providing the man they were taking out of production with the usual perquisites such as a pension and they were encouraging the man coming in—not with a great deal of subsidies—by allotting him roughly the equivalent of 40 acres to bring him up to about 80 acres. We may not be able to achieve that sort of pattern but we should be able, over the years, to achieve a more adequate acreage and with proper application, work and management we could create the sort of pattern which would be reasonably successful here.

It is regrettable that we should have such a fall in cattle numbers because this can create imbalance. We should take all possible steps to counteract this and encourage expansion of the national herd, whether through direct beef aids or aiding the cow herd.

Does the Deputy know that we have more cattle than when Fianna Fáil left office?

That may be, but there is still a fall.

It is amazing how all the Ministers love to go back to Fianna Fáil days.

Let us not forget we gave the incentives which were very good ones. We should have had a smaller number of cattle because we had operated an enormous scheme of TB eradication. This was one reason why we had fewer cattle. We had many different diseases. We still have them and the sooner we get rid of them the better. But we have now a market which, I suppose, was never so buoyant before. I hope it continues. Before the Minister came in I was referring to things that could cause a drop in this market. I hope that does not happen. At the same time we should again encourage the building up of the national herd to a level surpassing anything we had in the past. We have the scope to do that now. We are not using the amount of nitrogeneous manure that other countries use to boost their grass to carry more cattle. We are not careful enough in handling our grass, not careful enough in dealing with disease and this is one reason we shall find it very difficult to eliminate brucellosis finally. It will cost us relatively much more than the eradication of TB. Farmers must be disease-conscious before we can be rid of it finally. I regret they are not so conscious. I do not know what measures could be taken to make them more acutely aware of the damage which an animal affected by brucellosis can do, not only to neighbouring herds but throughout the length and breadth of the country. This is happening with the knowledge of people who should be alive to the consequences it can have. How often do we see cattle dumped in canals and in other places where they die? A person who would do that in other countries would not only be prosecuted but persecuted. It is a very serious matter and I regret to have to say this in a Parliament which represents a primary producing country producing the best beef in the world.

I wonder if there is a market in Europe or elsewhere for meat products with added value attached and, if there is, how long it would last, how much and what kind of added value could be added and what price should we aim at for the finished product. Many elements enter into this and I am not sure that there is a great deal in it— perhaps there is. It is said that vacuum packed meat in England commands one-fourth of the market there. This meat is different from what I was referring to. I am referring to beef that is specifically treated to have added value made up of a high content of elements that would make it attractive to the palate. If it is true that one-fourth of British consumption is of vacuum packed meat some co-operative society here should investigate that aspect of the market. I am thinking of a co-op that would be able to research the matter from the ground up. We should have reached the stage now when we would not ask the Department to do this sort of work for us. If we have good co-ops engaged in the handling and processing of beef they should be able to research this possibility and research the market also. This, I think would conform to the Minister's ideas about market orientation. It is no use talking to the man who is unorganised about market orientation until he has leadership which should come from his co-operative society.

I notice the land project is to be discontinued, as is the farm building scheme. We hope that the schemes which will be supplanting them will be equally as helpful to the farmers, because those schemes were a great help. The agricultural advisory services continue to be a great source of education to the farmers in each county.

I am sorry to interrupt Deputy Carter but I wish to advise him that of the time allotted to him about one minute now remains.

I was referring very briefly to our instructors' service at county level. This is the only opportunity one gets to pay a tribute to this service. It is a silent service which is laid on, it is always there, and from attending symposia and other meetings in the company of these men I can say they are always well informed and they always have the information one seeks. This service is always provided with good will. We should say this about our silent service and pay this compliment to them at national level.

At this time, on a nice, quiet summer afternoon I feel like saying a few words on this important Estimate, and if the spirit moves me perhaps more than a few words. Being far removed from the hustle and bustle of by-election work it is an opportunity that I seldom get to come in to speak on an Estimate. As the Minister is aware, we have a very busy Whip's office and to find time to come down to talk in the House is not easy.

However, I would like to say a word or two about the timing of the debate. It is unfortunate that this debate takes place at this time. It is something like two or three years since we had a debate on this Estimate, the most important Estimate that comes before the House, and it is unfortunate that it is used now at a time that there are two by-elections in progress and when many of those people who would like to talk on this Estimate are away in the hills of Donegal or some such place.

They should be ashamed of that on such an important occasion.

I have a feeling the Minister provided the opportunity to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government and to the Chief Whip to the Government, to come along with this Estimate to keep the House going for a couple of long days and to avoid divisions and for no other purpose really, and that is unfortunate. Were it not for the fact that a certain fast and very comfortable CIE train left the rails about five months ago I also would be in Letterkenny or somewhere in the hills of Donegal campaigning at this time. Unless we are able to round up somebody else, and I doubt on my side if I can do that, or unless somebody comes in on the Minister's side to speak for another few minutes this evening, the debate finishes and the Minister will get in. I do not begrudge the Minister getting in and I want to make that perfectly clear, but it is unfortunate that those rural Deputies who would like to speak on this Estimate are not here now.

We had from the Minister a very long and far-ranging speech. We have also issued by his Department a very valuable document on the main activities of the Department. I would like at this stage to begin where Deputy Carter finished by paying tribute, and it is right that we should do so, to the staff, from the secretary down, of the Minister's Department and to the staffs of all local departments all over the country. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is very farflung. It is a very wide-ranging structure, and certainly we have always got excellent co-operation, excellent attention from all officers and officials of the Department both at central and local level. This should be taken fully into consideration when the proposed restructuring of the agricultural education services and of the local agricultural committees and all of these bodies is being considered at a later stage.

The Minister's speech naturally refers to a reasonably good farming year in 1975. At the moment with weather conditions as they are and crops looking good the outlook for a reasonably good year in 1976 is also there. We must remember that in the previous two years, 1974 and 1973, we had what might be considered disastrous years for farming.

Not 1973. That was the best year.

1973 was not all that good either. To some extent it was good, but certainly 1974 was a very bad year as far as agriculture was concerned. At this stage I am not going to go into the reasons, the whys and wherefores for that, but unfortunately that appears to be the pattern of Irish agriculture over quite a number of years. There are good years and bad years. We cannot, I agree, blame the Minister for quite a lot of the bad years. Weather conditions, as everybody knows, play a tremendous part in agriculture and in the outcome of agriculture and whether we are going to have a good year or a bad year. If you have the wrong weather at particular times of the year certainly that will affect the outcome as far as farming is concerned for that year.

The reason I mention this at all is that I feel that since we had a good year last year and hopefully will have a good year this year, we should not regard everything in the garden as rosy. There are difficulties and problems. There is no question about that. Everybody realises and appreciates that, but when we have a bad year we shout and growl and bawl our heads off about the difficulties of farming and all the rest of it. When things are going well in agriculture, when we get a good break, a good year, we should get down to the task of planning for the future and for the development of agriculture in the future. A good year is the proper time to do that, to set our targets, to set our sights, to prepare and plan for the future and now is the time when we should be doing that. It has been said that the Minister did not refer to planning and development for the future. Be that as it may, the good year is the time to be doing it.

I come from Wexford, a constituency which to my way of thinking is an ideal one from the farming point of view as far as this country is concerned and possibly as far as the world is concerned. We have a mixed farming economy there where the growing of cereals, of root crops, horticultural produce, the dairy and beef, pig and bacon and sheep industries go hand in hand. The Minister will agree that Wexford farmers made an amazing success of that type of farming. At present in Wexford we are probably producing most of the country's wheat, a large percentage of the country's barley, of beet for sugar production and, at the same time, carrying on a tremendous dairying and beef industry. We have a huge sheep population and an excellent pig and bacon industry. Wexford is the ideal farming community where farmers work hard, long hours and are prepared to put everything into the land in order that they get the best results from it. On any one farm one may find tillage and beef and milk production. That is the ideal type of farming for this country. It is hard work. They are very industrious farmers who put a lot into it but who, in turn, reap a lot from their labours.

Wexford farmers have shown what they can do in horticulture. I was rather disappointed to learn from the Minister's statement that so little cash is being made available to that industry. In Wexford we produce thousands of tons of strawberries each year. Other fruits are grown also. Horticulture plays a very large part in the farming economy of that county. A man with a small acreage—and this is very important—can go into horticulture and make a good living from it. Wexford has shown the way in this respect.

There has been considerable talk in the course of this debate about market aids and so on. In the past we were too inclined to depend on market aids and too little on increasing production—seeking greater returns from the land and from our cows. We are told we have the lowest milk yield. If it is correct, it is a pity. I remember a few years ago in Wexford when the amount of barley or wheat taken from an acre was very low. It has since been increased, in many cases doubled and, in some, more than doubled. It is very important to increase production rather than seeking more aids and higher prices and, in turn, pricing a commodity out of the consumer market.

I was rather enchanted by something Deputy Carter said during the course of his contribution. Referring to the shortage and very high price of potatoes during the past year, he said we had more spivs to the square mile than any other European country. One questions the accuracy of that statement. Certainly in times of shortage, as has been the case with potatoes during the past 12 months, it is amazing how people can appear on the scene and make good money out of that shortage. For instance—reverting to strawberries for a moment—I remember seeing beautiful strawberries being sold last year at 10p, 12p and 15p per punnet, with a pound or more in each one, in Enniscorthy town and many other areas of Wexford. I saw the same punnets in shops not far from this House at double that price and, in some cases, treble—30p, 40p and 50p per punnet. Perhaps our producers, or the co-operatives who act on their behalf, would be able to do something to market this type of produce themselves, especially horticultural produce, vegetables, and fruit in particular. If farmers through their co-operatives or other organisations were able to market those items in our cities and major towns, it would cut out all those spivs to the square mile about whom Deputy Carter spoke.

I should like to refer now to the disadvantaged areas scheme. We had a chat with the Minister across the House recently in this connection. I think it was Deputy Allen who had a question down about the Macamores. I do not want to get into that argument again this afternoon. The Minister told us then that he had done everything in his power to have areas such as that included in the scheme, apparently without success. Sometimes, and I accept this, it is difficult to have accepted by the EEC some things we think should be accepted. I would ask the Minister to give that area very special consideration, to see if there is anything his Department can do to remedy the position there. As the Minister is aware, it is a huge area of land under sea level which means that it is certainly disadvantaged. A huge job of drainage is required to be done there.

The Minister did say on that day recently in the House that that area at one time had produced some wonderful crops of wheat. In a fine year with not much rain the area will produce good crops of wheat. It is true to say also that because of the manner in which it produced wheat and other products in the past it is one of the highest valued areas in the country. While some of the best farmlands in Wexford at present are valued at 50p per acre, an acre in the Macamores can be valued at anything between £1 and £1.50 and, in some cases, more. Perhaps the Minister would examine whether or not anything can be done to provide a suitable scheme for the drainage of that area. There is sufficient land involved to make the exercise worth while.

Another point I should like to raise with the Minister is the question of An Foras Talúntais. We have in Wexford two very valuable branches of the Agricultural Institute, Johnstown Agricultural College and the fruit research station at Clonroche outside Enniscorthy town. I would like the Minister in his closing speech to deal with both. Some farmers recently asked me the cost of running Johnstown Castle, the expenditure side and the income side, and the same as far as the research station at Clonroche is concerned. I realise that the Minister's Department pay an overall grant to An Foras Talúntais who deal with those particular research stations and agricultural colleges. There is no doubt about the value of Johnstown Agricultural College to the farming community and also to the agricultural community of a much wider area than Ireland. Remarkable work has been done there since this college was established. They deserve the thanks and praise of the farming community.

Another question which was raised very often during the debate was the cattle population. I do not want the Minister to tell me now as he told Deputy Carter, that we had fewer cattle during the final year of the last Fianna Fáil administration. It is too easy for Ministers—it happened three or four times today—especially during Question Time, to refer back to numbers, expenditure and so forth, four or five years ago. Things have changed immensely since then. The value of money has fallen by about half and the whole approach has changed. We are in a different situation. It would be as easy to go back to the good figure as the bad but nobody goes back to the really good figures.

In relation to cattle population we have heard Members of the House saying they are amazed at the drop in the cattle population in the last 12 months. It is easy to say that, but it is not so easy for the farmer who has cattle, whether they be cows, bullocks or calves, to refuse the good price when it is going. It is always very tempting to sell when the price is good because the fear is always present that the price will drop drastically. That is the danger all producers see. The Minister and the Department, as well as everybody else, must do everything in their power to encourage the farming community to keep cattle stocks up. If we let them go down too far the future of the cattle industry is in jeopardy. People are in agriculture to get the best price going, but the danger in selling when top prices can be got for cattle, calves and cows is that we will run down our cattle population to such an extent that it will endanger the whole future of the industry. I am sure the farming community and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are keeping a careful eye on this.

There is a long statement in the Minister's speech on disease eradication. I am sure everybody agrees with him on this. There is a very urgent need for disease eradication. The dispute going on between the Department and the vets is a tragedy. I do not know how it will be brought to a conclusion. This dispute must be ended quickly if the whole future of the cattle industry, the beef and dairy industry, is not to be destroyed forever. We were given a certain period of time to eradicate disease. We could not possibly meet the deadline. The longer this dispute goes on, the less chance, if any, we have of meeting that deadline. I appeal to both sides to end this dispute as soon as possible. It may call for sacrifices on both sides and it may call for a change of position. I appeal to the vets, the Minister and the Department, in the interests of the future of the cattle industry, which is so important to the country, to bring this dispute to an end immediately.

The EEC policy on agriculture has been mentioned in the Minister's speech and also by every speaker in the course of this debate. It is only right that Deputies should mention this because the EEC plays such a very important part in the agricultural business of the country that we must take note of it. We must do our part to ensure that EEC agricultural policy suits the country. I would hate to think what the £114 million Estimate would be if we were not in the EEC. I am, like the Minister and everybody else, worried about all the food that is going into intervention, all the beef, milk powder and milk products going into Europe. It is hard to understand when there is so much hunger in the world that there is so much stock-piling of food in the European Community. I may be soft-hearted, and that is no good as far as the hard-headed commercial interests of the world are concerned, but there must be an easier way of disposing of huge stocks of food stuffs than by putting them into stores, piling up thousands and even millions of tons of the finest food and letting it deteriorate or eventually selling it off at half its value to the Russians or somebody else. I admit this is a big problem. The intervention method helped our farming community to a great extent but there must be some way of disposing of the huge supplies of foodstuffs piled up in Europe to the starving world we read about every day.

I know, like the previous speaker, that the old scheme of grants for farm buildings and farm improvements will finish in September. I fear quite a lot of farmers are not conversant with the farm modernisation scheme or with the methods of securing grants to improve their holdings. There is need for much greater information about this, as far as this is concerned.

Sheep have figured very considerably in this debate and in the Minister's speech. In Wexford we produce a huge number of sheep. We had a very good export market in lamb from Enniscorthy, from a local factory. However, since France apparently were allowed to breach the EEC rules as far as the importation of lamb and the use of lamb is concerned, that market is gone. That is something the Minister will have to try to see restored to this country. He will also have to ensure that French importers play their part in the Community as we are doing.

Poultry and eggs have not figured very much in the debate and there are problems there. Rabies was mentioned by the Minister. This is a very important topic at present. I looked at a programme on BBC television one night during the past week. It was frightening to realise that this disease could so very easily be imported into Britain and from Britain into Ireland. This is a horrible and disastrous disease. The fear of this disease should be brought home to every human being in the country. A person who illegally brings a cat or a dog into this country should be dealt with very severely. I am sure the Department and our people at the points of entry are fully aware of the dangers involved if rabies was brought into this country. It is horrible to think it could be brought in so easily. I suggest that RTE broadcast the BBC programme or a similar programme to bring home to our people the dangers involved in this disease.

Research in agriculture is very important. In no branch of Irish industry is it more important to have scientific research than in agriculture. I am delighted to see this type of research being carried out in many of the Department's schools, colleges and institutes all over the country. It is from this type of scientific research that we will get the improvements and developments needed for our crops, animals and fruit. I want to refer now to horses. I do not know if the Minister mentioned them in his speech.

They are in the notes.

I am talking about his speech. I did not have time to go through the notes, although they are very valuable. Horses are very important to this country. We in Wexford have quite a number of horses. Some areas in my county produce good hunters and other horse stock. Of course, we would not like to think of competing with our friends in Kildare. It is a pity that the ordinary farming community do not appear interested in keeping ordinary farm horses. In my view, it is important that every county should produce horses.

We are not giving them enough money.

That is probably right too, and when Deputy Malone speaks after me perhaps he will look for that money for Kildare. It is important that we do not forget the horse. We talk about oil, the Arabs, the possibilities of being cut off from oil, the price of oil and so on. I am sure in a few years' time the horse will come into his own. I am not talking about horses for Lester Piggott, for races in the Curragh or Leopardstown, or beautiful hunters. I am talking about farm horses. We should do something to produce good farm horses.

Again, I appeal to the Minister and the Department to look more to the future, to plan for the future and to plan for a much better way of life on the land. This is very necessary because agriculture is one of the most important and essential industries of this country.

Speaking generally, I should like to thank Deputies, especially those on the opposite benches, for the constructive spirit in which they offered their comments on my Estimate. I said "speaking generally" because there were exceptional lapses from time to time that I hope I will be able to deal with. This is all the more noteworthy as we are discussing an area of activity where opinions are strongly held and widely different. Since I do not recollect that major policy issues were raised, I should like to concentrate on some of the more important points of substance to which Deputies have referred.

I remember Deputy J. Gibbons started off on a rather light note and quoted a verse from "Brian O'Lynn". The Deputy has done this on previous occasions and I had to remind him that there were more verses than one in "Brian O'Lynn." The one that he quoted was:

The bridge fell down and we all fell in

But there's ground under, says Brian O'Lynn.

This was the verse the Deputy thought was appropriate to the present time and to the state of Irish agriculture just now. I can remember another verse that might be appropriate to the time he was in office and during the Fianna Fáil regime when it was said that:

Brian O'Lynn had a house to be sure

He had the sky for a roof and the ground for a floor

He had a way out and he had a way in

There's nothing like freedom, says Brian O'Lynn.

The sort of freedom that the people had at that time was to leave the land as fast as they could and they exercised that freedom. During that whole period they left the land at the rate of 11,000 per annum. The figures will show that they left at only a fifth or sixth of that rate last year. Last year was probably the best year in the history of this country for people not leaving the land and for people starting farming.

The Deputy said that I had an adroit way of handling figures and that the good cheer that I was obviously demonstrating was absolutely and completely without foundation. He then went on to the theme that many speakers emphasised on every occasion when they spoke, that is the enormous drop in cattle numbers during the past year. Just to put the record straight I had to remind some of the Deputies as they spoke that we had more cattle at present than when my predecessor left office. That is a fact. I am not saying it for political reasons except that it has been said over and over again that there has been a drastic drop in cattle numbers. You cannot sell cattle and have them on the land at the same time. Never in our history did we sell 2,235,000 cattle in the one year. There were two features about this that were exceptional. Last year we sold 600,000 cows. We have to regret that so many cows were sold, but it represents about 300,000 cows over and above normal selling. This is presented as the greatest disaster in history.

It is easy to explain how it occurred. I think we got cow numbers up more by retaining cows that would normally have been culled in the past few years. We kept them until they had a couple of extra calves, then we had a bad period in 1974 and the people then said that this was the time to get rid of the uneconomic cows, milch cows to begin with, old cows, and the cows that were most likely to get disease and would have to be eradicated anyway. Also the man who previously kept a few beef cows or single sucklers felt in 1974 that he lost a lot of money, and it was brought home to him that this was not the way that he would get an acceptable income from a small farm. I would be glad if anybody opposite who has been dwelling on this whole business of the drop in cattle numbers can tell me how a farmer with up to 50 acres can live by producing beef and get an income that will keep him in existence. I have never seen that. We lament this change more than we should lament it. The figure is continuously thrown at me as an indication of absolute failure of present policies in agriculture. I can come back and say that a greater indication of failure occurred between 1969 and 1973, when tillage acreage was reduced by a third in the country as a whole. I have been told that tillage acreage went down last year. Of course it did. It should not go down. I have spent a lot of time on every public occasion exhorting people to get back in to tillage because I hold that at present there is no softer life that a farmer can have than tillage. I talk particularly of grain, and also of beet.

I am glad to be able to say that we had a record acreage and a record crop of beet last year and we have a quota that Commissioner Lardinois said we would never produce in this country. I am very proud of the fact that it was produced last year. Not only was it produced but this year we had far more applicants for contracts for beet than we could accommodate. That is a very healthy sign and an indication that the price of beet is good and that it paid the farmers well last year. What is the hesitation about going back into grain? I simply cannot understand it because with present day equipment it simply means that there is a couple of weeks' work in the spring and not more than a couple of weeks' work in the harvest. We can do in two days with big combines what used to take two months to do before. The ability to take grain as it comes off the crop in bulk is something we should all be pleased about. We all saw the long queues of lorries and sacks getting saturated out in those queues and out in the fields for so long. That is gone now. Grain growing has now been made a simple process and we have higher yielding varieties, more knowledge about growing grain and good contractors in most parts of the country. These contractors should be encouraged to stay in existence. It should be a very important part of advisory work, of co-op work, and of farming groups, to see that work is organised in such a way that contractors can remain in existence and provide a first class service for farmers. There is no doubt that there has always been a tendency in this country to spend far too much money on machinery that costs thousands of pounds and is lying in sheds or in many cases out in the rain rusting. The cost of this type of equipment increases with every day that passes. I will never cease to appeal to farmers for their own sake and for the sake of the country to go back to more tillage. This is the only way they will get an income.

I talked about the man with up to 50 acres. It is not realised that no less than 66 per cent of our farmers have under 50 acres. This is the man we have to be concerned about. This is the family farm. This is the farm most prevalent here. Of course there will be areas where tillage cannot be done because of the type of terrain. They are the exceptional areas. Tillage can be done in most parts of the country. Indeed, there are other parts where it could be done if many of the fences which have existed over the years were removed, and if the space Deputy Browne and Deputy Carter talked about were in use. That day is gone. These fences must be removed and that can be easily organised.

We have a shortfall of close on half a million tons of barley in this part of the country and across the Border there is a shortfall of one million tons of barley. We are guaranteed an outlet for barley. We have a particular marketing advantage in barley, and the price is good. I cannot understand when farmers are planning what they want to do, why they do not spend more time thinking about barley.

I was on cattle numbers and I should not have left them because something else was a bit exceptional about disposals last year. I said we disposed of 2,235,000 cattle. This is referred to almost as if it was a dead loss, a terrible thing to happen, as if the people who sold them did not get the money and put it deep into their pockets or into the banks. That is where that money went, or into the development of their farms. I wish more of that money had gone into the development of farms and I hope it will in the future.

The other exceptional sale was the export of 83,000 calves to Italy and 56,000 young cattle. No doubt they were exceptional exports. As I have explained to the House, there is absolutely nothing I could do to prevent those exports. We were glad to have them when they started. I was being told by Deputies on the other side of the House that calves were being sold for a £5 note. Some Deputies went further and said farmers were forgetting they brought them to the market and were leaving them behind, or giving them away for £1. In those circumstances we were very very happy to have the Italian market.

I think it was Deputy O'Connor who said we were far too dependent on the British market and not enough was being done about continental sales. In 1971, we were selling no beef to Italy. Last year we sent 136,000 tons of beef to Italy. That indicates that there is development of the continental market. We sent substantial quantities of beef to other continental countries as well. We have to consider how far we want to push beef and why we pushed beef in the past. The reason is very clear.

The beef incentive scheme was introduced in 1969, I think, because milk had become an embarrassment and because of the cost of subsidising and selling milk. Otherwise we would have to give it away at the time. It was to get people out of milk that the beef incentive scheme was introduced. The great mistake was that it was assumed it was possible for farmers with 50 acres to get an increase from beef production. It was never possible. If that type of farmer is getting out of beef and into something more intensive, good luck to him. That is the only way he is likely to have an income. Ten per cent of our total land area is tilled. In Wexford, as Deputy Browne said, 26 per cent of the land is ploughed.

About the ideal, I would think.

There is scope for more in Wexford. This indicates the scope there is throughout the country. While doing this you make more money and you create more employment. You have more feeding for cattle, pigs and cows. This is important. We can go a long way in improving the feeding of cattle. One of the great benefits if we are producing pigs is to have our own feed on the spot. This will be of tremendous advantage.

I was reminded on several occasions about the drop in sheep numbers. Of course I am sorry to see sheep numbers going down. There are obvious reasons for it. There has been no stability in the sheep trade because the French market has been opening and closing, with nobody knowing when it would open and when it would close. Immediately it closes the price goes through the floor.

Deputy Gibbons said we were all trying to make the French the Aunt Sally when the real villains were the British. I am sorry he is not here. He went on to say that at the Dublin Summit held last year during our presidency, an undertaking was given for more imports of New Zealand lamb. There was no protocol or no arrangement about the import of lamb, restricting it or otherwise. Never once was it mentioned at the summit.

There is no restriction we can put on the import of New Zealand lamb. There is no way we can keep it out. The sooner Deputies and people generally appreciate that fact, the better. They are more or less accusing me of not taking measures to keep out New Zealand lamb. There is a duty on New Zealand lamb and it cannot go beyond 20 per cent. That is the only restriction which can be operated against New Zealand lamb. People should appreciate this. If they can market their lamb competitively carrying that import duty, that is the end of it.

Deputy Gibbons said we would have had a common organisation of the market long ago were it not for the attitude of Commissioner Lardinois. That is not right. I want to put the record straight. Deputy Gibbons said this was because of his feelings of favour towards the British at all times. I want to put it on the record that, were it not for the support I got at the last meeting of the Council of Ministers from Commissioner Lardinois, I would not have got an undertaking that some sort of interim arrangement would be arrived at before August or the end of August—I cannot remember exactly.

I got that undertaking because of his support and because of his anxiety and concern to have an interim arrangement leading to the common organisation of the market by the end of 1977. It is only right that we should say this. I have had my own disagreements with Commissioner Lardinois, but, on many occasions he has been extremely helpful to us. He was one of the greatest defenders of the common agricultural policy and of securing from the budget sufficient money to run the common agricultural policy. He will be a great loss in Europe when he goes at the end of this year. I consider it necessary to say this publicly.

Regarding the future of sheep all I can say is that we are promised some sort of interim arrangement. I am not very hopeful that it will be a satisfactory arrangement but if it is not such that it will be a decided advantage to us, we will not accept it. In those circumstances we would then proceed to pursue the French by way of the court case with which we are ready to proceed at any stage but there is nothing more we can do. We have made quite an effort to stabilise the market for sheep meat by facilitating in every way exports of sheep and sheep meat to such places as Tunisia and Libya. I have had long discussions with the Tunisians in an effort to get agreement from them in relation to their taking carcase lamb from us. They have agreed to do this.

There are live exports and carcase exports to these countries and I am glad to say that prices so far this year have been good, a fact that has been admitted by speakers during the debate. However, if we are to instil confidence in the breeders they must be assured of stability for some years ahead. The production of sheep and lamb is not an easy line. It is a job which requires a lot of skill. The task is made more difficult in mountainous areas. These difficulties have resulted in fewer people being interested in breeding sheep. The situation is somewhat like milk in that respect except that the production of milk can be undertaken in more comfortable circumstances.

I was reminded, too, of the drop in the pig population but this picture is changing and we should be encouraged by the fairly rapid increase taking place in the breeding herd and in the numbers of pigs being delivered to the factories. We are hoping for a return within a year to the high levels we had in previous years and in this regard we are giving every possible encouragement to the people concerned in the industry. We shall never be able to say to people that there will not be a period when the margins will be very low or non-existent because that sort of situation is bound to occur again. The attitude in the EEC is one of fear because this is a production line which is suitable for factory-type production. The problem is that the cycle is short and pig numbers can increase very quickly if there is an absolute assurance of a profit element at all times. If people stay in pigs they will make a profit. Pig production is one very real way of rendering smallholders economic and of giving them an income sufficient to provide them with a reasonably comfortable standard of living for themselves and their families.

It is my hope that more people will find the courage to become involved in the industry, to get in at a level of about 20 to 30 sows and to proceed from there to fattening the progeny. Every effort should be made to maintain pig production as a farm enterprise. It is not my ambition that people would aim for the very large units of 600 to 1,000 sows. There are some such units and this is not a bad situation because those involved lead the way in standards and find out new ways of more economic production. These people have an example to pass on to those who are in the business in a smaller way. At Athenry the Department are providing valuable courses in training for the management of these units. It is our wish that there be an increasing demand for such courses because there is a great future for the industry if the whole business is undertaken properly.

When Deputy Gibbons was speaking of the awful happenings of 1974 he said something which I could not understand and, in particular, which I could not understand coming from an ex-Minister for Agriculture. He said that during that year there was a total absence of activity in the Department. That was an extraordinary statement especially in the the light of all the tributes that have been paid to officials of the Department during this debate. I endorse all of those tributes. I can only regard what was done in 1974 as a miraculous effort to save a situation that was extremely bad. Officers of my Department worked far beyond the call of normal duty in order to have quantities of beef taken into intervention in a situation in which there was no organisation in existence and where the task had to be undertaken and carried out within a period of a few months. During that period between 400,000 and 500,000 cattle were taken into intervention and last year no less than 500,000 cattle were put into intervention. That involved an enormous effort. When our own stores were filled we managed to have the cattle put into intervention on the Continent and we did the same in the UK while in the last analysis we put the beef in freezer ships.

In such circumstances it is a disgrace for any responsible Deputy to say that during all of that time the Department stood idly by. Unfortunately, there were remarks in the same vein from other Deputies. For instance, we heard that the feed voucher scheme was a total failure whereas it was a real success for the unfortunate people who had small store cattle. It was that scheme that helped them to keep their cattle throughout that difficult period and the fact that there was a fraud at the end did not take from the value of the scheme. I am glad that in the first instance it was possible to persuade the fresh meat exporters to participate in the scheme and that we were able by one means or another to get the money needed to continue financing the scheme while it was still necessary.

Deputy Crinion bemoaned the fact that there was a fall in cattle numbers and that it was not possible to get stores. He complained that he did not find it possible to get store lambs in County Wicklow, something which he had always found possible before. I am sorry the Deputy is not here because I wished to tell him that the Wicklow farmers have found a way of fattening their lambs rather than fattening Deputy Crinion's pocket, as happened in the past. The smallest decrease in sheep is in County Wicklow. This is due to the trouble taken to ensure that the people who produce the lambs get the maximum profit possible. Deputy Crinion in making these remarks is not expressing concern either for the country as a whole or for small farmers. I know where his concern lies.

I am very pleased with a development in relation to milk production. It might be said that the Opposition's contributions to this debate have shown a remarkable degree of agreement as between them and us in relation to farming and agriculture. Of course, when we get down to party politics we sometimes forget and say things which should not be said. A good deal of nonsense has been said about policies. Any person who has been close to this game for some time knows the lines. Farmers do not need spoonfeeding. All you have to do is to provide facilities and they will see where the profit is. Unfortunately, you cannot jump in and out of anything in farming and hope to succeed. You must limit your number of enterprises if you are to do it properly. I have been exhorting farmers—and I am thinking of the 100-acre and under farmers—to intensify their operations. If these people are to get an acceptable living on the land they must intensify. I believe it is there for the taking. The way to do that is by milk, pig production and tillage. We should concentrate on these areas because the evidence is there to prove that farming at that level will not provide an income from ranching and producing dry cattle or beef cattle. It is great to be able to say that we have exported so many cattle and got a good return for them. It is great for the farmer who can carry it when he is doing more intensive jobs. But milk production has been increasing. Last year we had an overall increase in milk production of 9½ per cent. What is more pleasing about it is that we got a 13½ per cent increase in the west. In the first four months of this year the increase in the west was 32 per cent. While it is difficult and expensive to start in milk production, it is obvious that the people in the west and the small farmers, are getting the message. Indeed, the people in Wexford are getting the message in relation to milk production.

They now have the advantage of the most modern equipment and advice on milk production. While their yields are still low in Wexford, the scope is enormous. They were not able to produce suitable milk for use in their cheese factory but now the quality of milk is second to none. We want to see this type of development in areas where milk was not previously produced. It encourages me to see the increase in milk production on the small farms in the west. Deputy Gibbons travels a lot to Europe and is doing very good work there, but he is not fully in touch with the situation at home.

I should like to apologise for Deputy Gibbons's absence. He is in Europe today.

I fully appreciate it. He does not seem to know that the current position in relation to milk processing is that in all but one milk processing centre there is more milk than they are able to handle. Milk is almost an embarrassment. A year or two ago there was excess capacity in each processing factory and a large amount of money was spent on new buildings and equipment, but I am very pleased that they will have to move again to cope with milk production at peak periods. The ways and means by which milk production can be increased and improved have been mentioned by some Deputies. Deputy Gibbons said there was a very substantial decrease in the number of milch cows. We have evidence that there was a small drop in the number of milch cows but we have had a very substantial increase in milk production. This may have been due to better weather conditions but last year we had a drought for most of the year. I believe the increase in production is due to better feeding management and earlier calving.

Deputy Gibbons stated wrongly that producers are not taking an interest in production or providing advice. They are concentrating on expanding production and improving quality in the various catchment areas. They know where they stand from testing milk as it comes in. I know from speaking to the managers of many processing factories that they are giving the necessary advice to producers. The Department have asked the advisory services in all milk producing areas to make a point of advising where necessary to ensure successful production and the cleanest possible product.

There seems to be a panic in Europe about almost every farm product. My advice to Irish farmers is to ignore this and to go on producing. The problem we are creating for Europe is a small one. We are not going to swamp Europe. I should like to pay tribute to Bord Bainne for their milk marketing programme. We have not yet had to put even a pound of butter into intervention. Very few countries in Europe can make that claim.

I agree with the Minister.

We had to put milk powder into intervention this year for the first time and we may have to continue putting it into intervention. Before the end of the year we may have to agree to make some contribution towards the cost of marketing the surplus. It has been agreed that some arrangement will have to be arrived at but we are as well able to take it as any other milk producing country in Europe. As one of the Deputies said: "We have some place to go; we have scope." And we have some place to go, unlike the Dutch, whose yields are now so high that they have no scope for expansion.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 15th June, 1976.
Top
Share