Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Dec 1963

Vol. 206 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 41—Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

"That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration."

—(Deputy Donegan).

Mr. Rooney

I observe from the Minister's statement that he made a particular effort at the outset to carry on the battle going on between himself and the various farmers' organisations. He tried to point out to them that they had no right to demonstrate and protest, organise or complain when they found that various aspects of Government policy were affecting their economy and their standard of living. It is a wrong attitude for a Minister for Agriculture to adopt towards the section of the community for which he is responsible as Minister.

These people have grievances, and instead of abusing them and taking them to task for complaining about various aspects of policy which are affecting them one way or another, the Minister should meet them in a proper atmosphere and discuss on a fair basis the matters about which they are complaining. The huge gatherings of farmers which have taken place at various centres in the form of peaceful protests are a clear indication that there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst the farming community and that they feel they are not getting a fair share of the national wealth, that the policy operated by the Minister is neither favourable to them nor in their interests. For that reason, I would ask the Minister to heed what these organisations have to say in regard to matters affecting their interests.

These are well-organised bodies. In fact, it is a welcome development to see amongst the farming community a great measure of co-operation and co-ordination. In years gone by, it was not possible to get a nationwide organisation representing the various sections of the farming community. The result was that there was not the same awareness of the value of scientific knowledge and organised marketing methods amongst this community as there is at present. These are organisations which the farmers have voluntarily formed and joined. They are non-political organisations, although they have been accused of being political just because they complained about one aspect or another of the agricultural policy of the Government. These organisations are a wonderful assistance to any Government because they represent the various interests of their members who are able to make known at first hand the problems affecting their particular aspect of the economy.

For that reason, I would advocate greater contact and a much greater measure of goodwill between the Minister for Agriculture and these organisations. They have something to offer and if the Minister is prepared to meet them on a proper basis and discuss their various problems with them, they are reasonable people and if the Minister is able to convince them that they are making an unreasonable demand, I do not believe they would persist in it. However, the signs are there and when these people make statements about various aspects of policy, they are able to put up facts and figures to the Minister and his Department, and on that basis I feel discussions should take place. All other sections of the community have organised representation of one kind or another and nobody disputes the rights of the representative body of these sections to speak for them, to negotiate, to protest, and even to strike, if necessary. We have that situation now in the farming community and we must face it. The farmers are behind these organisations. They are ready to co-operate with their leaders in those groups.

What I wanted to deal with was the situation existing among the dairy farmers. The creamery milk suppliers have one problem and the suppliers of liquid milk have another and they are quite different. It seems to me that the suppliers of loose milk are getting the worst end of the stick. The creamery milk suppliers have an organised body and although they have been confronted with difficulties, such as the milk levy, in relation to the small increase for milk, they have a different type of economy to operate. It is significant, particularly in Dublin city and county, that almost 500 dairy cows have been sold from herds in recent weeks because the herd owners found it uneconomic to continue with the production of loose milk.

This situation has been developing and it is a strange fact that in spite of this, we see other people going into the dairying business for a couple of years and then leaving it. At the outset they seem to think that there is a living to be made from milk production and the keeping of dairy herds, but our experience in County Dublin has been that many of them are getting out as quickly as possible because the price of something around threepence a pint to the farmer will not pay. The consumers pay more than double that amount for their milk. It is clear from the figures that the milk producers are not getting a fair share of the money paid by the consumers of loose milk.

The Minister for Agriculture seems to be doing nothing about an increase in the price to those engaged in the production of milk for consumption mainly in Dublin city and county, apart from other towns and cities. It is important that the dairy industry should be protected as far as possible and be in a position to prosper, because it is from the dairy herds that we get our foundation stock which enables us to derive a good income from the export of store cattle and fat cattle, and, of course, our dairy herd replacements. But I feel it is unfair for the Minister to watch the dairy farmers of Leinster and particularly County Dublin going out of business. There are various reasons why they have to go out of business but basically it is for economic reasons.

I feel the Minister will have to take steps to meet the Leinster Milk Producers' Association with a view to coming to an arrangement which will ensure a higher price for milk to the producers. The argument may be put up that the consumer cannot pay any more for milk but I think it will be agreed that 3d per pint to the basic producers of milk is too low in relation to existing costs.

Everybody knows that at the moment it costs the best part of £100 to get a good milch cow and even then one is taking a chance. That cow may cease for one reason or another to continue to give an average supply of milk and the producer then finds it necessary to sell that cow for beef and to replace it with another expensive cow. Then there is the question of mortality. Added on to all that are the wages of those in charge of the cows and the cost of the ordinary machinery and gear associated with the industry. When all these costs are added up, particularly the losses in relation to unsatisfactory cows, mortality and so on, the producers are finding that it is not a paying proposition. That is one good reason why herds, amounting almost to 500 cows, have been sold over the past few weeks.

I can tell the Minister that it is true that other extensive owners of dairy herds in County Dublin contemplate selling out at an early date. That means a considerable loss of income to the areas in which these dairy cows are located because there is an income there, even if it is not giving a profit to the dairy farmer himself. The wages are being spent in the parish and the locality. When the herd is sold out, all that type of income coming in from the milk is lost to the area.

Another matter affecting the farming community is the continuous increase in rates. These farmers are paying increased rates one year after another. They are the one section of the community who benefit least from these rates. Their contribution in the form of rates is used for providing street lights, footpaths, water and sewerage and all kinds of amenities which are available to the community in general but which they cannot enjoy if they live down boreens and lanes away from all these amenities. Still, the community in general receive further contributions in the form of increased rates from the farming community.

Farmers' rates have gone up nearly £5 million in the past few years. On the other side of the scale, the farmers' income did not rise in the same proportion. Similarly with this turnover tax which is now coming in. About one-third of that turnover tax, or more, will be contributed by people engaged mainly in agriculture. If we take it that the turnover tax will bring in £12 million, the people engaged in agriculture will contribute between £4 million and £5 million in the form of turnover tax annually——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Agriculture has no responsibility for the turnover tax.

Mr. Rooney

No, Sir, but the point I was making is that, in addition to the ordinary rates on agricultural land, this new measure will put a further burden on the farming community which is causing them to go out of business and to disemploy their labourers. It is a significant fact that 20,000 people left the land last year. That means that the labour which those people put into agricultural production in one way or another is no longer available from the point of view of any income that can be got from agricultural exports or indeed from production for home consumption. The trend is there still and the numbers engaged in agriculture are falling as rapidly as ever. It seems to me that when the figures are examined this year, we shall see that a further 20,000 or 25,000 people have left the land. In every paper we take up, we see more farms offered for sale. Farmers are selling out and availing of the inflated prices offered for land at present. They are obtaining prices which certainly could not be won back from the land by the average farmer.

The wheat policy operated by the Government at present is nothing short of a disgrace. At one time, we had a campaign and every newspaper was covered with the advertisement "Grow More Wheat". Indeed, the Fianna Fáil Party made a political issue of wheat-growing for years and took the opportunities of making a political issue of it. When they found there was no longer any political advantage to be gained from a wheat-growing policy, they immediately dropped the wheat producers and left them to fight it out with the huge miller combines from whom they have no chance of getting better terms than the millers wish to give them. The result is that there has been a considerable drop in wheat production and there will be a further drop during the coming year.

The barley price is unsatisfactory. The Minister has persisted in refusing to improve the arrangements for the payment of a better price for barley. These major departments in the agricultural economy have now been abandoned. While we have a situation where the wheat growers now try to sell their wheat, against the odds, to these millers and have it accepted at the best price they can get, the Government are importing Russian feeding stuffs and the rest, while the wheat that was bought for feeding is actually being used by the millers for bread production.

The position as between the millers and the wheat growers is so bad at the moment that the wheat growers are no longer prepared to take the chance of growing wheat, facing the weather, harvesting the crop and then finding that there is no Government there to ensure that they will get a fair price for it or that they will be fairly treated in relation to the quality of the wheat submitted. Recently a grower sent in 32 loads of wheat and only one load was accepted as being millable. He was paid the feeding price for the remainder of the crop. He felt that if the Government took their proper place as referee between the miller and himself, possibly all of his wheat might have passed as millable. As the Government have now left the position between the growers and the millers, the millers are getting the best of it and the growers have no redress.

The farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to sell their produce. There seems to be a surplus of produce, possibly because of the mass emigration still taking place in spite of what Government speakers say. Only last week the farmers had to take home most of their cattle from the market as they were unable to obtain a reasonable price. The bottom fell out of the trade a fortnight ago. Something will have to be done in relation to the marketing of farm products. Fortunately, we have a frame of mind growing up among the producers with regard to the setting up of processing co-operatives which will facilitate the marketing of produce but the Government will have to take an interest in the setting up of organised marketing machinery. There is an allocation in the Budget which can be used for the purpose of market research.

I notice from the figures supplied that farmers' incomes are up by something less than two per cent while their costs have gone up over 25 per cent and, in many cases, by more than that in the past couple of years. For this reason, farmers are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet. This explains the reason for the number of peaceful protest marches which have been organised by the farmers in an effort to draw the attention of the Government and the community to their plight, to show that they are not getting a fair share of the national wealth and that Government policy is not operating to ensure that they do.

We also notice the flight from the land due to the low wages which are being paid. The farmers cannot afford to pay higher wages to their farmhands and cannot afford to compete with manufacturers and building contractors. They are losing their farm labourers to these other aspects of our economy. They are then driven to further mechanisation and other labour-saving devices. The cost of farm machinery is very high and the depreciation is very great. Take any farm implements, combine harvesters, tractors and so on, and you will find that the depreciation is so high that if the farmer put the figures together, he would be shocked to see how much it is in relation to his income and the measure of production brought about by the use of that machinery. Something should be done by the Government to ensure that the price of farm machinery will be kept down to an economic level.

In spite of the fact that world population is increasing by 20 million a year, we still find surpluses of farm produce. Farmers producing vegetables particularly find it uneconomic to take them out of the ground. They have to leave them there and plough them back when the time comes to plant another crop. In north County Dublin, this practice can be observed almost every year with one crop or another. The price for those vegetables is so much below the cost of production that the growers cannot afford to take them out of the ground.

As I have already mentioned, not alone is the cost of production of vegetables very much above the prices available to the growers but the same situation applies in the case of milk. The cost of producing a gallon of milk for many farmers at the present time, taking into consideration the various expenses and losses they must face, is not economic and they are eventually driven into a situation in which they have to sell out their herds. It is not good for the country to have a position in which those who have a tradition and, if you like, a particular set-up, are driven overnight into just going out of business. The people on the land— the Minister knows this quite well— are earning very much less per head than the people engaged in industry and building. For that reason, it is desirable that a policy should be operated to strike a balance and create on the land a measure of prosperity which will encourage people to stay on the land instead of forcing them to emigrate or move away from the land into industry, building, or other activities.

Some time ago a large farm was purchased near Straffan. It will be operated as a model farm in lieu of the model farm, the Albert College, at Glasnevin. That is a very good move. I hope that model farm will demonstrate various aspects of agricultural production and make the results available to various farming organisations and farmers in general. A visit to the Netherlands in particular would certainly open the eyes of most producers here. There they appear to be at least 20 years ahead of this country from the point of view of scientific methods of production and handling and the technical knowledge associated with plant life and methods of production. If we are to hope that our agricultural surplus may be sold in the Common Market countries, if we gain admission to the Common Market, we cannot hope to compete against the high standard of efficiency and marketing methods in the Netherlands and possibly in some other continental countries too.

This model farm near Straffan could examine into the various aspects of agricultural production in the Netherlands, particularly in relation to fruit and vegetables, and a section of the farm at Straffan could be allocated to such production, using the highly efficient methods common in the Netherlands. Demonstrations could be given to farmers and farm organisations and I have no doubt similar methods of production could be adopted quickly here. The result would be a better market for produce off the land. Indeed, I have no doubt that these methods will have to be adopted by the farming community if they wish to sell fruit and vegetables on the continent.

It is worthy of notice that our total exports have fallen. In 1961, we exported to Germany nearly £5.5 millions. In 1962, the figure is just over £5 millions. We exported to Belgium in 1961 £1,300,000 and in 1962, £900,000, a drop of almost 33? per cent. Exports to the Netherlands have dropped from over £2 millions to £1,680,000. Exports to Norway have dropped from £309,000 to £162,000. Portugal is an exception; exports to Portugal have gone up. Exports to Sweden have dropped from £802,000 to £59,000. A substantial proportion of these figures represents agricultural produce of one kind or another. There must be some reason for these substantial drops. This is the kind of problem we may have to face in the event of our getting into the Common Market. We shall certainly be faced with a number of difficulties emanating from sources outside this country, even in relation to agriculture, which we all hope will bring us great advantages.

With regard to the farm building scheme, I should like the Minister to examine whether even greater assistance could, if possible, be given towards farm buildings. Too long the farmers and the Government have failed to realise the value of at least one large building on every farmstead. Such a building would enable farming activities to be carried on indoors. It would enable farmers to continue working under cover and render them immune to inclement weather conditions. Even the Land Commission have failed to provide one good large building. Buildings are a real asset on any farm. They should be well designed and spacious so that they can be adapted to various farming activities. While the present type of shed may serve a purpose, in the long run it does not offer the same advantages as a large adaptable building.

It is quite obvious from the Minister's statement that the British market for our agricultural produce and livestock is still the main market for us and the one on which we should concentrate. In relation to the pig and bacon industry, I see some encouraging trends. It is a far cry from the days before Fianna Fáil took office when millions of pigs were exported, even on the hoof. Then in 1946 we had the ridiculous position of having bacon under the counter. The shopkeepers would only give one or two slices to their best and favoured customers. In 1948 the inter-Party Government set about changing the position. As far as the pig population and pig production are concerned, there is a welcome movement towards the situation which existed in 1931 before Fianna Fáil took office. I hope the farmers will be further encouraged to go into the production of pigs and bacon. There will always be a ready market, even if the terms are difficult. I have the impression that the competition from the Danes is falling off and that we will not have such great competition from them in the future. It seems the producers there are finding it difficult to make ends meet in their economy. That will give us an opportunity——

Mr. Smith

So we are not so bad after all?

Mr. Rooney

It is not a question of our not being so bad. The Minister allowed the Danes to sweep in and take our market from us. It would now appear that the Danes are beginning to move away from the production of pigs and bacon, which will give us more opportunity in the British market.

Mr. Smith

They are like the Dublin milk producers?

Mr. Rooney

I do not know what the situation is in relation to that. I am making the statement, and I hope the Minister will find it correct. It is reassuring to see from the Minister's statement that the production of sugar and sugar exports are flourishing. Whatever encouragement the Government can give to sugar production should be given.

Mr. Corry

Something like £16 per ton levy.

Mr. Rooney

Deputy Corry is for the sugar industry now, despite the fact that in the 1920s it was one of the white elephants, according to Deputy Corry and his colleagues. But so long as Deputy Corry is in the chair, it is no longer a white elephant. It is something to be proud of now because Deputy Corry is at the head of it. That is a big change from the days when Deputy Corry and his colleagues made little of the establishment of the sugar beet factory here. They are now rushing around trying to get farmers to grow beet and expand sugar production. I suppose Deputy Corry will remember the days when we had millions of pigs.

Mr. Smith

When was that?

Mr. Rooney

1931.

Mr. Smith

Give us the number?

Mr. Rooney

The figures are available. They were given in the course of this debate. We had Deputy Corry and the Minister thanking God that the British market was gone. I do not think Deputy Egan was saying it.

Mr. N. Egan

What was I in favour of?

Mr. Rooney

You were in favour of the British market at that time.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Colley)

Deputy Rooney should be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. Rooney

I do not know whether Deputy Egan is in favour of the British market now or not.

Mr. N. Egan

I was not in favour of the British anyway.

Mr. Rooney

It is a welcome change on the part of the Fianna Fáil Party. There is still a good future for the production of sugar, because I believe the demand for sugar and sugar products will continue to increase. Whatever can be done to increase our sugar production and take advantage of the ready export market should be done.

In regard to the "Grow More Wheat" campaign of Fianna Fáil, which they used to make a political issue, I notice now that corn crops have declined by 100,000 acres since 1956—that was supposed to be a bad year—and that root and green crops have fallen by 87,000 acres in that time. In fact, there are nearly a quarter of a million acres less tillage now than there was in 1956. The Fianna Fáil Party apparently are adopting a different attitude towards tillage. Now they do not want to recognise the tillage farmer. We see that the number of turkeys here is less than half the number there was in 1956. The number of fowl has dropped by three million since 1956.

Those are some aspects of the agricultural economy with which the Minister has been associated since 1956. I feel he should change his attitude in relation to tillage and milk production. Both of them have been on the decline while the present Minister has been in office. Apparently he is determined to let the trend continue. Apparently he will not make any attempt to create prosperity among the tillage farmers. Certainly, he is not going to touch wheat any more. He is going to leave Deputy Corry and the rest of them at the mercy of the millers in relation to the sale of wheat.

Generally speaking, I do not think the Minister has much to be proud of. He has a lot to do still. He will have to take an active interest in arresting the flight from the land. Nobody will deny that thousands are leaving the land every year. The land will be abandoned if the people engaged in agriculture cannot make ends meet. The farm labourers, although apparently they are earning more, if you like, than the farmers, are down on a subsistence level, finding it nearly impossible to make ends meet. When we examine the figures, we find that, in fact, the earnings per head of the population engaged in agriculture is even lower than the wages fixed for farm labourers.

Finally, I would appeal to the Minister to do something for the milk producers of Leinster who are engaged in the production of liquid milk for consumption in Dublin city and county. Many of them are compelled to accept surplus prices for large quantities of milk which is being used for industrial purposes and for the remainder, they are getting something around only 3d. per gallon.

Mr. Corry

It might be dirty.

Mr. Rooney

The Deputy would gladly make little of the milk producers.

Mr. Corry

Ask Deputy Donegan.

Mr. Rooney

Deputy Corry has no time for the milk producers either but they are the backbone of the country as far as the production of beef and store cattle is concerned, and sooner or later some Minister for Agriculture will be compelled to put the dairying industry on an economic basis.

Mr. Corry

I thought that Deputy Rooney was a member of the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. A. Barry

We all thought that Deputy Corry was a member of the Fianna Fáil Party at one time.

Mr. Corry

As a member of the Fine Gael Party, he has a leader. Did he ever look back on the highlights of his leader's statements in regard to some of the matters he has been discussing here, particularly beet? Did he ever hear his leader's opinion on beet and sugar? I quote from Volume 106 of the Official Report, column 2041, where Deputy Dillon said:

There remains beet—the blessings of beet! Some day, and in the not far distant time, our people will have to ask themselves whether it is in the best interests of the community as a whole to continue the production of sugar from beet in this country at an annual cost to the community of £3,000,000 sterling. That is what it costs in normal times to keep the beet industry going in this country. If, instead of growing beet and converting it into sugar, we import refined sugar into this country there will be £3,000,000 sterling more for the national exchequer and that £3,000,000 can be used to increase children's allowances in every home in Ireland from the 2/6 per child to 5/- per child, and the land vacated by that crop can be used for the production of profitable agricultural produce which will help to finance essential imports and to enrich the farmers who live upon the land.

That was Deputy Dillon's opinion at that time of the crop that Deputy Rooney has spent half an hour speaking about.

For fear that would not be enough, at Column 1513 of Volume 101, Deputy Dillon, again on that line, said:

Give me that money and tomorrow morning we can increase the family allowance going into every house from 2/6d. to 7/- per child. Is there any Deputy who would argue with me that our community is getting better value in the maintenance of that daft scheme at a cost of £3,000,000 per annum than it would get if we were in a position to raise the family allowance in every poor house from 2/6d. to 7/-? Every farmer in this country who had four children in his house could receive for the benefit of these children 14/- per week in lieu of the 5/- he is now getting; 14/- per week every week in every year, until those children had passed the age of 16, with the money we propose to squander on maintaining the beet sugar crop.

That is Deputy Rooney's leader's opinion of beet in this country and sugar beet. Is it any wonder that when he did get the power afterwards, he chipped in and in a discussion in Britain in relation to fixing prices in Britain, allowed a levy of £16 a ton to be put on every ton of sugar exported to Britain from this country? I challenged him with that here in this House and on 12th July, 1960, Volume 183, Column 1411, Deputy Dillon said:

I want to raise a specific matter which affects the problems of beet farmers who are supplying beet to the sugar factories, and also other products which are produced from Irish sugar, which is raw material produced in this country. In 1948, we negotiated a Trade Agreement, Article V of which reads as follows:

The Government of the United Kingdom undertake that where goods, the growth, produce or manufacture of Ireland, are dutiable at preferential rates of duty, they will not vary the existing preferential treatment of these goods in such a way as to put any class of goods, the growth, produce or manufacture of Ireland, at a disadvantage in relation to goods of that class from other sources enjoying preferential treatment.

Now, that is a pretty comprehensive Article and yet with that article in existence, I understand that goods containing Irish sugar are being subjected to a very formidable levy, the proceeds of which are devoted to the subsidisation of goods of similar quality containing sugar derived from crown colonies of the British Crown. I am told, I think, by some of the Minister's colleagues, that when Deputy Norton was Minister for Industry and Commerce, this matter arose and that he did not consider it desirable to press the interpretation of Article V which would give us the right to claim exemption from that levy.

At that period Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture, charged with looking after the agricultural community in this country. He said:

I do not know what the position is in regard to that. I have no recollection of hearing the matter discussed when I was a member of the inter-Party Government——

he was not even consulted, I suppose, and he had not enough interest in the matter to bother with it

——although it could have happened and has passed out of my memory but I do not remember it and I have not discussed the matter with Deputy Norton. Whatever attitude was taken up, I should like to be told now because frankly I confess that as I see it now, it appears that that Article is wide enough and comprehensive enough to cover the present procedure under which I believe that goods which are the growth, produce or manufacture of Ireland are being put at a disadvantage in relation to goods of that class from other sources enjoying preferential treatment.

That action was taken in the last days of an inter-Party Government in 1956, and when we wanted to increase production we had to face that condition of affairs. Thank goodness, some improvement has since been made in the situation by this Government. We had Deputy Rooney looking for more beet and more sugar and Deputy Dillon talking about the daft scheme and allowing the British to put £16 a ton levy on it but despite the condition of affairs that existed, in which in 1959 we had to prevent farmers from growing beet, we survived. Beet then had to be rationed. In 1960 there was the announcement: "No new contracts are being issued this year nor are applicants for increased acreage being considered."

I can speak here as the chairman of an association of some 80,000 tillage farmers and as one who encouraged the idea that the price of beet would be based on costings. It is the only agricultural crop produced in this country today based on costings. In those four years, despite that penalty, we can proudly say we have increased the production of beet from 1960 to this year, 1963/64, by 25 per cent. The acreage of beet has gone up from 67,000 acres to 88,000 acres despite rationing, despite everything that could be done to stop us. We beet growers had to make sacrifices. When we were entitled to an increase of half a crown a ton on costings on our beet we let that go by in order to have 12,000 more acres of beet grown and to smash the rationing ring. This year the amount of beet produced is over 1,056,000 tons; the value of that in sugar is over £17,000,000—for that daft scheme. This year the 20,000 extra acres of beet grown represents 240,000 tons of beet and about 37,000 tons of sugar. If the Irish people carried out the advice of Deputy Dillon the housekeepers of this country, the housewives who are howling at the door here every day would be paying 2/6 a lb. for their sugar, whether they liked it or not, with the price of sugar in the world market.

We are the only body who have got any increase in the price of agricultural produce this year. We have got an increase of 11/1 a ton in the price of beet for the coming year, and the acreage of beet grown is limited only by the capacity of the four factories to handle it. That is what co-operation between the manufacturing side of the industry and the producers of the industry have succeeded in getting.

In 1951, the then Minister for Agriculture first put his palsied hand on the beet industry in a letter to the Sugar Company "that the previous Government had been far too generous with the farming community and the Government could not agree to any increase in the price of beet for the coming year". Those are the handicaps under which we had to fix prices and work. The result of that was clearly displayed the following year when there had to be imported into this country 75,000 tons of foreign sugar costing on the quayside £12 a ton more than the best Irish sugar from any Irish factory.

The position in the beet industry now is that there has been an increase of 25 per cent in production in four years. This year as a result of all the work that has been done we are in the happy position that, when sugar is going at £100 a ton in the foreign market, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann have 40,000 tons of sugar more to sell than they had in 1960. Then we are told we cannot expand production. The expansion in production was due solely to the fact that the price of that crop is based on costings. I am very happy to say that yesterday evening I concluded with the Sugar Company the agreement of the coming year. Those are the conditions of it: 11/1d. a ton increase in price.

Mr. N. Egan

You did not even let off the penny?

Mr. Corry

No. We are entitled to everything we can get and it will not be half enough because it must be remembered that the price of that beet is made up on costings at a wage of £6 16s. to the agricultural labourer and the farmer producing it. The meanest charwoman in an industry would not work for it.

In those conditions, we have managed an extra income of £17½ million from agricultural produce. Still, I am not happy about that income. None looking at the position of the agricultural labourer could be happy about it. He is supposed to be entitled to an increase of only 5s. a week while the white collar, eight-hour-a-day man turns down an increase of £2 14s. a week. There is something wrong in a country where these conditions are allowed to exist. Where will it lead to? Then we have the fellow with the £3,000 a year standing up and talking about the flight from the land.

I suggest that if we are to get ahead with agriculture, the Minister should take his courage in his hands and fix a wage of £10 a week for agricultural labourers. There is not a man working on a farm today who does not require to be far more skilled than any worker in any industry, no matter who he may be. Take one of those fellows in industry, hand him a milking machine and tell him to go out and milk 25 or 30 cows, and see what he will do. Shove him up on a tractor and tell him to open 15 or 20 drills, and see what he will do.

It is the agricultural labourer who is expected to work at £6 10s. a week to feed the £20 a week fellow. There is only one remedy for that, and had we not got the increase in price for sugar beet, I would have taken it. If we left those fellows without sugar for a year, we would see how sweet they would be at the end of it. In spite of that, 90 per cent of the time of this House is taken up discussing non-agricultural activities, and every hour of that time is piling up an extra load on the farmers' backs, either in increased rates for social services or some other blown-up activity. Let us look things in the face.

It is no good talking here about wheat. I heard Deputy Rooney talking about wheat, and in the name of heavens, did he consult his leader before he got up to speak about it? What is his leader's opinion on wheat? Somebody might like to hear it. At Column 2050 of Volume 106 of the Official Report, this is what he had to say about wheat:

For the first time since the emergency, we had the enthralling, stimulating and surprising experience of eating bread made out of Irish wheat. Before you ate it you had to hold it out in your hands, squeeze the water out of it, then tease it out and make up your mind whether it was a handful of boot polish or a handful of bread. If it was boot polish you put it on your boots or shoes and if it was bread you tried to masticate it if you were fit.

It is that gentleman, with all that knowledge, who comes in here and raises Cain with the Minister about the price of wheat. The Leader of the main Opposition, with that viewpoint enunciated in this House, gives us the good advice. You get the most amazing advice if you go and have a look at some of the extraordinary things said here. We are all interested in milk. I heard Deputy Rooney on that, too. Would he like to know his leader's opinion on milk? Here it is, reported at Column 2048 of the same volume:

We are subsidising butter production to the tune of £2,000,000 per annum. How long will that go on? Do we expect butter to get dearer in the markets of the world? Do we expect a time in the early future when the price of milk will become so adjusted that it will be possible to suspend this subsidy, or do we intend to continue producing milk for conversion into butter in creameries at an annual cost to the taxpayer of £2,000,000 per annum? I want to go on record most emphatically that I think such a policy is sheer insanity and is purely pursued for the purpose of maintaining the prestige of incompetents in the offices of the Minister for Agriculture since Fianna Fáil came into power.

That is Deputy Dillon's opinion of converting milk into butter. What else can we do with it? His shadow Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Donegan, is of the opinion that 75 per cent of our milk is too dirty to be processed into anything else but butter. He was, of course, following the good lead of his leader.

He states that 75 per cent of the milk is too dirty. I gave the figures for our cheese factories at Mitchelstown, Rathduff, Mallow and I can say that none of those dirty people handling milk comes from County Cork. Deputy T. O'Donnell gave the figures from his county and he says none of those dirty milkers comes from County Limerick. They must all be above with Deputy Donegan in County Louth. I suggest that now in his leisure during the holidays he goes and has a chat with the farmers' wives and daughters up there whom he has labelled as dirty.

If we are to keep the people of this country on the land, working it, our whole outlook on agriculture will have to be changed. We will not do that by having some hero taking 1,000 or 2,000 acres of conacre here and there and growing wheat on it. We have got to make it possible for agricultural producers to get at least £100 gross per acre from the land. If we can do that, we will not have to go further at the moment to persuade our farmers to produce sufficient to swell the revenue of the country. The first thing to be done, if we are to be successful, is to remove the malignant hand that exists in practically every Department of the State and prevents things being done.

I advised some of my new constituents in the Mallow area, who live in pretty poor country around New-market, to go into growing vegetables for manufacturing. Some did so and the average quantity of cabbage delivered by five of them to Mallow factory this year was 26½ tons to the acre. That represents something over £140 per acre for cabbage and the farmer who cannot grow cabbage should not have land.

Last week, under our special arrangement with General Costello in regard to those crops, those farmers got, in addition to the price, a bonus of 23/- per ton, or £30 per acre.

Five of these factories were scheduled for manufacturing in 1964 and building was to begin in June of this year. It is now December and we are only starting to move after getting out from under the mantle of the Departments. We still have another Department to face, the biggest of them all, the one with the money. What is wrong? If a foreigner comes into the country guaranteeing that he will employ 20 or 30 men, he can get grants from the Department or from the Industrial Development Authority but the very minute you mention agriculture, there is a sniff and a sneeze and a twist and a turn from every overpaid, underworked gentleman in the State. Poor Fr. McDyer has been for the past two years in Donegal with his little factory trying to give employment and keep people at home on the land. He did not get his grant yet. Why?

Mr. Smith

Because the conditions were not observed and there is no use in having conditions if they are not observed.

Mr. Corry

Let us look at the conditions and see what they are.

Mr. Smith

They are there, anyhow.

Mr. Corry

I suggest a copy of those conditions should be laid on the Table of the House so that we can see them. It is extraordinary that a fellow can come from Czechoslovakia and get a grant here to the tune of anything from £100,000 to a couple of million—

Mr. Smith

There are conditions in his case, also.

Mr. Corry

Are there? Let us see what the conditions are. We want to look at them. Then we shall know what is wrong. I had that proposed industry in Midleton and on the figures of the man who knows, it was stated that 700 factory workers would be required at full development. I want to keep 700 of my East Cork boys and girls at home working: I want to have the farmers of East Cork producing crops that will give them a return of £100 to £150 per acre and I am not going to be held up by any civil servant. I do not care who he is or——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible——

Mr. Corry

I do not care who is responsible.

An Ceann Comhairle

Any charges the Deputy wishes to make must be made against the Minister.

Mr. Corry

The point is that industry has been held up from June to December.

Mr. Smith

Has the State not provided all the money you want?

Mr. Corry

Where is it?

Mr. Smith

It is there.

Mr. Corry

Conditions.

Mr. Smith

There are no conditions —unlimited funds for development, State-guaranteed—what do you want?

Mr. Corry

I want the difference between what is in this letter and the Minister's statement. That is one thing I must get without doubt. If we are to advance, get industries going and do what our comrades died for—keep our young people employed at home; if we are to raise the living standards of those who are flying from the land so that they will remain here to produce crops that will give them a decent return instead of the miserable prices attached to grain, nothing should stand in the way of it.

I enjoy listening to Paddy Crosbie in "School Around the Corner." When Crosbie puts his arm around one of the children and asks him: "What are you going to be?" I have never yet heard one of them say: "I am going to be a farmer or an agricultural labourer," and I have been a long time listening now.

A fortnight ago, an increase of 5/- per week for agricultural labourers was announced. It meant 4/2 per ton increase in the price of my beet—that is how I know it. On Monday night when I opened the evening newspaper, I saw that another section of the community had refused an increase of £2 14s. a week. What hope have you of holding men on the land with a 5/- a week increase on the one hand, when on the other, you have gentlemen who are able to refuse an increase of £2 14s.? There can be only one end to that sort of thing and the sooner we realise it the better.

In regard to malting barley, the price negotiated last year was 53/- a barrel as against 57/6 in 1948. When I turn to the other side of the picture, I see in the Irish Independent of December 6th this year that even after allowing £2,473,000 for depreciation the Guinness company's profits rose from £7,700,000 to £8,413,000 and extra shares and extra moneys were distributed to everyone. Even the employees on the staff of the Dublin and Park Royal concerns shared in the group's record and received a bonus of one month's salary or wage. I was very happy to read that but I notice that while they thought of the shareholders and the employees there was not one penny for the man producing the barley. There was not one word about him.

That is just an indication of the outlook there is towards agriculture. It is about time the people realised what is happening. Only yesterday I was in Carlow and we were discussing the threshing operations of ten and 15 years ago when you would have had 30 or 35 young men gathered in to do the work. You could travel the parish today and you would not get them. They would be fools if they were there working for £6 odd a week while if they go into an industry, they will earn from £12 to £25.

As I said, the whole outlook on agriculture must be changed and changed immediately, if it is not too late already. You will find difficulty today getting skilled men who ten years ago were available. It is impossible to get skilled men. Then you see an item here "Subsidy on artificial manures" but you find that one firm is swallowing all the small fellows in preparation for gobbling up the subsidy in an increased price for the artificial manures produced. That is where the subsidy is going and it is a joke and a fraud to put down these subsidies as subsidies to agriculture, because they are not. They are subsidies to the monopolies.

I do not wish to delay the House further. I have given the facts as I know them and as I have studied them. The whole body of this House, whatever political beliefs they profess, should band together and decide that we are going to change the position of agriculture, in the matter of subsidies and everything else. The biggest bogey we have to face in regard to beet, for example, is incompetent and inefficient transport. It is time that state of affairs were changed and as far as we farmers are concerned, it is high time CIE were thrown off their perch and full rights accorded to private enterprise in the field of transport. Any change would be better than what we have.

Mr. N. Egan

This debate has been dragged out a good deal and, therefore, I do not propose to speak for very long. I should like to refer to what I consider the most important matter in the Minister's statement, that is, the heifer bounty scheme. It is an excellent scheme and I congratulate the Minister and his Department on it. It has been very well received by the farmers. The bounty of £15 a head is a generous one and I believe the scheme will achieve the aims set out in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion as far as the increase in cattle output is concerned, that is, an increase from 1,046,000 in 1960 to 1,500,000 by 1970. Of course Deputy Dillon tried to ridicule the scheme when it was announced and he brought into play his peculiar brand of arithmetic. He said that every cow and heifer would have to have triplets every year to produce the target aimed at by 1970. That was another way he had of saying that the whole idea was preposterous, or to use his own favourite phrase, “all cod”.

Let us get down to the simple arithmetic of the scheme. It is estimated that approximately 320,000 heifers go into the fat and store market every year, that is, that we lose approximately 320,000 potential cows, as far as having calves is concerned, each year. If that number were sent to the bull, we would have an increase of 320,000 in the first year. Assuming, in the natural course of events, that they would have one calf each—not to talk of Deputy Dillon's triplets—we would have an increase in the first year alone of 320,000. Assuming that approximately half the calves were heifers, they alone—say, by 1967— would produce approximately 150,000 or 160,000——

Mr. Donegan

The programme referred to output—not numbers.

Mr. N. Egan

In an increase of the cattle population, increased numbers and output are the same.

Mr. Donegan

That is not what the Taoiseach says.

Mr. N. Egan

That is what he meant. There is no necessity to take this 100 per cent potential at all of 320,000. Let us start off with, say, 20,000—a reasonable figure—of an increase in 1964 over 1963; 30,000 in 1965; 40,000 in 1966; 60,000 in 1967; 80,000 in 1968; 100,000 in 1969; and 120,000 in 1970.

Mr. Donegan

Some of them will be fairly old by that stage: they will be gone.

Mr. N. Egan

New ones will be coming along all the time.

Mr. Donegan

I agree——

Mr. N. Egan

Perhaps Deputy Donegan thinks when I said 20,000 in 1964; 30,000 in 1965; 40,000 in 1966; and 60,000 in 1967, I jumped too high from 1966 to 1967, but of the 20,000 in 1964, in the natural course, half of the calves would be heifer calves and would all be having calves in 1967. I wound up at 120,000 by 1970. Any farmer who knows anything about cows, calves and cattle production will find my figures very reasonable. The whole thing, added up over those seven years up to 1970, give a figure of 450,000 extra. That brings it up to a grand total as between what we had in 1960 of 1,046,000 to 1,496,000—not very far off the target.

If we take as a base year 1962, we had 1,062,000 or an increase of 16,000 over 1960. If we take that year as a base, we would be well over the target by approximately 12,000.

Mr. Donegan

On a point of explanation——

Mr. N. Egan

I shall not do Deputy Donegan's home work for him. He can take my figures from the Official Report and I shall discuss them with him.

Mr. Donegan

Get the Programme for Economic Expansion. The figure is 1,500,000 output sold off farms—not numbers.

Mr. N. Egan

If we increase our number of stock each year, that is an increase of output of cattle population. Deputy Donegan said he could not understand the Minister's figures. He said he could not understand how the Minister arrived at 120,000 of an increase in the last year of the programme, that is, 1970. I demonstrated it step by step. There is nothing more likely to confuse a man than if he starts off with the conviction that a particular set of figures is wrong and, further, if he has the determination to prove them wrong when, all the time, they are right.

Mr. Donegan

An output, in the Programme for Economic Expansion, of 1,000,000 cattle a year to 1,500,000.

Mr. N. Egan

I shall not waste time with Deputy Donegan's fine distinctions.

Mr. Donegan

He is on one thing and the Taoiseach is on another.

Mr. N. Egan

It was very noticeable in this debate that the Fine Gael backbenchers were gradually and very definitely losing faith in the arithmetic of Deputy Dillon and others and they took up a different line altogether. Instead of stressing that the idea was preposterous and the figures were unattainable, they said that nobody would get anything out of it except the big fellow and that it would not benefit the small farmers at all.

The scheme will benefit every farmer who is able to increase his herd. We all know that the great majority of farmers will be able to increase their herds substantially. A very large number, indeed—through intelligent fertilising, and so on—will be able to double their herds. Indeed, not a few will be able to treble their herds. The stock-carrying capacity of the land of this country has increased enormously in the past ten, 15 or 20 years and there is still tremendous room for improvement in that regard.

I spoke to a lot of farmers since this scheme was introduced. They had a tremendous and enthusiastic welcome for it and most of them were small farmers. They were not troubled about what the big fellow would get out of it but considered what the scheme would mean to themselves. They were all convinced it would mean a big lot to them. I believe they will avail of the scheme vigorously and use it intelligently. I do not believe they will be distracted by the muddled mathematics of Deputy Dillon and Deputy Donegan or by the other line taken by Fine Gael speakers who, when they lost faith in the figures of their two agricultural experts, turned to the time-worn and hackneyed comparison of the big fellow and the little fellow.

I hope the small struggling farmer as we know him will be helped in so far as it is possible to help him to avail of this scheme. I should also like to see every agricultural labourer with a cottage and a plot who has not already a cow helped to avail of the scheme. I believe every cottager with a plot should have a cow. I believe there are very few localities where such a man could not get grass and conacre hay at a reasonable cost for a cow. Apart from providing milk and butter for himself and his family for the greater part of the year, the manure from the cow and the calf would be of tremendous value to that man's plot. Every cottager with a plot of land should have a cow and a calf, so that, apart from helping his own economy, he would also be helping the national economy. Many people would not agree with that but I never saw a cottager with a plot yet who had a badly fed cow or calf. It would give them an added stake in the country by having a cow and calf and that in itself would be a very good thing.

This scheme was well timed. This is a favourable time to embark on a big step to increase our cattle population, our output, or whatever fine distinction Deputy Donegan likes to put on it. We are in sight of the completion of the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, thanks to the tremendous efforts of the Minister and his Department. We have lost in the process something like half a million cows and the remarkable capability of the farmers to replace them is another indication that this scheme can be worked well. The productivity of our land has increased enormously and will increase still further with generous and intensive manuring. Time will prove that this scheme was well conceived. We have better prospects in the continental and world markets and entry to the Common Market looms before us, offering still further prospects for our cattle exports.

I had intended to speak at some length on grain crops generally, on their sowing, growing, harvesting and final disposition but I would have to cover a great deal of ground and take up a lot of time to deal adequately with that subject. I shall content myself by saying a few words in favour of an early harvest. Many of our ills as far as grain and other crops are concerned are due to a too late harvest. Our harvest could be pushed forward by at least one month. Ploughing does not begin soon enough after the harvest and not nearly enough work is done before Christmas. Very often you have bad weather in the new year and tillage operations are held up. Then you have a late spring, late sowing, late growing and late harvesting. It is the same vicious circle all over again. It all adds up to badly damaged crops, with terrific losses in time, money and material.

If harvesting could be pushed forward that one month, we would have much better harvesting conditions and consequently improved farming conditions generally. I would urge the Minister very strongly to consult with his officials in an effort to devise some sound means of carrying out a campaign to encourage the farmers to push the harvest a month forward. It can be done and if the Minister can do it, he will have done the biggest thing in 40 years for Irish agriculture. The results would be difficult to estimate in terms of increased output, better crops and more efficiency in agricultural output generally. I strongly urge the Minister to take up that suggestion.

A good deal has been said about interest-free loans for farmers by Deputies Dillon and Donegan. I have no particular set on Deputy Donegan but he happens to be in the firing line at the moment. They submitted interest-free loans as an ideal solution for the farmers' ills and took the Minister to task because he was not sufficiently enthusiastic about their proposals. It is extraordinary to see how Deputy Dillon has become converted to the idea of interest-free loans. At one time he was the deadly enemy of such proposals and his conversion to it is almost as striking as his conversion to wheat growing.

In 1947, when interest-free loans were being discussed on the Estimate for Agriculture on 17th June, he said, in volume 106, column 2036 of the Official Report:

I doubt very much if this scheme of scattering loans all over the country, interest-free, has anything to commend it.

On the same day in Column 2037, he said:

I solemnly warn this House with regard to these interest-free loans that 50 per cent of the recipients will live to curse the day they got them.

Now he comes in to attack the present Minister for Agriculture because he does not become enthusiastic over his grandiose scheme of giving an interest-free loan of £1,000 to each of almost 300,000 farmers. So much for the consistency of Deputy Dillon and his interest-free loans, to say nothing of wheat and beet.

Deputy Dillon concluded his remarks with certain recommendations to the Minister for his personal comfort. Deputy Dillon seems to be in the mood lately for recommending rest cures for certain people. Having said that the present Minister for Agriculture must be the worst Minister for Agriculture in Western Europe, he went on to recommend that he should take a rest cure—go down to the green pastures of Cavan and take a rest there for the remainder of his days. It is strange that it did not occur to Deputy Dillon that he could more appropriately take a rest cure himself than most people in this House. Surely he is not unaware of the very grave anxiety that many of his Party have about his need for a rest; I do not think they would consider it necessary for him to go down to the green pastures around Ballaghaderreen and spend the rest of his life there in splendid isolation——

Mr. Dillon

Is the Deputy not a bitter old creature?

Mr. N. Egan

I believe they would be quite satisfied if he took a long rest from his very onerous duties as Leader of the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. Dillon

God help the Deputy! Would he not love to see me gone?

Mr. N. Egan

It depends on where the Deputy goes.

Mr. Dillon

But he never will.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

It is always pleasant when a Minister can get in to conclude on his Estimate, but it is even more pleasant for him when he has concluded. This debate has extended over many weeks and the break in the debate for the past two weeks has, of course, taken some of the warmth out of the discussion and one finds it a little difficult now to recapture the first enthusiasm.

Some of the matters raised during the course of the debate were also raised at Question Time. Politics are, of course, politics; nevertheless, I could not quite see the necessity for the tendency that seemed to develop here to misrepresent publicly what was really intended when Survey Teams were established to report on certain aspects of agriculture, such as the pigs and bacon industry, the dairying industry, and so on. Before these Survey Teams were established, there was a certain anxiety on the part of many Deputies; they seemed to fear that industry was taking steps and making preparations and carrying out investigations while agriculture appeared to be neglecting its duty. Such fears, even if they were genuine, were groundless. There was no justification for them.

These Survey Teams were set up. They made reports. There is not a Deputy in this House unintelligent enough not to know that the making of these reports did not mean that the Government were committed to the reports. These reports were furnished by people qualified to examine into particular aspects of the agricultural industry—economists, technical experts, and so on. It was known that these reports would be referred to those most concerned, the people whose circumstances and conditions were being investigated and the rural organisations affected. It was also known that, after all that process had taken place, the Government would have to arrive at a decision. Yet, a very fine effort was made to put over on the public that, immediately the Survey Team reports appeared, they represented Government policy, in the hope that the people would be stampeded into something.

One of the survey reports concerned the bacon industry. A number of recommendations were made in that report. These were submitted to the study group. I refer in particular to the one of which Deputies have been critical, namely, the proposed levy for the purchase of what might be described as excess factory capacity. That idea has been discussed over the past 30 years. I could not count the number of times I have heard it mentioned. The fact that the survey team recommended this course does not, however, mean that the industry itself would be satisfied or that the producers would be satisfied. Neither did it mean, nor could it mean, that the Minister would be satisfied. Naturally I would have a view and that view would be as sound as any view coming from any other source. It was apparently good tactics to try to give the impression that this was Government policy. The proposal was made by a survey team of three individuals. It was submitted to the study group, and all the interests there expressed hostility to it. Even if they never expressed hostility to the proposal, I would feel not only uncertain about its wisdom but hostile to it, if I had to make up my mind about it.

The next item on the programme was the attempt by the Pigs and Bacon Commission to investigate this recommendation for the centralised purchasing of pigs. Immediately the Commission proceeded to do this, the word went round that this was going to be Government policy. All the speeches made and the parliamentary questions directed to me on this subject were designed to cultivate that notion in the public mind.

I have listened to much criticism of the past and present method of collecting pigs. People are entitled to be critical and may be justified in being so, but it is not easy to find a better method. When this recommendation was made by the survey team, it was only natural for the Pigs and Bacon Commission to ask if there was anything in it. The Commission knew there were a number of weaknesses in the present system which, if they could either be eliminated or tightened up, would have a beneficial effect on the producers, the curers and, indeed, on every section of the community.

We all know there are a good many factories in the country and that they are not taxed to capacity. They have to keep staff on hands and try to provide them with continuity of employment. Otherwise, their staffs would move to other centres. Many of these factories cannot say from week to week what the intake of pigs will be. Unless they make some plans of their own with dealers, the supply position might be uncertain. In such circumstances, their overheads would be tremendously high.

These are not all the difficulties of the present system. A further formidable problem arises in this way. One week you may have a small supply of pigs and the butchers can be careful because they have plenty of time to do a good job. Maybe next week the supply is doubled. Then the work is more or less rushed, and, I feel, cannot be done with the same degree of care. When we got complaints in the Department from British customers about the butchering of the pig, I often wondered why that should be so. I was certain that our people here are just as capable as the people of any other country when it comes to doing a neat job. But when you look at it from this aspect, you see it is possible, where men are rushed, that the job might not be done as well as it otherwise might be. All these matters were present in the minds of the members of the Commission.

The Commission included representatives of the producers. They would not be likely to take kindly to suddenly making a decision whereby the whole pattern of the purchasing of pigs would be altered. There was no need to give the impression that, because the Commission decided, as they were bound to, to sift every one of these recommendations, this scheme was going to be operated. Even if they agree to it, which would be most unlikely having regard to the composition of the Commission, it would have to come to me; and I could see the tremendous confusion and difficulty that would arise in the operation of any such scheme.

I do not know, in fact, how any suitable or workable scheme could be devised. However, there is a further reason for a different approach to the methods followed by bacon factories up to now. Under the present methods, a very high percentage of the pigs going into the factories are not graded at all. They are not graded in the ordinary way as they go in, because they do not come direct from the producer but are bought on some other basis from dealers. They might be graded after they are cured, but if they go in through dealers, there would not be any need for grading at the admission stage if there were an arrangement that they were being bought on a level per cwt. basis.

Mr. Dillon

Must they not be graded at the point of slaughter?

Mr. Smith

No.

Mr. Dillon

Why?

Mr. Smith

If the curer has an arrangement with me to take pigs at £8 per cwt. live weight and take his chance as to the grading——

Mr. Dillon

He still must grade them?

Mr. Smith

Not at the point of entry.

Mr. Dillon

At the point of slaughter.

Mr. Smith

He can grade the sides afterwards. The difficulty is that no producer knows how his pigs will fare under such circumstances. That is the objection to that system—it is of no importance from the point of view of giving a lesson to the producer as to what grade his pigs will make. He simply sells them by hand. They are sold, if you like, by hand from the dealer to the curer and all the other processes mean nothing to the producer from an educational point of view. I think it will be admitted that that is not a desirable state of affairs if a suitable alternative fair method could be found but I know the difficulties that exist in that respect and to get such alternative method would be a tremendously tough proposition.

There was no need, therefore, to get excited about this thing because it was not likely to get through. Even though a recommendation was made to that effect by the survey team, there were a lot of obstacles to be contended with before anybody should get it into his head that a central purchasing scheme would be operated.

I have dealt in my opening remarks with the recent discussions with the British in regard to the sharing of the market for bacon and pork and I have told the House that the arrangements were reasonably satisfactory from our point of view. I often hear Deputies talking about all the advantages that would arise from rationalisation of markets, the introduction of quotas, and so on. Of course they are all right to the extent that they are aimed at securing more uniform marketing conditions and more even prices in the markets but at the same time I dread the mention of the introduction of a quota system against the products of agriculture because very often mention of the quota system conveys the imsio pression that it will tie one down to a level of production that would leave the industry in a straitjacket, so to speak. Where the arrangement does not have that limiting effect, it is not objectionable and in that regard we have fared reasonably well in this arrangement.

Mr. Dillon

But there is no quota, is there, on fresh pork going into Great Britain?

Mr. Smith

No.

Mr. Dillon

Only on bacon?

Mr. Smith

That is right. As Deputies are aware, questions were put to me yesterday in regard to pig fattening farms, as they were called. A number have been established, most of them associated with a creamery society but some of them independently. They have been supported both by grant and by loan facilities. A question addressed to me yesterday concerned the availability of loans to these societies and whether or not the Government were prepared to guarantee these loans. I explained that I consider that this development is all right, is something that is coming and will be useful and it was because we in the Department realised that some years ago that we introduced the grants system. Up to this the maximum building grant any person engaging in the finishing of pigs could receive was £50. I saw one of these centres being constructed and decided that the grant system should be extended to such centres on a much more generous basis.

While that is all right in its own way, there are certain dangers also. I have always been afraid that if there was very extensive development of such centres, it might involve the elimination of the traditional method of keeping and finishing pigs. That method may have its drawbacks but it was a source of income to many people and I would be hesitant about taking any step that I thought would result in weakening the position of those who look to the finishing of pigs as a source of income for themselves and their families.

There is also the other point that when some change like this is taking place, there are all sorts of groups coming together and deciding that they will establish a pig-finishing unit. It may be a co-operative or it might even be a company. Some of these cases have come to our notice. As I said at Question Time yesterday, it is necessary that those who co-operate in a matter of this nature should have some reasonable stake in the concern, especially in the case where a pig-finishing centre is established independently of any other activity, such as a creamery society.

In the case of a centre that is established in connection with a creamery society, there are a manager and assistants and there is supervision of everything going on within that limited space. In the case where the piggery is out on its own—and I have seen some of them—it is not easy to be sure that the supervision and the management are adequate to the job. If the persons establishing a centre for such a purpose have not some financial interest in it, it is very easy for them to slip out. Neither the Department of Agriculture nor the Agricultural Credit Corporation could run these places.

I have expressed my view to persons whom I met and who had these intentions. When they told me what their proposals were and what the commitment on their side would be, I said: "That is not reasonable." It is the job of the Credit Corporation to decide these matters, and so they do, but if they are not satisfied because the amount of the commitment on the part of the promoters is not enough, they come to us and say: "We would be prepared to give a loan if they made a reasonable effort but if they do not, we cannot give a loan without a guarantee." It is not good business to consider a proposal like that. The line we have taken in the Department and the line that has been taken by the Credit Corporation is that where some reasonable minimum contribution is made by the promoter there will be no difficulty about obtaining accommodation by way of loans.

The remarks I have made about the survey team's report in regard to bacon apply also in the matter of the dairying report. This report was received from the team and we put it in the hands of the public. After the study group had been called together and the different organisations represented there had shown they were not likely to give any sort of firm judgment on any of the recommendations, our anxiety was to get it into the hands of the public. I do not know what exact words were used but we said something to the effect that the fact that the report was being circulated involved no commitment either on the part of the study group or the Government in regard to the recommendations.

In regard to all these study groups, especially in the case of farming organisations, there is naturally a fair share of fencing. I hope the House will understand what I mean by "fencing." One organisation is watching the other as to what course it will take on a recommendation. Sometimes —not always—I suppose, the attitude of one organisation is influenced, however slightly, by the expression of opinion of its rival. Anyhow we have found some study groups very hesitant about giving firm opinions in regard to these questions.

As I say, there was no justification whatever for the creation of a feeling that we were just going out with the sledgehammer to batter down small units and to force creamery organisations into larger units, and so on. Nothing was further from our minds because, just as in other matters other men will have opinions on the wisdom of different courses which will differ from those of the people who make the recommendations.

May I say that the report of the survey team was a very good and interesting report and it had that liveliness about it that even if you did not feel like accepting the recommendations—and I am only expressing my personal attitude when I say this—you were stimulated by it. Some reports are tiresome and heavy to read but this survey team's report could not be so described. However, there was no effort made—nor is there often an effort made in respect of recommendations of an important and far-reaching nature—to prove that what is recommended would be more economic than what is there. It is all right to be critical of seeing a man with a horse and cart down in Limerick going with four or five cans or maybe less, apparently losing his morning, and coming back with the skim but while that may appear to be wasteful, some effort would have to be made to calculate what the result of another system would be.

We are anxious to get everybody's opinion on the report. No decision has been made yet by the Government but decisions will have to be made on a number of these recommendations and we want to get the widest possible criticisms, be they favourable or hostile, of the recommendations that are in that document.

Dealing with milk in general, I find it very encouraging to see the tendency to increased milk production that has been showing itself consistently now over a number of years. I remember when the bovine tuberculosis effort was being intensified, the case was being made by some Deputies and by people outside the House, too, for a substantial increase in the price of milk because of the number of cows that would be lost as a result of the incidence of the disease in certain parts of the dairying districts. All kinds of fears were expressed about the inability to find replacements for all these cows and there were doleful stories told and doleful prophecies made as to the effect this scheme would have on the creamery industry, on milk production and on the income of those farmers who depend on the creamery cheque. It is pleasant then to see that steadily, year after year, the volume of milk has been increasing, notwithstanding the fact that since 1958 we have removed from those six counties that are still to be completed more than 500,000 cows.

It is not so depressing to find that in the same period, after removing that number of cows plus the number that would normally go out of herds because of mastitis, the number of cows has increased since 1958 by 40,000. It is not a big increase, but for as long as I have been watching the cow population figures, they were always a source of disappointment because they never seemed to move. The figure was always around the million mark or the 1,200,000 mark. That is what has been happening in the past four or five years when all the prophets had said cow numbers would decline, that replacements were not there and that milk production would be reduced. It is encouraging to see this development.

I am particularly pleased with the developments in the west of Ireland. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I know you may not be interested in hearing this from me. I am a very modest man and I want to say to you that when people do not praise me, and very seldom is the Minister for Agriculture praised——

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Smith

I am always joking some of the people I meet—public men, members of county committees of agriculture and delegates to their General Council, members of farming bodies. Sometimes we meet at functions when the relationship is not strained and I always warn them not to praise the Minister for Agriculture, not to say nice things about him. They barely take the risk of praising Departmental officials or of complimenting them for their courtesy. Of course the Minister is very often much more courteous than the officials, though I have nothing but good to say of officials in all Departments.

However, be that as it may, I feel inclined to praise myself because of this development in the west of Ireland in the past few years. I shall take credit for the development of the creamery business in the west. I must say I really did not think at the beginning it would achieve this degree of success in such a short space of time. I remember an occasion when the Secretary of my Department and I talked about things in general and about the west and the small farms there in particular.

On occasions when I motored though parts of the west of Ireland where the land is reasonably good, I could never understand why there had not been there some development along the lines of the co-operative movement, that people had not been brought around to try to make some better use of the land than they appeared to be making of it. I thought there should be more cows and different breeds of cows, that real improvement could not come there without the introduction of the co-operative movement, of the creamery organisation. I thought if you had such a movement there, you could build around it some additions that would be helpful to the economy of that place.

As I have said, I talked it over with the Secretary of my Department and we agreed the position was as I have said. From that point we moved on and Deputies are aware of the progress that has been made. Of course it was not easy to face an expansion programme there. It would not only be costly from the point of view of the taxpayer but it would face difficulties from the marketing point of view. I claim a good deal of credit for the development there, for the way in which business there is moving. The House is aware that the Dairy Disposal Company made an offer to start there and develop the west. After some time, the IAOS came to me and said: "We will do this." I was not so certain at the time, but after discussions I said to them: "All right; we do not want to go in there ourselves at all but I should like to see somebody do it." They have gone in there and though it is only a matter of a couple of years, the results are very promising.

People are very often inclined to ask what has been the outcome of this or that recommendation. I would point out that in these matters it takes time to get results. Not only in the west but throughout the country in general, the development of the creamery business, in areas where it was unknown or where it was known only to a limited extent, has been going on. The Mullingar Central Creamery opened in 1962; the Tullamore separating station opened in 1963; the Mount Temple separating station is to open in 1963.

Mr. Dillon

I would not describe that as the west.

Mr. Smith

I shall come to the west.

Mr. Dillon

We are now prancing all over the place.

Mr. Smith

There are separating stations at Clonbern, at Athlone, at Athenry and there is the Central Creamery in my own county. There is also the project at Kilconnell in Galway.

Mr. Donegan

Would not the Kilnaleck people be the promoters there?

Mr. Smith

That is so. Then there is the project at Ballitore, the one in Athleague and the one at Monasterevan. There is the project at Nenagh and the one in my home town of Bailieborough.

Mr. Dillon

I thought you came from Cootehill.

Mr. Smith

I was reared there, and I was well worth rearing, no matter where it happened.

Mr. Donegan

Hear, Hear.

Mr. Dillon

We shall not go into that.

Mr. Smith

If you would give me a chance to tell you about this formidable list of achievements that this boy from Cavan has been responsible for——

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Would the Deputies let the Minister speak without interruption?

Mr. Dillon

Nach bhfuil Gaeilge ag an Teachta?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Tá

Mr. Dillon

Cén fá nac labhrann tú í?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Is cuma liom Béarla nó Gaeilge, ri hionan agus cusa.

Mr. Dillon

Níl ach Béarla a labhairt agat.

Mr. Smith

Killimor is in County Galway and I think that is in the west. There is a place called Belmullet also in the west which is to get a separating station in 1964. Killimor is scheduled for 1964. Castlebar, County Mayo— that was in 1962. We have applications for Rathscanlon Co-op, Ballina; Ballymahon, County Longford; Edgeworthstown; Shinrone, Offaly; Ballinrobe, County Mayo. New factories for the processing of milk include Rathduff cheese factory, which is manufacturing an English type of cheese for the British market. That was established in 1962. There is the Condensed Milk Company, Limerick which began large-scale production of Cheddar cheese for the British market in 1960; Wexford Creameries Ltd., operated now by Unigate; McCormick Brothers, Killeshandra, making calf-feed and ice-cream powder based on milk powder; Golden Vale, Charleville, commenced making milk powder in 1962 and another company at Mallow in 1961——

Mr. Dillon

You did not establish Rathmore in 1962?

Mr. Smith

They started to make butter oil in 1962. You will not find me making empty claims. It may sound a little boastful but that is just to irritate.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister has not crossed the Shannon yet. His geography is a bit askew.

Mr. Smith

No, but there are some things crossing the Shannon that I am trying to prevent passing. I have a variety of interests in the Shannon. Proposals for additional cheese and milk powder factories are on hand for Killmallock, County Limerick, and Dungarvan Co-op. and a German firm.

Mr. Dillon

You are still east of the Shannon.

Mr. Smith

There are some other proposals that have not taken shape yet. Somebody mentioned during the discussion Killeshandra and McCormick's concern there. I like to defend everybody and everything entitled to be defended but I am naturally especially interested in defending my own interests. That is human.

Mr. Dillon

The first law of nature, self-preservation, shared by man and beast alike.

Mr. Smith

Some Labour Deputies mentioned McCormick's and made the case that the firm could use much more skim milk at present than was usual heretofore. Some southern Deputies seem to think that we had not sufficient skim milk in that area. Taking not only Killeshandra and all separating stations attached to that society, but also others convenient, Lough Egish, Ballyhaise, Monaghan town, Bailieborough, Kilnaleck and so on, the availability of milk there would be about 35 million gallons per year at present. The southern Deputies, apparently, were making the complaint that the industry was established in a place where the availability of skim was limited. There is nothing further from the truth: there is no question of limitation in that sense.

So far as I am told by the concern itself and other sources, the firm is getting all the skim milk it could use. The factory was not fully completed and it was not in a position to take the maximum amount of skim at first. Suddenly, at the end of the season, the position arose that McCormick's could handle more skim milk. But this occurred at the wrong time of the year. When a concern wants to get skim, it must make contact with different creameries whose managers must make contact with suppliers because some suppliers will be glad to dispose of skim and some, unless the price is very attractive, will prefer to use it for pigfeeding, calf-rearing and so on. I shall not deal with this in any detail: I just want it on record since the other story, which is entirely incorrect, is also on record. I want to demonstrate that there is no question of a shortage of milk and that Killeshandra itself without considering any other centres, could handle about ten million gallons in the year.

These are developments in which I have taken a good deal of interest and in which the Department and I feel a sort of pride. We are only at the beginning of this type of development and, while anybody with a fair knowledge of the world will not suggest that the way is all clear for the disposal of milk products yet, it is the kind of development that will mean a lot to these areas. It is a development which can provide other opportunities to enable people to get a better income and a better living.

I referred in my opening speech to the credit policy announced by Deputy Dillon here on a few occasions. I suspected things were not what they appeared to be in regard to that policy but I was anxious to have it on record that they were not what the ordinary man, reading the statements in the newspapers, would be inclined to believe. I knew this interest-free loan business was bound to have snags. Otherwise it would be complete madness to think you could announce interest-free loans of £1,000 to farmers. It just could not be done. Who would not take one of these interest-free loans? Therefore there had to be conditions. What were they? They were not made very clear.

Mr. Dillon

They were perfectly clear, as printed and circulated to every voter in the country.

Mr. Smith

One of the conditions is that the farmer gets his agricultural adviser to prepare a scheme for him, a scheme of production——

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister want to hear it as published?

Mr. Smith

I do not want to hear it at all. I know the bones of it. I was listening to the Deputy's speech.

Mr. Dillon

It is there, printed.

Mr. Smith

It does not matter. I am going to make my speech just nice and quietly and I do not want——

Mr. Dillon

Interest-free loans to farmers, ranging up to £1,000, will be made available for schemes of increased production planned in conjunction with the advisory services.

Mr. Smith

This is what I am saying.

Mr. Dillon

What mystery is there about it?

Mr. Smith

The mystery is this: I saw one of the Deputy's grandiose schemes like that in operation before and I know what happened. I know all the supervisory and technical men employed on that. They devoted their time to a few individuals here and there and their time was taken up, first, in preparing and, then, in supervising these grandiose schemes, while people who were prepared to do their own work and take advantage of the assistance that was rightly available to them for doing that work could not get any plans at all.

Mr. Dillon

I never remember any such situation.

Mr. Smith

I could foresee, of course, that you would have one approach with a prepared scheme, by one of the agricultural advisers, and that would result in each agricultural adviser just planning for ten or 12 people in his district. He would prepare the scheme for the ten or 12 and concentrate on supervising it and there would be 700 or 800 farmers who would have a claim on his time also but he would have no time to give them.

Mr. Dillon

Nonsense.

Mr. Smith

Furthermore, was it not one of the principal complaints made down the years against our advisory services that they were just collared by a dozen farmers or so in a particular area and that they went from one to the other and did their work for them while neglecting to go out amongst the body of farmers and give them advice and assistance? I know of county committees of agriculture who have devoted the funds available for demonstrations to a few farms in their counties. Perhaps that appeared attractive to some people but it did not appear attractive from the point of view of the general public. I want to say that if a political Party or a Government feel like making a contribution towards a section of the community such as the farmers, it should be done clearly and the full implications should be made known.

Mr. Dillon

Printed and circulated to every voter in Ireland and published in the newspapers.

General MacEoin

The Minister says everybody would take it.

Mr. Smith

When they would discover the strings attached to it, they would know it was a horse of a different colour. The scheme I was talking about was Section B of the Land Reclamation Scheme.

Mr. Donegan

I thought so.

General MacEoin

The Egyptian bee.

Mr. Smith

I was acting for the late Tom Walsh——

Mr. Dillon

The Lord have mercy on him.

Mr. Smith

——immediately he came into office——

Mr. Dillon

In 1951.

Mr. Smith

Yes, that is right. I saw that when the contractors moved into one district, they stayed in it. When the scheme was announced, thousands of farmers applied and about half of the applicants applied under the B Section. Those who had big jobs to do applied under the B Section. When we came back into office in 1951, I knew a lot of people had made applications and were wondering that nothing was happening.

Mr. Dillon

Nonsense; there was never any delay that I remember, although you tried to sabotage it as much as you could and only when you failed——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Smith

I sabotaged it?

Mr. Dillon

I am not saying the Minister, but his supporters.

Mr. Donegan

It was a Dillon scheme.

Mr. Dillon

The best scheme that was ever launched.

Mr. Smith

I want to make this case——

Mr. Dillon

And it has you mad that people still want it.

Mr. Smith

Let me recount this experience. I went to the Department to do some simple work on behalf of the late Tom Walsh, signing documents of one sort or another and I saw there were there a few parliamentary questions, one of which concerned the B Section. This was the first one I handled. It was an inquiry by a Deputy about when a man would have his scheme vetted and when the work could be undertaken. I also saw the reply. I came over here, had my meal and then went back to vet the questions and the replies and to read the background notes supplied. When I read the reply, I said that could not be right, that it could not be true. I said that the reply was misleading. The reply said that it would be taken in the order in which it was received. I got on to Mr.—what is his name?

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order, is this not rather dangerous?

Mr. Smith

No.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister not think that it would be better to say that he proceeded to do so and so? I do not think that he can draw on the names of his civil servants.

Mr. Smith

He is retired.

Mr. Dillon

I know that. That is all the more reason for not mentioning it. The Minister got on to his office.

Mr. Smith

I got in touch with the man in charge of the scheme and I asked him when he thought this scheme could be inspected and he replied: "Well, Minister, in a matter of six months or so." I said "That is powerful; my problem is settled." Then he felt that I was misunderstanding him and he said: "Minister, that would happen only if it were a selected scheme from all those who had applied." I redesigned the reply and said "many of these may not be reached for years and if you are wise you will turn to the A Scheme, if you are in a hurry." When I was walking back from this House to my office with the then Secretary of the Department, he said: "Thanks be to goodness, this matter has been cleared up because I felt that in giving the stereotyped reply, we were responsible for misleading the public. You have decided the reply that is to be given for the future."

Mr. Dillon

I do not believe the Minister is speaking the truth and I speak with some authority for I know the public official concerned.

Mr. Smith

You have talked with him. He is still living.

Mr. Dillon

He is, and it is very unproper to draw him into our debate. I do not believe the Minister is telling the truth.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.