The debate on the Estimate for Agriculture is usually interesting and sometimes rather lively but, on this occasion, should evoke more interest than it ordinarily does because of the proximity of the general election, when agricultural policy will be flogged at every crossroads and because of the obvious likelihood of our entry into the European Economic Community.
The Minister has stated that the question of our joining the Common Market has been debated already but there are some specific matters associated with our agricultural policy that could in all decency be mentioned here. There are some pertinent questions to which the people would like the answers. It should be within the province of the Minister to give this information and I am sure it is readily available in the Department at any time from the statistical records. People who are vitally interested in our agricultural economy and agriculturists in general would like to know the gross agricultural output of the free nations of Europe, that is, the non-Communist nations. How much of that product is consumed within the free nations and how much is exported? What percentage of British agricultural produce finds its way into other European countries? The answers to these questions would clarify our position very considerably and would ease the mind of the people which is at present so confused with regard to our entry into the European Economic Community.
I was rather amazed to read in today's papers that the Taoiseach said prior to his departure last evening that they were going to London to get the British view on the Common Market. That is rather belated. It is rather pathetic that a statement like that should be made. The Government should have known long before now what the British view is with regard to our inclusion in the European Economic Community. Have the Government any view with regard to joining the European Economic Community? Has there been any definite assertion?
The Minister has referred to the progress made in regard to agricultural output in the last 12 months. We were all edified to hear that the gross agricultural output was something like £195,000,000 in value. That is very creditable. The Minister said that, leaving out the stock changes, it would be £13,000,000 more than in 1959 and, including those stock changes, it would be £2,000,000 more than in 1959. What is significant is that our agricultural exports totalled £89,000,000 during 1960, which still remains the most important factor in our whole economy. By deducting £89,000,000 from £195,000,000 one gets an idea of the amount consumed in this country.
We were glad to hear, also, that £8.5 millions worth of our agricultural exports found their way into the United States of America. If we join the European Economic Community I hope we shall still have an opportunity to extend our exports to the United States. It is no harm to refer to the danger to our agricultural economy in the event of our joining the Economic Community. Human beings are so unpredictable in this age and there are so many upheavals from time to time that a good deal will depend on the goodwill of those already in the Economic Community. No doubt a good deal of thought has been given to this whole question of the Rome Treaty. It would be a pity if it were not going to be honoured by those who have already joined or who are about to become members of the Economic Community. It seems likely that in the foreseeable future the Economic Community will absorb the Free Trade Area already in existence in Europe; and this one, large, body, embracing all the non-Communist countries of Europe, should be a potent force and should safeguard very effectively the economic position with regard to agriculture generally throughout Europe.
At the gates of Europe, we have 1,250,000,000 people in Asia, excluding the Russian territories there. It would be interesting if the Minister could tell us what percentage of agricultural produce from Europe finds its way into Asia. Again, at the gates of Europe, we have something approaching 400,000,000 people in Africa, about eight per cent, of the total world population as against over 50 per cent, in Asia. It would be interesting to know what percentage of agricultural produce from Europe finds its way into Africa. If there are possibilities of exploring markets in these two continents for our agricultural produce, it would be safe to predict a great future for agriculture within the Economic Community.
We were glad to read in the Minister's statement that our exports to all other countries, outside of the United States and Great Britain and Northern Ireland, amounted to £9,000,000. Perhaps the Minister would indicate in his reply to what countries had our exports access in this £9,000,000.
The Minister dwelt at length on T.B. eradication, which has already cost our people something like £12½ million. It is extraordinary to find when one travels through the country —I am sure Deputies who are members of the T.B. eradication committees in their respective counties know this full well — there is a good deal of confusion in the mind of our farmers still. There is a good deal of scepticism still with regard to T.B. eradication. They are still asking why had we this at all. They have not been sufficiently informed and encouraged by information issued from the Department as to the necessity for T.B. eradication. We are in this scheme simply because Great Britain is in it. We go into the Common Market simply because Great Britain goes in. We have no alternative, if we are to preserve our markets across the Irish Sea, but to rid our livestock of T.B.
It is gratifying, I suppose, to find that outside of Dublin, Kilkenny and the six Munster counties, if we include Clare, all areas are now classified as attested or at the clearance area stage. As the Minister rightly said, the difficulty with Munster is very grave because of the enormous number of cattle reared there. I often wondered why the scheme was not initiated in Munster, where cattle are produced in such numbers. Munster was the supply source for many counties. Why the scheme was not introduced there, I do not know. If the maximum co-operation of the people could be sought, I believe that, even at this late stage, much greater and rapid progress could still be made.
It is true that the incidence of T.B. is low among young cattle, yearlings and up to two years old. After that, the incidence increases. Should it not be possible for the people, in their own interest, to segregate the young cattle from the two year olds and older cattle. We all know that many of these are out-lyers for the whole winter. They could be effectively segregated from the cows and bigger cattle on the farm. It is rather ridiculous to find people engaged in T.B. eradication and yet using the same houses week after week and month after month without any effort to disinfect these premises, and thus eradicate entirely the germs that cause T.B., after their reactors have been sold out of the farm.
The Minister made no reference at all to the £250,000 provided in former Estimates for market research abroad in respect of agricultural produce. That is very important. For some mysterious reason or other, there have been several reductions in prices for our cattle across the water. It is mystifying why that should be. Surely there should be some contacts across the water that would inform us in advance of market trends so that we would have stabilised prices at home? It is within the knowledge of us all that early last Spring many people sold cattle, whereas if they could have retained them they would have made £10 per head more in late February and March. The same thing happened in recent weeks when, for some reason or other, there was a sudden drop in prices. These things are all detrimental to any chance of stability or to maintaining confidence in the cattle business.
The Minister went on to deal with pigs. We were glad to hear that the number of pigs has increased in recent years. We have gone back now to the number we had in the early thirties, but we are still a long way behind the northern counties in our pig and bacon production. There is one dangerous factor, that is, the number going in for pig production as a business. Pig production should be safeguarded and left to the farmers who are traditionally engaged in pig production. No doubt, in the past, long before we got our freedom, the pig was a very important little animal on the farm. He often saved the unfortunate tenant from being evicted on to the roadside. A good deal of the offal of the home was consumable by pigs reared on the farm. Now that we have our own grain and rations, and are not so dependent on maize as we were in the old days, there is every reason to believe that the exploiter could come in, cash in on the situation, and go in for pig production in a large way.
I respectfully suggest to the Minister that grants for pig byres should be limited to those traditionally engaged in pig production, so that the position of the small producer will be safeguarded. In regard to the double byre grant, there are people who, of their own initiative put up in recent years piggeries of a very high standard. Before the double byre grant was available they had done this work and got the single grant. These men, who showed initiative and objectiveness in going in for a development of this kind, should be considered and the date of the award of the double byre grant should be retrospective to cover these few cases. I am sure only a few cases exist. I know of one very progressive young farmer who was late by only two or three months. He had his piggery completed before the announcement of the double byre grant and he had to be satisfied with the original grant.
It is comforting to find that 1960 has been a good milk year. We are all pleased to hear that, that the extra milk produced will go into milk powders in the new factories at Mallow and Killeshandra, and that the two cheese factories erected at Wexford and Waterford will consume a good deal of our milk. That will help to allay the fear that existed some years ago, that if we had overproduction of milk it would become a problem and that we would have to keep it subsidised in order to get our surplus butter into the foreign market.
With regard to agriculture in general, reading the notes from the Department, which are very helpful, I see that the total number of agricultural instructors in the Twenty Six Counties is 216. That number is grossly inadequate. If we had sufficient of these instructors, at least four times as many, we would make real progress in our farming activities — that is provided that the instructor is objective about his work and dedicated to it, and provided that he is co-operative at all times and provided he goes into the farms. These instructors can be of immense assistance to farmers particularly in modern times when chemical treatment of crops has to be resorted to, in order to save them from pests.
The instructors could also be helpful in planning the type of economy most suitable to the farmer. One instructor who is leaving our county was magnificent in that respect. He had a great flair for advising farmers about the layout of their farms and their buildings. We know that in olden days if the farmer improved his premises the landlord increased the rent and that killed incentive. Houses were very small and they kept building on to these houses making their last state worse than the first, whereas it would have been more economic if they had demolished the whole building and built from the very start. It is in regard to advice of this kind that the instructor could be most effective.
I often heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about the Parish Plan and having one instructor for each parish. I thought that would be a Utopian achievement if it could be done. Now I am convinced it could be done: we could have one to every couple of parishes and have all this scientific advice available which is so necessary if our agricultural economy is to survive and withstand the challenge from abroad.
The Minister also stated that we had 56 horticultural instructors. Proportionately speaking that figure strikes me as being inordinately high as against the 216 agricultural instructors. He also stated that we have 77 butter and poultry instructresses. There cannot be very many areas in the country where butter is still made in the homes. I know the value these people had in the past but their value is limited now because of the co-operative creameries and the Dairy Disposals Company.
We come now to the question of grain. I notice that the figures given by the Minister for wheat, barley and oats were all figures over the 400,000 mark and that they were very closely related to the number of tons produced in each kind. I cannot see the sense in growing wheat and then putting a levy on wheat when we produce it to excess. Something like 30 per cent, of our wheat went to the grist last year and the rest is a liability on the producer. I cannot see why it cannot be grown under contract and give all those who apply an opportunity by dividing the acreage between them. There are people who cash in on this situation and have been doing so over the years. People with a good deal of machinery are inclined to abuse that position and the only safeguard for the producer is the contract system which will also be a safeguard in regard to overproduction. I think it could be done conveniently and easily and it would give greater satisfaction in the end. The Exchequer would not be called on to bear the loss or the producers to subsidise the loss when there is overproduction of wheat.
These are the few remarks I wanted to make. We are glad that the information is so encouraging and we would like to see that progress maintained. There is a lot of leeway still to be made up in the agricultural economy, especially with regard to bovine tuberculosis. With the co-operation of the people, that could be effectively and expeditiously dealt with but somehow the people have lost confidence. They have lost it for one reason. It was always said of a beast, once a reactor always a reactor. That has been disproved. I know of cases where cows failed the T.B. test but came along afterwards and passed it although we are told by vets. of long experience that that was contrary to experience and belief. It shows how experimental the whole scheme was. To dissipate that want of confidence we will have to be more assertive and encouraging. The only way to get the farmers' confidence is to advise them kindly and effectively.