Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 Jul 1960

Vol. 183 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 46—Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."—(Deputy Dillon.)

One thing during the debate which I regretted very much was when Deputy Blowick was speaking and referred to the £10 to £20 valuation, sitting at that time beside the Minister was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance who asked: "Is everything not being done for that type of man?" He referred to the fact that he is in a certain favoured position as regards rates and that he has certain grants for house building, fencing, and so forth. I was surprised by an interjection of that character from a Deputy who represents a rural constituency. I thought it was only Dublin city Deputies, and those who do not know the position in the country, who would make that kind of reference.

The fact is that the man with £10 to £20 valuation in the west of Ireland —I do not know what the position is in Donegal; I think it is much the same —is the one man for whom nothing is being done. He is an unpaid labourer. I am glad the Minister is in the House at the moment. I am perfectly certain he is one man who appreciates the truth of what I have said. In my own county, in my own village, the pattern of emigration is assuming serious proportions. It is not now the children who are going; the fathers and mothers are going also. The key is turned in the door and the house is left empty. Of course, the man with the £10 to £20 valuation has not even a week's wages coming in. His cattle and sheep are no longer saleable. His potatoes were a dead loss to him last year. It is a very sad state of affairs. I suggest to the Minister that he must take steps to remedy the situation by regulating prices in such fashion that that type of tenant farmer will get some return for his work.

The one crop that would give him a return is the beet crop. What is the position? A penal tariff has been imposed on sugar exported from here into Britain, a tariff from which our competitors are free. Worse still, the proceeds of that tariff go towards subsidising our competitors in Britain. That penal tariff formed no part of the 1948 Agreement. Had it done so, it would have been a strange thing that they would have waited until 1957 to impose it. That was the first year in which it came into operation. I appeal to the Minister to use his good offices to have that tariff wiped out so that the £10 to £20 valuation farmer will be able to continue using his land and make a living out of it. Beet is the only crop that offers him a return for his labours. He has to meet the increased cost of living like all the other sections of the community; unlike the other sections, he has not received any compensation. I make an earnest appeal to the Minister to consult with his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with a view to getting that penal tariff removed.

It is no wonder that at certain times the Government's policy in relation to various matters comes under grave and serious consideration by the people. We must, I think, all agree now that, no matter what test of policy there has been in the past, there are very few who could deny today that the Government are very speedily on the way out. The results of the local elections and the results of the by-election in the farming constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny are a clear indication of the realisation on the part of the agricultural community of the manner in which they have been deceived by the Government. Not alone did this Government promise too much; it gave too little.

I often wonder if the members of the Government, particularly the Minister for Agriculture, ever cast their minds back on the promises they made and the undertakings they gave and, in turn, wonder how they ever received the confidence of the electorate. From every platform and every meeting place, in the newspapers, on the radio, and, particularly, in the election address, which was put into the hands of every citizen before the general election, special reference was made to agriculture. In the pamphlet issued, details were given of agricultural policy. They had a plan for agriculture. The pamphlet dealt with the fundamentals of a sound agricultural policy.

Fianna Fáil always seems to have good plans and a sound policy before an election but, the minute the election is over, the plans vanish into thin ai and the promises and undertaking become things of the past. Realising that this is an agricultural country, one would expect the Minister for Agriculture, when introducing the Estimate for his Department, to declare that no matter what expenditure of energy is made by anybody, it will not change it from being an agricultural country. There is only one industry in the country. There can be only one industry and it is agriculture, and if the agricultural industry is flourishing, then everybody is flourishing. More money is in circulation; there are good markets and good fairs, good prices for all farm produce; and the best spenders are the farmers when they have money. They are the biggest payers and the best employers in the country today. The farmers are keeping the country shops going; they are the backbone of the country; and the day they are forced into poverty and distress is the day when the whole country will collapse completely.

Within the past 12 months, farmers have begun to ask themselves will any lead be given to them by the Government? Is the Department of Agriculture in existence at all now? The Minister himself has been surrounded by complete silence. There has not been a single word in relation to farming policy. Everything has been allowed to drift—wheat, oats, beet, barley, pigs, sheep, wool and cattle. Where is there any policy on all those things? I venture to say that if the Minister meets any group of independent-minded farmers they will tell him that not since the dark days of the Economic War have they experienced such great difficulties as in the past 12 months. They have experienced difficulties in every branch of farming, whether it be dairy farming, tillage farming or livestock.

Now that the Government have been very seriously chastised by the electorate, one would expect that they would at least change their attitude towards the farming community and do something towards putting agriculture in its rightful place as the main industry of the country, but the Minister's speech introducing this vote was nothing more than a well-phrased statement of apology. I have not seen anything in his speech which gives any hope to the farmers that they will be better off in the year to come as compared with that gone past, and I should like to direct attention to the fact that one of the pledges made by the Fianna Fáil Party at the last general election was that they would introduce a new marketing system. The Fianna Fáil pamphlet issued to each elector went on to say that it was intended to encourage and help farmers' organisations to set up marketing organisations, and to give them all the necessary powers and sufficient funds to enable them to increase exports of their products, and to improve the quality, dividends, and all other matters affecting them. What have they done about that in the past three years?

We have heard Deputies speak about how difficult it is to obtain Irish bacon, Irish butter, and Irish cheese in Britain and it has taken the Fianna Fáil Government a long time to realise that Ireland, in that respect, could not be better geographically situated. We are probably the most convenient agricultural country in the world to the greatest market in the world—the British market—but while every other country was leaving nothing undone to get into that market, a group of simple minded people here, known as the Fianna Fáil Party, were doing everything they could to deprive our farmers of the benefits of the British market, to discourage them selling in it, and to make their access to it more difficult.

Now I am glad the time has come when a Fianna Fáil Government realises the British market is the most profitable one we could have. In addition to that we happen to be in a very fortunate position because, unlike many other countries, if we increase our exports to Great Britain we have our own people there to eat them, but in the case of Irish bacon, it is a well-known fact that very few of our emigrants in Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, London, Hull and other large English cities can get it. I wonder why?

There was a time not very many years ago when there were markets in rural Ireland known as the pig markets. I have seen the Waterford pig dealers attending fairs in the midlands, buying pigs and paying good prices for them. I have seen wagon loads of pigs leaving Mountmellick railway station for the Waterford factories. But what is the position today? Our pig markets have gone. They have disappeared. Our small farmers are no longer interested in keeping pigs and we find that Irish bacon cannot be had in Britain. There is something very wrong with our marketing system when that happens.

We were told by one Deputy that a question was addressed to the owner of a well-known provision store in London as to why he did not stock Irish bacon and his reply was: "We might get a few sides today but it may be some months before we get any more." Does the same situation not apply to Irish cheese, and is it not time something were done when we hear Deputies making speeches on the serious situation that has arisen in regard to malting barley? It would be possible to increase greatly the acreage of malting barley here but we do not seem to be able to push the market for Irish whiskey. If there were a greater market for Irish whiskey, there probably would be a greater demand for malting barely. Therefore, it would be a very profitable crop for the farmer.

The story in relation to Irish whiskey is the same as that in relation to Irish bacon. In the hotels and licensed premises throughout Britain, you will see every kind of whiskey, particularly Scotch, displayed; but if you ask why Irish whiskey cannot be obtained, you will be politely told that they have not seen the traveller and cannot get supplies. That shows there is something seriously wrong with our marketing system.

The Minister for Agriculture is not responsible for the export of Irish whiskey.

I agree, but I want to direct his attention to the fact that a greater drive for the export of Irish whiskey would be reflected in an increased production of malting barley to the benefit of the farming community.

It is not the Minister's responsibility.

I am trying to expand the consumption as much as I can, otherwise.

Otherwise—I shall not comment on that. In their announcement of policy prior to the general election, the Government referred to advisory services and stated "advisory services will be extended and improved as rapidly as possible." That one was worded very wisely and cutely. "Local services will be under the control of the county committees of agriculture and will be reconstituted so as to strengthen farmer representation on them." The position is that there are now fewer advisory services for farmers.

Take, for example, the Parish Plan. Was there any valid reason why the Minister should have abolished it? The only reason it was abolished was sheer spite, because the Government realised it was finding favour with the farmers and was assisting the development of the parish very much. But, like the Land Project, it was sabotaged. Many farmers derived great benefit from the Parish Plan. It was responsible in many areas for the production of healthy livestock, for bringing about increased production, additional fertilisation and a general improvement in agricultural knowledge. All I can say from this side of the House is that the Parish Plan will be resumed without delay the moment there is a change of Government. We also give the undertaking that the Land Project will be resumed once there is a change of Government.

I should like to hear from the Minister if he has given any serious thought to the question of reviving Section B of the Land Project. Is he aware that a good deal of unemployment has been caused because of the failure of the Government to implement Section B? Some time ago a communication was addressed to the Minister from the National Land Reclamation Association. It pointed out that land drainage contractors had been encouraged to purchase heavy machinery by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Dillon, at the time when Section B was under full steam. Many of these people invested their savings in such machinery and others went into debt in order to purchase it. But they found that the Minister completely dismantled the scheme by the abolition of Section B. One of the Minister's predecessors, the late Deputy Tom Walsh, also encouraged farmers to purchase heavy machinery for land reclamation work and gave an assurance that there would be ample work available. Contractors naturally assumed that Section B would be continued, and on that understanding, they invested large sums of money in drainage equipment.

Is there any reason why the Government should have discontinued Section B of the scheme? The only reason was this. The Land Project was designed to convert waste land—boggy land, marshy land, land covered with rocks, stones and furze bushes—into good land. That the farmers appreciated the value of that scheme is proved by the large number who availed of it, particularly of Section B. Section B gave them great benefits, added considerably to our national wealth and contributed generously to the million acres of land we have now reclaimed.

The Government were jealous of the success of the scheme. They thought that the name of Dillon might sink down too deep into the hearts of the Irish farmers and the only attack they could make on the energy, drive and initiative of the then Minister for Agriculture responsible for the scheme was to attack the scheme and dismantle it in the same way as they attacked and dismantled the Parish Plan. They were not concerned with reclaiming land, with benefiting the Irish farmer or with whether we were to turn our waste land into good useful land; they were concerned only with bickering, bitterness and spite. That is why the Land Reclamation Scheme and the Parish Plan were attacked.

The time has now come, however, when the farmers see that that type of spiteful action does not pay, even in politics, in the long run. The Parish Plan and the Land Reclamation Scheme are contributing very substantially towards the downfall of the Government in rural Ireland. I do not know if Deputy Dillon said so yesterday but if not, he has said it on previous occasions—the moment there is a change of Government, Section B of the Land Reclamation Scheme will be revived. It is only right that that statement should be made in this House——

I think the Deputy has already made it.

——so that farmers will know exactly where they stand in relation to the difference between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil policy on agriculture.

Is this to stop them from using the A Scheme?

Those people who have sunk their money in machinery and who were disappointed at the curtailment of work and the vast number of labouring men who would have been given employment on these schemes should also know it. It is only right that it should go out from here that a change is desirable and necessary and that it will be forthcoming when the right time comes.

Credit facilities always provide a very good headline for pamphlets before an election. People who lack these facilities are always first to read about them. A very important pamphlet was published before the last general election and the heading was "Credit Facilities for Irish Farmers". Naturally enough, if a pamphlet is distributed at a Church gate where big numbers of farmers anxious to avail of credit facilities are present and if it is an attractive pamphlet such as was issued by Fianna Fáil, they will read it and it is certain to catch on and attract votes. It said:

Credit Facilities—To help towards increased production an extended system of agricultural credit will be provided. Increased investment in agriculture is an essential condition of expansion.

Naturally every farmer in the country thought credit facilities would be made available to him the moment there was a change of Government. What is the real position? What has happened since? There are no credit facilities now that were not available when the inter-Party Government were in office. As a matter of fact, any farmer will tell you that there is a great shortage of credit for farmers. While the figures of the Agricultural Credit Corporation may reveal that more loans are being given—I do not doubt that—the loans are for very small amounts, £25, £50, £75 and £100.

If the Government are anxious to paint a picture of providing credit facilities for so many farmers, it is very easy to say that you have given loans to four farmers if you give them £25 each, but I remember the credit facilities that were promised before the general election. There is little use in giving credit facilities unless they are worthwhile facilities. The scheme that was put into operation, sponsored by the N.F.A., and conducted through the banks, for the replacement of T.B. reactors was a step in the right direction but how many worthy and deserving farmers were in a position to avail of it?

Credit facilities are desirable and necessary but we must give the facilities to those who need them. Any man who has a land certificate, a clear title and full deeds can go into any bank and get any money he wants but a big number of people have not their land certificates and have not clear titles possibly because of failure in many cases to have proper registration of title. It may be that no administration was taken out: the owner of the farm sometime in the past may have died intestate: there may be family settlements to be discharged which were never complied with because of lack of credit. There are a thousand and one sound reasons why farmers cannot produce land certificates in the bank to obtain money.

That is why I say the Agricultural Credit Corporation, as at present set up, is an asset to a well-off farmer who needs money to carry him over from one end of the year to another because he is carrying big stock. He has his land certificate but the small, mountain farmer with a valuation less than £30, the type of farmer on whom the country depended during the emergency for tillage and on whom it now depends, cannot get credit facilities from the Agricultural Credit Corporation.

The time has come for a general review of the position and a new and up-to-date policy of credit facilities for small farmers is essential. I trust that some arrangement will be made by the Government this year, having regard to the fact that not for many a long day have farmers experienced such great difficulties and trials as they have experienced in the past 12 months. They are the only section of the community whose incomes have dropped considerably. According to statistics, in 1957 the farmers' income was £150 million and last year it was £133 million. There is no type of person that any Deputy can mention, other than the farmers, whose incomes have not been steadily increased to meet the increase in the cost of living. Due to the policy of the Government and the manner in which they have mishandled affairs, the one section whose income has dropped considerably are the farmers.

That is why the Deputy opposed the increase in the price of milk?

Their income has dropped considerably.

And the Deputy wants it to stay that way.

We have reached a new stage, as has been pointed out here. Small farmers are flying out of the country with their families. That has become very evident in recent months.

On Tuesday, 14th April, the Irish Independent carried a report of a statement made by the Bishop of Elphin, Most Reverend Dr. Hanly. His Lordship was speaking at the opening of a social centre in the village of Tulsk, County Roscommon. He is reported as having said:

Only a few days ago I was around this parish and it was pointed out to me that no fewer than 17 homes had been closed in an adjoining district; that 17 young people had turned the key in the door to seek a livelihood in England.

We are told here by Fianna Fáil that those things never happened, that there are no houses locked up in the west of Ireland, that there are no houses locked up in the midlands; that if farmers have gone away they have gone on holidays and will be back. Who believes all this? Is it not true to say that there are more small holdings locked up and vacant than there ever were in the history of the country? The only time comparable with the present is 1847. The years of the Famine are the only years comparable with today as far as life in rural Ireland is concerned.

His Lordship the Bishop of Elphin continued as follows on the same occasion:—

The same sad tale will be related in other parts of Roscommon but unfortunately the extent of the rot is not known.

That is a statement by the Bishop of Elphin. Did the Government take any notice of it?

It is unknown. That is the whole point, is it not?

Yes, but it is known to his Lordship the Bishop of Elphin.

No; he said it was unknown.

Order. Deputy Flanagan.

Surely Deputy Booth cannot set himself up as an authority for the Bishop of Elphin who can say what he likes to say in his own diocese?

No, but he said it was unknown and I agree with him.

It is unknown and far more have gone than even his Lordship realised or knew but he did know about 17 people locking up their houses and going. That is only one instance. Let us have another instance. We shall go this time to a statement published in the daily papers by another Irish bishop, the Bishop of Cork. Speaking at a Confirmation ceremony in Ballinspittal, as reported on 24th April, His Lordship said:

During the past year, for instance, the total number of farmers and farm labourers in the country fell by over 4,000.

Yet there is no outcry, neither from the Government working the Constitution nor from the economists advising them.

Further on His Lordship is reported as having said:

They worry; their families worry, but they neither speak up themselves nor have they anyone to speak up for them.

Will anyone speak today for them? Is there anyone in the Government who will speak for them? Is there anyone in the Government who gives two damns whether they come or go?

I am taking as an example only these statements of two prominent and eminent Churchmen who know their dioceses, who know the conditions under which the people live in the rural districts of their dioceses and who deplore the fact that so many small farmers are leaving the land and seeking a livelihood across the Irish Sea. Yet, we are told that everything is all right, that there is no need for anyone to worry, that Fianna Fáil have a policy and that so long as Fianna Fáil are there everything is all right.

People are disappearing from this country. The greatest sign of serious rot in any country is when people fly out of it in the way described by the two Irish bishops in the past few months. The story which these statements relate in regard to Roscommon and Cork are typical of the stories that can be told about the midlands. People are inclined to say that people are flying only from the west of Ireland; that houses are being locked up only in the west of Ireland. There are many holdings locked up in the midlands also. This is a new type of emigration, a type of emigration to which the Government have closed their eyes. They are not anxious to see. The most serious type of emigration is when the farmer, the backbone of the country, leaves and takes his family with him. It is a very sad and serious reflection on the Government. In relation to every branch of agriculture they have deceived everyone associated with it.

I should be glad to hear from some of the Government Deputies who can be very vocal outside but who are mute inside the House. Will the Minister for Agriculture tell the House was it on his authority or on whose authority it was that Fianna Fáil Deputies promised 82/6d. a barrel for wheat?

During the last general election campaign; and even after the general election, they promised 82/6d. a barrel for wheat. Did the Deputy not join in the promise?

Naturally he would not. There are no wheat growers in Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown.

I did not have to and I did not want to.

But the Deputies from agricultural districts, wheat-growing areas, went a little further than that. Having promised 82/6d. a barrel for wheat, they promised 41/- a barrel for barley. What are the facts? There was a levy on wheat, and the Minister for Agriculture has stated that the levy will be imposed on wheat again this year. I am not a bit sorry for the farmers who fell for that.

It was their own scheme.

It is the Minister's responsibility.

Yes, and I accept it. You have always pleaded for co-operation. I have given co-operation. I have taken their own scheme.

It is the Minister's responsibility.

I accept responsibility, but it is their submission to me.

Does the Minister accept every submission put up to him?

Not necessarily.

We are asking the Minister to drop the levy.

That is fair enough. The Deputy is entitled to ask me any question he likes.

I can ask the Minister anything I like but whether the Minister will do it or not is another matter.

When I am co-operative, I am blamed and when I am not co-operative, I am also blamed. What am I to do?

There is no need for the Minister to get vexed.

I am not getting vexed. I want the Deputy to deal with the question of co-operation.

We shall deal with that, too. There was not much co-operation when the Minister threw the Land Project people out of the office.

They rebuked the Deputy for alleging that in this House before. I sent them the report of the discussion in this House and I had a letter rebuking the Deputy and repudiating his right to describe in that manner the discussion they had with me. Of course nobody takes the Deputy seriously.

I am surprised the Minister went to the trouble of noting my remarks.

We shall have a bit of fun for the rest of the evening.

We shall have a bit of fun on the levy for a change.

I would rather hear the Deputy doing some further craw-thumping.

I shall leave craw-thumping to the Minister in county Cavan. The Minister got a reply to his craw-thumping in county Cavan from some of his own constituents.

Will the Deputy come back to the Estimate?

I have made my remark.

I have made my reply.

I shall make it again when I think it is fit and proper to do so.

I am sure the Minister knows the source of my reply.

I was never a member.

Of the Knights.

We are getting far away from the Estimate.

Is the Minister for Agriculture availing of another opportunity to attack the Knights of Columbanus?

The matter does not arise at this stage. The House is discussing the Estimate for Agriculture and I would ask the Deputy to relate his remarks to the Estimate.

And the Minister to withhold his comments until his reply.

And the Minister to withhold his comments until his reply.

I think you ought not to allow the Minister for Agriculture to make reference in this House to the Knights of Columbanus.

I said I was not a member. I shall say that anywhere.

There was no reflection cast on anybody. Let us come back to the Estimate.

And let the Minister keep off the track of the Knights of Columbanus.

Am I to be threatened now?

There is no question of threats.

The Deputy will make me quite nervous if he continues like that.

That is co-operation and a bit of advice. Let us come back to the levy again. The wheat levy is not welcomed by the farmers. Apart from that, certain undertakings were given earlier this year by the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party that the wheat levy was being imposed for one season only. This year, the wheat levy is reintroduced. I should like to ask the Minister if he can say how much per barrel the wheat levy will be this year. He did not indicate the amount. Will it be 5/- a barrel?

It will be the same, more or less.

May we take it that it will be in the region of 5/- a barrel?

It will be the same, more or less.

Right. The wheat situation is unsatisfactory, and the failure of the Minister to keep the price of barley in accordance with his promise has also met with the disapproval of many Irish farmers.

I wish to make reference, as Deputy Donnellan has done, to the question of beet contracts. Beet is a good cash crop and in recent years beet has been a very good paying crop. The beet cheque comes to the farmer at the right time of the year, that is, around the Christmas season, after the harvest and before the spring. It is not so very long since our farmers were asked by the Government to increase their acreage under beet. The farmers found that beet was a profitable crop and they engaged in its production but last year and this year they were denied contracts for the production of beet.

If the Minister were asked why there were not more contracts made available, his reply would be that the Sugar Company and the beet factory could not handle any more beet. I do not see what is to stop the Minister from consulting his colleagues and explaining the seriousness of the situation in relation to beet production and pointing out what an important source of income it is to the farmers. He should urge them to erect another sugar factory so that beet can be handled and, if necessary, sugar produced and exported. I understand that we export sugar to Northern Ireland and to England.

Why should our farmers, because our sugar factories cannot handle the beet, be denied the right to produce what they consider is a good cash crop for the production of which their land is suitable? I sympathise with farmers in the beet growing districts but sympathy does not carry much weight in this situation.

The price of their barley fell far below the undertakings of the Government. The price of their pigs dropped. The price of cattle dropped. The only crop on which they could rely to give them a fair return for their labour was beet. Here we see that the Government have decided, in co-operation with the Sugar Company, to deny farmers the right to grow beet. They use the excuse, if I might term it such, that the Sugar Company and the beet factories cannot handle the beet. That is no excuse or if it is an excuse the problem should be overcome.

I want to direct the Minister's attention to the payment to farmers for pigs. Deputies have already pointed out that the pig has been described down through the years as a ready source of income for the farmer. On many occasions, the pig was called upon to pay the rates and the rent. Many small farmers and many agricultural workers through the hard work and industry of their wives were able to turn out a pig or two or three a couple of times a year. The position has become very serious for pig producers. The Department of Agriculture must not be in very close contact with bacon factories. The system of payment to farmers for pigs should be reviewed by the Department.

Well-known pig producers who have been in the business all their lives, who with the slant of their eye, could tell whether a pig is under or over 15½ stone at three months and a week or three months and a fortnight, are not satisfied with the present position. They are members of well-known families connected with the pig industry down through the years. They have always produced top quality pigs.

One of these pig-producing experts delivered pigs in the past 12 months which in his opinion were of top quality and such as he always produced. One consignment consisted of 53 pigs.

Only 10 out of the 53 were Grade "A". Another consignment of 46 pigs contained only 13 Grade "A" pigs. There was another consignment of 25 pigs of which 11 were Grade "A". Another consignment of 18 pigs contained only five Grade "A" pigs. He had a last consignment of 40 pigs of which only seven were Grade "A". That man is an expert and his father and grandfather before him were experts in pig production. He claims that all the pigs were top quality. His view is that it could not possibly be that, out of the 53 pigs delivered by him to the factory, only 10 could be ranked as Grade "A".

I know of another instance in which a farmer delivered his pigs at the factory and was told they did not reach Grade "A" quality. He immediately demanded his pigs back and had them reloaded. He brought them to another factory and 10 of the pigs that did not qualify in the first factory as Grade "A" qualified in the second factory.

They are graded after they are killed.

The farmer in question was told he would get so much for his pigs. He took them back and brought them to another factory where for 10 of the pigs he got much more money than was offered at the first factory. That happened in the Midlands.

I do not understand how they were graded in advance.

The farmer had been caught out three or four times before that. He had learned his lesson. There should be somebody in the bacon factories to look after the interests of pig producers. There should be somebody to check the advice or opinion of persons who decide the quality of the pig. Farmers should have a representative who will ensure that the factory will not be made fatter and richer while they become thinner and poorer. That is why I feel there is room for a great deal of improvement on the question of payment for pigs to farmers.

From my association with people in the pig industry, I fear they are being robbed right, left and centre. I fear they are not getting full value for their pigs. There is something radically wrong with the system that will not allow a farmer to get what he feels is the full value of a good pig.

The Government may be inclined to agree 100 per cent. with the present grading system for pigs but who should know better—the pig producer or the official in the factory armed to the teeth with fountain pens and pencils?

Most of the factories are owned by farmers.

Not all of them.

Nine-tenths of them.

I do not know where they are. A good many are not. I could name a good many such factories. The Deputy will not get me to name the factories that are not owned by farmers. These are the factories to which I am very specially referring. The farmers should wake up to the fact that they are being robbed by the millers in their wheat and by the factories in their pigs. It is high time somebody spoke on their behalf. They will not get sympathy from the Fianna Fáil Party. They will not get sympathy from the Minister. They will not get sympathy——

From the farmers of Fine Gael who did not talk in this debate. Deputy Giles is the only Fine Gael farmer who spoke.

Deputy Loughman has just come into the House. He must realise that Deputy Faulkner, Deputy Moher and Deputy Gibbons are the only Fianna Fáil Deputies who spoke—three out of 80.

After provocation.

Only one Fine Gael farmer spoke, Deputy Giles.

Three out of 80. I do not know if that is a fair percentage of farmers to speak on an Agricultural Estimate here. We have 80 Deputies representing the bulk of rural Ireland and only three Fianna Fáil Deputies spoke on the Agricultural Estimate. I presume that Deputy Loughman will make up for the other 60-odd when he gets up to speak for the farmers in a few minutes.

I can speak with the same authority as the Deputy. At least I know something about land.

I shall give the Deputy the benefit of that observation.

The Deputy knows in his heart and soul that the farmers in his constituency never in living memory experienced a worse year than the past year.

Can the Deputy tell the House are they well off?

Is the Deputy asking me that question? Certainly.

Certainly they are well off. We have reached the stage now when the Fianna Fáil Party tells the farmers they are well off today. Arising out of the remark by a Fianna Fáil Deputy that the farmers are well off today I see a statement in the Irish Independent of April 14th, 1960, by the N.F.A. That body speaks for the farmers of this country. There is a heading with reference to the trade agreement. It says: “Fianna Fáil sees few bright spots in Pact.”

They saw a few anyway.

They say the Association regrets that the Government's decisions fall at least £13,000,000 short of meeting the reduction in annual farm income over the past 12 months. We read that at a meeting of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, as reported on the same day, a statement was made by Mr. C.H. Fletcher, President of the Association, in which he says:

The increase in the price of creamery milk was entirely inadequate. In terms of cash 1.3d. a gallon increase in the price of creamery milk meant an extra £2 8s. 9d. per year on the average cow which gave 450 gallons of milk.

The dairy farmers had had no improvement in milk prices since 1953, while virtually every other section of the community had two or three increases in that time. The cost of living increased by 15 p.c. in these seven years and the dairy farmers' income was down by about £4,000,000 in 1958 and 1959 through factors outside their control.

Then we are told here that the farmers are well off. How could the farmers be well off if they cannot get beet contracts or grow beet?

Once upon a time you wanted to close down the beet factories. Beet had gone up the spout.

Is Deputy Loughman contributing now or will he speak later?

I would ask Deputy Loughman to refrain from interrupting.

The farmers cannot be better off if the N.F.A. make that statement. The dairy farmers cannot be better off if the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association make that statement. Who are we to believe— the N.F.A., the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association or the Fianna Fáil Party who say that the farmers are very well off today?

That is an addition.

The Deputy said they are very well off.

Deputy Flanagan said they were very well off.

I am saying that the Deputy said they were very well off.

The Deputy is putting the word "very" into my mouth.

The Deputy is thinking over what he said and is trying to get out of it.

Not a bit.

That is the point in relation to wheat, beet, barley, milk and pigs. They have got less for all those and now we have a statement from the Minister today that the wheat levy will be in the region of 5/9d. a barrel. Despite the fact that the farmers are flying out of the country, we are told here that they are better off than they were and are well off at the present time.

I want to refer to the trade agreement made by the present Minister with the British during the past year. Nothing was got from the trade agreement and there is no use in Fianna Fáil Deputies saying that they won this and that from them. They got nothing from them. The Irish delegation came back with their hands hanging. They went over thinking they would get something. They did not get it because they were not capable of negotiating anything with Britain or with the British Minister for Agriculture.

Did they improve on anything we had not already got? The Fine Gael Party, Deputy Dillon and the former Taoiseach, Deputy J.A. Costello, led a delegation in 1948 which was responsible for the 1948 Trade Agreement that put millions and millions of pounds into the pockets of the Irish farmer.

The 1948 Trade Agreement can be described as being probably one of the greatest achievements of any Government in this country. What kind of spectacle did we see this year in relation to the group of people who went over to England with very competent civil servants? The spokesmen that went over from the Government, including the Minister for Agriculture, were in my opinion utterly incompetent and incapable of negotiating with the British.

A very valuable opinion that.

I think it is a valuable opinion. I go further and say that it is an opinion shared by thousands of Irish farmers today. What an extraordinary thing it was to see the men going over this year to ask the British for better cattle prices, better markets for bacon after the Danes had wiped our eyes a couple of days before that. While our Government were trotting round the country to rig the election in relation to P.R., the Danish Minister for Agriculture was about his business. He did not travel around Denmark changing the system of election. He was busy watching the interests of the Danish farmers and the Danish pig producers. He wanted to step up the supplies of Danish bacon into the British market because he realised the value of the British market to Denmark.

What was our Minister for Agriculture doing? Our Minister for Agriculture at that time was busy examining the electors list and register of electors; he was busy plotting and planning to change the system of voting; he was busy seeing how he could keep Fianna Fáil and himself and his Party in office. He was not concerned with pushing Irish pigs on to the British market at increased prices. He was not concerned with ways and means of squeezing the Danes out of the British market, instead of opening the door to let them in and stepping aside. That man went over to ask the British for better concessions knowing that he and his Party were the people who knelt down and expressed sincere thanks to God at one stage that the British market was gone and gone for ever. If a farmer mentioned the British market at that time they would all make the Sign of the Cross and keep as far away from him as they could. Remember the slogans which they had: "Burn everything British except their coal", "Boycott John Bull", "Boycott Britain". There is none of that this year. They are all on their knees begging England——

We never begged from anybody. That is the carrion crow.

——for markets and for prices and to see what they could get. What did they come back with? They came back with practically no more than we always had and they did not and could not improve on the 1948 Trade Agreement.

So says the Deputy.

Various statements were made in regard to the Trade Agreement. I have quoted one statement by the National Farmers' Association which I shall not quote again. They said there were few bright spots in it. The Fine Gael Party always asserted the value of the British market. They never went behind the door and they never believed in the British market more than they do to-day. Thank God, we all lived to see Fianna Fáil being made converts to the British market.

Including the Deputy.

I am a believer in the British market and I am glad that that belief is shared by everybody connected with Fianna Fáil. The Fianna Fáil Party en bloc have been converted to the British market. Fine Gael always realised the value of the British market and for that reason this Party and its supporters in the country were pleased that the terms of the 1948 Trade Agreement were accepted this year by this Government as being sound and solid.

Since the inter-Party Government negotiated that Agreement in 1948, Irish store cattle and sheep have enjoyed the benefits of the link with British prices. The Agreement made a few months ago makes no change whatever in that system. I may say that it came with keen disappointment to farmers and to Fine Gael that the Minister for Agriculture and his delegation came back with nothing more than we had already. No concession whatever was obtained and certainly no concessions were obtained for industrial exports. Fianna Fáil lack interest in the farmers; they lack the talent for negotiating; they lack the ability to negotiate; and above all they lack the confidence of the people. No member of the Fianna Fáil Party can honestly stand up to-day and say that he believes that Fianna Fáil enjoy the confidence of the people. If he does, he should have himself examined. He is not of sound mind because the Government have lost not alone the confidence of the farmers but the confidence of every other section of the community. If they want to test that, there is a very simple way, that is, to have the Taoiseach seek the approval of the President for the dissolution of the Dáil. Then he can obtain the opinion of the farmers on the Government's policy.

For what reason?

For what reason?

Why should we?

Carlow-Kilkenny.

Console yourself.

We do not need consolation.

The Deputy should not direct that consolation and sympathy to us because the result of that election was a source of great joy to us.

I do not see how this election can be discussed on the Estimate.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is quite right. I can assure the House that Fianna Fáil Deputies are the last people who like to hear about it.

It would not be in order anyway.

The Chair is correct. I am only advising the Fianna Fáil Party and telling them they have lost the confidence of the people and they are afraid to test the confidence of the people. We have seen various reports from those directly engaged in agriculture and we have seen the comments of leading farmers and leading farmers' organisations, and, without exception, they have expressed condemnation in strong terms of the Government's agricultural policy. Really, I find it difficult to condemn a policy that does not exist because there is no policy for farmers and with regret, I say that the Department of Agriculture is drifting along on its own, without any leadership and without a spokesman.

In the last election, five Fine Gael farmers were elected and 12 lawyers.

The less Deputy Loughman has to say about elections the better because I am sure there is no Deputy who trembles more at the mention of elections.

I never cared a rap.

Particularly after the local elections in South Tipperary.

The Deputy will have to avail of some other opportunity of discussing elections. They do not arise on this Estimate.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 19th July, 1960.
Barr
Roinn