Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 31 Mar 1966

Vol. 222 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote 39—Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £2,045,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain Subsidies and sundry Grants-in-Aid.

—(Minister for Agriculture.)

Mr. O'Hara

When I reported progress on Thursday last, the Minister had intervened to remind me that in Mayo we were in the act of setting up a pig fattening station at Balla. I want to assure the Minister that any development of that kind will receive every possible assistance from the Mayo County Committee of Agriculture. I shall go further and say that either the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary would be very welcome to come to a meeting of the Mayo County Committee of Agriculture to discuss our problems. The Minister is a busy man and I do not think he would come but perhaps his Parliamentary Secretary could. His main responsibility is to the western regions, and if at a later date he receives an invitation from that committee we would appreciate very much if he would come down and discuss our problems. As I have said on a number of occasions, it is not a political committee. We discuss the business of farming. The chairman of that body, who has been unanimously elected for a long number of years, is not a member of my Party but of the Minister's Party. However, he was not elected because of his political affiliations but because we regard him as a man of ability and a man who has done his work well.

Pig production in the western areas followed a certain pattern in years gone by. If we are to have pig fattening stations in different parts of the west the whole approach will have to be changed. This is not the only business in which people will be obliged to change their methods. The farming community are rather conservative and slow to change their methods. Many people in the West got out of pig rearing because they found it uneconomic along the lines they pursued. Whether the new method will be a success or not I cannot say at this stage, but I do believe it has certain advantages for the farming community. Many of my neighbours in the past were in the habit of producing two or three pigs every three or four months. The day of the two or three pig units is gone and the business can no longer be carried on successfully along those lines.

We do not seem to have made the progress in regard to our bacon products that I should like to see. I am inclined to blame the bacon factories. Many bacon factories in this country have had long experience of producing bacon, and one would think they would have done better at home as well as in the export field. Our marketing system is not what it should be. I was in England a few years ago, and as a matter of interest I went round the shops in London and in other cities to see if I could find any Irish bacon on sale but, in those years in any case, there did not appear to be any Irish bacon on sale. I did meet some people who said they would be glad to buy Irish bacon if they could be sure of regular supplies. It seems that due to the uncertainity of supply and, in many cases, due to the poor condition of the marketed product, we lost our connection and lost a lot of valuable business in that market.

It is up to the Minister to do something about marketing arrangements. The all-important things are the quality of the finished product, the proper display of the goods and, above all, continuity of supply. Over a long period we have had little but nuisance value in the British market. We were in today with large quantities of bacon and suddenly, when we had established a market for a short while, we had to tell our customers we had not sufficient quantities of bacon or perhaps none at all.

I have been specially requested to mention the question of creameries which is vitally tied up with the question of bacon. The Minister will appreciate there are good prospects for the dairying business in the West. In the past we did not engage in dairying in a big way. The southern counties were more famous than we for the production of dairy products. Now that something is being done about the development of the co-operative societies and new separating stations being established in the West, it is important that the Minister would sanction a plan submitted to his Department some three months ago. I know this is very involved and it takes time to look over it and reach a reasonable decision. I can tell the Minister that in the Killala and Ballina areas, which would include Crossmolina and other adjoining areas, Killala creamery separating station is overloaded. It has a capacity of 5,000 gallons and has to handle about 12,000. That figure will probably continue to increase. Many of the suppliers to that creamery are small suppliers trying their hand and it would be important that we should encourage and help them in every way possible. I would ask the Minister to look into the question of sanctioning the proposals submitted to his Department.

Mr. Haughey

Is this the one at Ballina?

Mr. O'Hara

It is the one recommended by the Very Reverend Fr. Davis, P.P., Cooneal.

Mr. Haughey

We gave the go-ahead for that long ago.

Mr. O'Hara

I was speaking to him recently and that was not what he led me to believe.

Mr. Haughey

He wanted it in his own backyard and if he does not get it in his own backyard, he does not want it at all.

Mr. O'Hara

He seems to favour Killala. I know the final responsibility for making a decision in this regard rests with the Minister and I am asking him to speed up whatever decisions are awaited.

I want to repeat that fundamental to the helping of the small western farmers are the dairying and pig rearing industries. These industries should receive every possible help.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer briefly—I can assure the Minister I will not be as long as the previous speaker, the Minister for Health—and that is fertiliser subsidies. I am appealing to the Minister to do something special for the West in the matter of giving further subsidies on fertilisers to make them cheaper for our farmers.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Cunningham)

I am afraid that matter is not in order on this Supplementary Estimate. The matter with which we are now dealing is land reclamation. There is nothing in this Supplementary Estimate dealing with fertilisers.

Mr. O'Hara

I want to make the point, briefly——

Acting Chairman

It is not in order to do so.

Mr. O'Hara

——that I think the small farmers in the West should be entitled to some special consideration with regard to lime and fertilisers.

I should like to refer to the question of the availability of money to help our small farmers. Many of our people could do much better had they the capital to go ahead. For some time past it has been very difficult to get loans from the Agricultural Credit Corporation; at least that has been my experience.

Acting Chairman

That matter may not be raised on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy should wait for the main Estimate.

Mr. O'Hara

Finally, may I appeal to the Minister to have a word with the Agricultural Credit Corporation so that loans which have been applied for, particularly in the western and congested areas, would be sanctioned at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Pattison

Not being a farmer, it is very rarely I speak on an Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. Might I say that my intervention in a debate like this would be as big a surprise to the members of my Party as the Minister's appointment, to his present position, was to the Department?

Mr. Haughey

Is the Deputy starting to trail his coat?

Mr. Pattison

I hope I will not be described as the "Charlie Haughey" of the Labour Party.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy could do worse.

Mr. Pattison

However, my intervention has been prompted in order to make some references to a few of the points in the Estimate which have been brought out in the Minister's speech and in other speeches since this debate started. There were many references, including some in the Minister's speech, to the calved heifer subsidy scheme. I have asked numerous Parliamentary questions regarding this scheme in order to get some information on it and I came to certain conclusions on which I should like the Minister's observations. The Minister in his opening statement—and I quote from the Dáil debates of the 24th March, 1966, volume 221, No. 14, column 2242— said:

The main reason for this increase— that is the increase in the number of cows—

is the dramatic rise in our cattle population, mainly due to the remarkable response throughout the country to the Calved Heifer Subsidy Scheme.

I want to refer to the extent to which a handful of wide-awake boys have cashed in on this scheme because this has been brought out forcibly in the answers I have received to Parliamentary questions asked as recently as the 2nd of March, 1966.

Acting Chairman

That is not one of the items which can be discussed on this Supplementary Estimate. This Supplementary Estimate is rather limited and is, in fact, confined to the items which have been circulated.

Mr. L'Estrange

With all due respect, the Minister discussed it, as did other speakers and if the heifers are not in calf, you cannot have the milk. Surely it is tied up with the output of milk?

Mr. Pattison

I have the Dáil debate of the 24th of March in which practically every speaker referred to this. Most of them praised it and said it brought a lot of good to the farmers. The Minister himself referred to it and I think I would be in order in answering not alone the Minister's statement but those of practically every Deputy. I have gone through the debate and have marked on nearly every page a reference to it so I think it is unfair at this stage to cut out reference to this, when it has been gone into in very great detail up to now by practically every speaker.

Acting Chairman

What I am faced with is the fact that the calved heifer subsidy scheme may not be discussed on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Pattison

The number of cattle has been discussed and it is because of the increase in the number of cattle that this Supplementary Estimate is before us. Other speakers have debated the reason for this increase in the numbers of cattle, and that is what I want to debate now. I am asking only for the same rights as other Deputies got who have spoken on this Estimate.

Mr. Haughey

I made a passing reference to the scheme in connection with cattle numbers, but I certainly did not discuss it in detail or adduce it as a matter for discussion. My submission to the Chair is that the Deputy is not entitled to discuss this scheme in detail.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister got in the propaganda value of the scheme.

Mr. Haughey

There was no propaganda value.

Mr. Pattison

If the Minister does not like to hear the facts——

Acting Chairman

The Chair is pointing out that it is not one of the items included in the Supplementary Estimate. It is true that the Deputy, in dealing with another item which is included in the Supplementary Estimate, that is, milk, can refer to it, but I cannot allow a full discussion on the details of the heifer subsidy scheme.

Mr. L'Estrange

On a point of order, is it not true to say that were it not for the heifer scheme there would not be extra heifers, extra cows, and extra milk, and we would not have this extra Supplementary Estimate?

Acting Chairman

That is true.

Mr. Haughey

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Pattison

The heifer subsidy scheme has been used to justify this Supplementary Estimate. If it were not for the heifer scheme, we would not have this Supplementary Estimate. Other speakers have referred to it and dealt with it in great detail in some cases, so, with the permission of the Chair, I should like to continue on the lines on which I was speaking. I was referring to the extent to which a handful of these smart boys have cashed in on the scheme——

Acting Chairman

That is not in order as far as the Chair is concerned.

Mr. Pattison

I cannot understand why one ruling is made for one Deputy and another for other Deputies.

Acting Chairman

This is the first time I have made any ruling. So far as I am concerned, the Deputy may not discuss the details of the heifer subsidy scheme on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy will have another chance on the main Estimate.

Mr. Pattison

I want to do it now. I want to refute some of the things that have been said in the debate so far.

Acting Chairman

If someone else went into detail about it, he was not in order either.

Mr. Pattison

They were allowed to say it.

Acting Chairman

That is another matter.

Mr. Pattison

I definitely do not see why there should be one ruling for all the speakers in this debate up to now, and why a new ruling should be brought in at this stage. So far the scheme has benefited only a small section of the people. Fifty per cent of the farmers have got no benefit out of it whatsoever. However, I will have another opportunity of giving the facts. I want to stress the fact that it has a direct bearing on the Supplementary Estimate now before us, because we would not have this Supplementary Estimate but for the increase in the number of cattle, due to the heifer subsidy scheme. The Minister said that in his opening speech.

The amount which the scheme has cost the Exchequer is enormously high, and it is questionable whether this £5½ million could not have been disbursed in a more equitable and more efficient manner, and in a manner which would be of more benefit to a larger number of farmers.

In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the June, 1965, livestock figures. As reported in the Official Report of 24th March, 1966, volume 221, column 2242, the Minister said:

The official returns show that our cattle numbers have risen from 4,860,000 in June, 1963, to 5,360,000 in June, 1965, an increase of 500,000 in two years.

It is a pity that the Minister did not use the most recently available figures. The figures for January, 1966, were available to the Minister around mid-March, and they were definitely available to him when he came into this House to present this Estimate, but it probably did not suit him to produce the January, 1966, figures. He might have concluded that butter production in 1966 will be, if not less than it was in 1965, definitely not higher.

Mr. Haughey

Nonsense.

Mr. Pattison

I am giving facts issued by the Department. In every one of the past five months: September, 1965, October, 1965, November, 1965, December, 1965 and January, 1966, butter production in the creameries has been two per cent below the level in the corresponding months last year. I do not see how that can be termed nonsense. There is a reduction in butter production at the creameries. This may not mean that there will be an overall reduction in butter production for the full 12 months, but in the same period last year, there was an increase of 12 per cent on the 1964 figures. This year we have a reduction of two per cent. The months I have quoted are the off-peak months for butter production; nevertheless I feel there is an indication that butter production in the cur-rent 12 months will not be any higher than it was last year. Of course this should mean there will be no increase in the amount required for butter export subsidies in the coming year. There should be no increase under that heading, if we take any notice of the present indications.

From what I have heard so far in this debate, it seems that in a year or so there will be no pork or bacon exports either, and that there will be no need for a subsidy for those. The figures recently issued for in-pig gilts give a clear indication of the intentions of the farmers over the next 12 months regarding pig production. It is by those figures that we know exactly what the farmers are going to bring to the bacon factories over the next 12 months. We find that the number of in-pig gilts in January, 1966 was 48.1 per cent less than a year ago. I cannot find a previous greater drop in the amount than this. It indicates that the farmers are getting helter-skelter out of pigs. This, of course, will have serious repercussions on the bacon curing industry. Those repercussions were fully outlined by my colleague, Deputy Coughlan, when he spoke on this Estimate. This will have to be taken very seriously because there are too many people involved, both in production and farming, and also in employment in the factories.

This Estimate also includes an extra subsidy for butter. I want to refer now to the possible, and to the suggested, more economic method of butter production in general. I refer, of course, to the proposals of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society to amalgamate and rationalise the dairying industry. I want to quote from a leading article of the Irish Independent, Wednesday, March 30th, 1966. The leading article was headed “Proposals Rejected.” I agree with the general sentiments outlined in that article. I want to quote from the last paragraph of that leading article:

Like every other industry in the country, the dairying industry must accept the obligations to make itself more efficient, to lower its costs and improve its production and marketing structure. This obligation is all the greater in light of the heavy subsidy burden on the Exchequer from the existing support programme of dairy products. Surely the IAOS proposals should not be rejected out of hand?

Now, a recent announcement by the co-operative creamery committees about this matter seems to indicate there will be strong resistance to these proposals. Before any of those proposals can be even considered by all those affected, it must be clearly shown that any plan for large-scale reorganisation of the industry, including massive closures of small creameries, must be supported with guarantees regarding the workers in the creameries, their future and their employment.

I am aware that the Irish Transport and General Workers Union have entered into discussions with the IAOS on this aspect of the matter. Rationalisation and amalgamation of industry in this country has become a very questionable sort of procedure. The words "rationalisation" and "amalgamation" are becoming dirty words. This should not be but it is the image that has been created by what these two words have meant in the past. We have seen this happen in the flour milling industry where small mills in small towns were closed up, employment was lost and the community in those towns suffered.

At the present time there are other forms of rationalisation and amalgamation going on and they are all giving rise to some discontent. In the middle of last year, even Messrs. Guinness took over a number of the ale breweries in this country and the workers of those four breweries in that group are now on strike. This is their third week on strike. We must, no matter who is at the head of it, whether it is Messrs. Guinness or the Government, have all the implications of any such plan fully investigated.

Deputy T. O'Donnell has questioned the Minister from time to time on this problem. On 23rd February, 1966, at column 231 of volume 221, he asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the procedure which it is proposed to follow in implementing the IAOS proposals for reorganisation of the dairying industry; and when it is proposed to put the proposals into effect. The Minister said:

A plan illustrating a possible form of reorganisation of the creamery industry has recently been prepared by the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society and, I understand, is at present the subject of discussion at the Society's regular regional conferences.

Deputy O'Donnell asked a supplementary question:

Would the Minister say whether or not this proposed reorganisation was, in fact, examined in his Department before the document was circulated to the creameries; in other words, was it examined and approved by his Department before it was circulated?

The Minister replied:

There was no question of my Department approving it. This is an IAOS exercise.

Here again the Minister misled the public and misled Deputy O'Donnell because it is not an IAOS exercise. It has been given to the IAOS by the Government.

Mr. Haughey

That is wrong.

Mr. Pattison

The Government, in their Second Programme for Economic Expansion, gave the responsibility for doing this to the IAOS. It is a matter for decision by the Government whether those schemes thought up will be implemented or not. The IAOS are only the small boys in the scheme, the men who have the job to think up the finer points, to go round and work out how to apply them. The general principles have been laid down by the Government in their Second Programme for Economic Expansion. When the Minister says this is completely an IAOS exercise, it is a distortion of the true situation.

Mr. Haughey

I said that the present plan is an IAOS one, and so it is.

Mr. Pattison

Yes, but it springs from the Second Programme.

Mr. Haughey

The answer I gave to Deputy O'Donnell was quite truthful. This is an IAOS plan.

Mr. Pattison

On the suggestion of the Government.

Mr. L'Estrange

On the instructions of the Government.

Mr. Pattison

I have here the Digest of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.

Mr. Haughey

It all began in that report, if the Deputy wants to know.

Mr. Pattison

This was published by the Stationery Office in Dublin, this Second Programme Digest, and on page 6 it says under the heading "Dairying":

The IAOS is to be given responsibility for encouraging the rationalisation of creameries. State aid will be given on the same basis as in industry generally towards the cost of the rationalisation and modernisation of the dairying industry. State financial assistance will be given to a limited number of pilot projects for bulk transport of milk.

It is down there, and more in detail in the actual Second Programme itself. These things should be made quite clear. I want to know if sufficient information is available on which to base such an important national decision, on an issue of such major importance. Has sufficient research been carried out? These are questions that must be answered because in the long run they will affect the price of milk, the price of butter and the amount of subsidy which the Exchequer will have to pay on it. It appears from the information available that the proposals are based on two assumptions—one, that there will be an increase of 50 per cent in milk output between 1964 and 1970, and two, that larger units produce more economically than smaller units. Both of these assumptions are highly questionable at this stage because not enough research has been done, not enough information is available. I want to make it quite clear that I am not against the principle of rationalisation and the more efficient working of the dairying industry, but the proposals which are now outlined seem to be rushed proposals, not thought out with all the facts and research that should be done in relation to a national decision of this major importance.

Mr. Haughey

I suppose that the Deputy would regard me as rude if I said that he was talking through his hat, so I had better not say it.

Mr. L'Estrange

You have said it.

Mr. Pattison

It is a pity I was not allowed to talk about the heifer subsidy scheme.

Acting Chairman (Mr. James Tully)

I did not stop you.

Mr. Haughey

I would love to hear you.

Mr. Pattison

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Gibbons, I am sure, would like to hear me because I had worked out very informative and factual conclusions but I was stopped by the Chair at the very outset from proceeding on these lines. Why, I do not know, because every other speaker spoke about it.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is most unfair.

Mr. Pattison

If the Parliamentary Secretary would put the word into the Minister's ear perhaps he would agree that the heifer scheme is relevant to this Estimate. I might be able then to provide him with the information.

Mr. Haughey

You are causing enough confusion now, but why should you not keep on?

Mr. J. Gibbons

You should not wear your wellingtons in the House.

Mr. Pattison

I explained my views, if the Parliamentary Secretary had been in at the beginning of the debate.

Mr. L'Estrange

If the Minister takes off his wellingtons.

Mr. Pattison

I am sure that my intervention in this debate has come as just as great a surprise to the Parliamentary Secretary as the Minister's appointment was to the Department of Agriculture a few years ago.

Mr. Haughey

The difference is that the Deputy is anti-farmer and I am not.

Mr. Pattison

I am not anti-farmer.

Mr. Haughey

Obviously. It is permeating every remark you have made so far.

Mr. Pattison

If you allow me to proceed on the heifer scheme, I will show you that I am for the small farmer, who is being done out in this.

Mr. Haughey

The heifer scheme pays £3 million a year into the farmers' pockets.

Mr. Pattison

I resent the fact that in the comparison of beneficiaries from the scheme, one per cent have got ten per cent of the money and that 49 per cent of the farmers have got 90 per cent of the money, and 50 per cent of the farmers have got nothing out of this scheme. I agree wholeheartedly with the £5½ million allocated in aid of the farmers.

Mr. Haughey

Like Fine Gael, if you talk often enough, some of it may stick.

Mr. Pattison

One per cent of the farmers got ten per cent of the money allocated, 49 per cent got 90 per cent, and we can assume that those 49 per cent are fairly comfortable.

Mr. Haughey

How can you assume that?

Mr. L'Estrange

Many of them are non-farmers from Northern Ireland coming in to take loans.

Mr. Haughey

The great majority of them have holdings of average size. This is what we want to get to the bottom of.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Pattison must be allowed to continue. I think he can do rightly without the help he is getting.

Mr. Pattison

I want to make it clear that I agree wholeheartedly with the allocation of £5½ million to the farming community, but I want to pose the question: is it being disbursed fairly and equally and is the whole operation efficient? If the Minister can justify it, I will accept it, but these figures I am quoting are from the Minister's reply to me here in the Dáil. They are not figures made up by myself or thought out by any soothsayer or anybody else.

Mr. Haughey

Astrologer.

Mr. Pattison

They are from figures here quoted at column 724 of the Dáil Debates of Wednesday, 2nd March, 1966.

Mr. Haughey

The scheme is the most successful production incentive scheme ever introduced into Irish agriculture and that is the reason why both Fine Gael and Labour are dead against it.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is a pity you did not think of that when you were slitting their throats.

Mr. Pattison

According to the reply ten applicants got £21,865, an average of over £2,000 a man. They are the ten smart boys. There were 31 applicants who got between them £35,160. They got an average of about £1,200 each. There were 48 who got £40,140, about £850 each, and there were 929 who got £383,160, about £500 each. Then there are 117,247 farmers who got £5½ million.

Mr. Haughey

Are you now ruling that it is in order for the Deputy to discuss the heifer subsidy scheme?

Acting Chairman

I am ruling that the Deputy is in order.

Mr. Pattison

I know the Minister does not like to hear the facts.

Mr. Haughey

May I point out, purely for the record, that the Supplementary Estimate does not provide any money whatever for the calved heifer subsidy scheme?

Acting Chairman

The Chair has the right to rule.

Mr. Haughey

And I accept the Chair's ruling.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister mentioned the heifer scheme. In any case, without heifers, there would not be milk and if there were no milk, there would not be any need for subsidies.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Pattison.

Mr. Pattison

Before I was interrupted——

Mr. Lindsay

Rudely, by the Minister.

Mr. Haughey

Certainly by the Minister because I think this is entirely out of order.

Acting Chairman

Would the Minister please allow the Deputy to make his speech?

Mr. Pattison

I can see the Minister's anxiety. If the Minister were satisfied about the scheme, he would not have any fears about the figures and the facts which I am relating this evening. When interrupted, I was about to state that 117,247 applicants have got £5,850,000.

Mr. Haughey

I think this is disgraceful conduct.

Mr. Pattison

I have got my figures a bit upset.

Mr. Clinton

Do not be upset.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister for Health spoke for three hours.

Mr. Pattison

The Minister, in his speech on 2nd March last, reported at column 742 of the Official Report, indicated that 90 per cent of the £5½ million went to small farmers, to the vast majority of the farmers. It is clear, however, that a minority of very large farmers—1,018 of them— represented 0.86 per cent of the total number of applicants. On average, they received £570 each. It means that 0.86 per cent of all the benefiting farmers under the scheme got 10 per cent of all the money allocated. If the Minister can do multiplication or division to show me that is not so, I shall wait here and be glad to hear him.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Deputy does not understand the way Fianna Fáil can do their sums—divide and conquer.

Mr. Lalor

We do not divide.

Mr. Lindsay

You divided on the local government elections.

Mr. Lalor

You divided on the Presidential election.

Mr. L'Estrange

No.

Acting Chairman

This is not in order.

Mr. Haughey

Neither is Deputy Pattison.

Acting Chairman

In my view, he is in order and I have so ruled.

Mr. Haughey

Your predecessor in the Chair ruled it was not in order.

Acting Chairman

That is the business of my predecessor in the Chair.

Mr. Pattison

The previous Acting Chairman ruled it was not in order. However, it is clear that the average amount paid to each of the 1,018 well-to-do farmers was £570 each.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy abhors the idea of a well-off farmer. He begrudges them anything.

Mr. Pattison

I begrudge any group of farmers getting an undue amount of Exchequer funds. I object to a few benefiting from a fund meant for the many.

Mr. Haughey

He does not want money from the Exchequer going to farmers.

Mr. Lindsay

Fifty per cent have not benefited from the scheme.

Mr. J. Gibbons

They may not have looked for it.

Mr. Lindsay

Some who looked did not get payment.

Mr. Pattison

The small farmers have not the land or capital to carry the extra stock. I have said it before and I emphasise again that I agree wholeheartedly with the allocation of this £5½ million to the farming community but I disagree with the way it is being disbursed. The facts are as I have stated. If the scheme were of benefit to every farmer in the country I should say this £5½ million was well spent. I am not an expert on farming and cannot say how the scheme could be applied more efficiently. I have learned about other aspects of the scheme from an article in the Irish Times on 17th March last in which it was inferred that this scheme affects the price of cattle generally. Frankly, I am not in a position to discuss all the implications of the price of cattle but I think this article is well worth the attention of the Minister and the Department of Agriculture. My attention was drawn to it because I had asked a Dáil question and the subject matter of it was referred to in the article.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy may not discuss cattle prices.

Mr. Pattison

It affects the subsidy scheme, according to the article in the Irish Times. It was written by Mr. Raymond Crotty, senior lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Economics in the University of Wales.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy may not discuss cattle prices on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Pattison

I have a bit marked here and it refers to the calved heifer scheme:

Notwithstanding the apparent, even dramatic, success attending it to date, serious reservations must be made as to the ultimate effect of the CHS scheme on the Irish cattle and dairying industry. The scheme has every appearance of having been hastily conceived and poorly thought out. In particular it is indicative of a very limited appreciation on the part of the Department of Agriculture of the rather complex relationships which determine cow numbers in Ireland. The scheme has been superimposed upon these relationships with no apparent consideration of its longer term implications. Thus, despite—indeed because of—its success in the short term, there remains good reason to fear that the ultimate effect of the CHS will be to cause, at great expense to the Exchequer, a serious disruption of the cattle and dairying industry.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Deputy is not in favour of it.

Mr. Pattison

I am not in favour of handing out £5½ million unless it benefits all farmers equally.

Mr. Haughey

Would the Deputy repeat the first sentence?

Mr. Pattison

"Notwithstanding the apparent, even dramatic, success attending it to date..."

Mr. Haughey

That is enough. Would the Deputy repeat it again, please?

Mr. Pattison

"Notwithstanding the apparent, even dramatic, success..."

Mr. Haughey

That is enough.

Mr. Pattison

Let me go on. "...the scheme has every appearance of having been hastily conceived and poorly thought out." Later on, the report states:

This increase in cow numbers has been achieved in two ways: first, by mating and bringing into herds a larger number of heifers than usual and, second, by retaining in herds cows which, owing to low output, age or other causes, would normally have been culled. Before 1963 the normal annual rate of culling in dairy herds was around 82 per 1,000 cows. In 1964 this rate declined to 62 per 1,000 and in 1965 to 39 per 1,000.

Mr. Haughey

It is all nonsense. I shall deal with it when I come to reply.

Mr. Pattison

This man is a lecturer in agricultural economics in the University of Wales.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I know Ray Crotty as well as the Deputy does and he knows as much about farming——

Mr. L'Estrange

As the Minister for Agriculture, and that is not adding or taking away from either of them.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Deputy Pattison should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Pattison

I will quote just one more sentence from this factual article:

If only genuine additions to the herd, over and above a normal allowance for wastage, are counted, then the cost to the Exchequer per additional cow works out at £39 10s. This, of course, is well in excess of the normal grant of £15 per cow.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Deputy Pattison must be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. Pattison

As stated in the last sentence I quoted, the cost per cow, over and above a normal allowance for wastage, works out at £39 10s per addition.

Mr. J. Gibbons

According to Ray Crotty.

Mr. Pattison

According to a lecturer in Agricultural Economics in the University of Wales. It is obvious he has made a very detailed study of the whole situation.

Mr. Haughey

And came to the wrong conclusion.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Ray Crotty went into farming and got out of it again.

Mr. L'Estrange

That shows he has brains. It is only duds like me that stay in it.

Mr. J. Gibbons

He could not do farming himself, but he can tell other people how to do it.

Mr. L'Estrange

But why object to that? That is the way the Government behaves. That is how they are dealing with the financial crisis—telling us all to work harder.

Acting Chairman

Order. Deputy L'Estrange must cease interrupting.

Mr. Pattison

The scheme came into operation in 1964.

Mr. Haughey

Fine Gael do not like it because it is a dramatic success and the Labour Party do not like it because it helps the farmers.

Mr. Pattison

Between January, 1964, and January, 1966, cows and heifers-in-half increased from 1,315,000 to 1,855,800—an increase of 240,400.

Mr. Haughey

Never before achieved in our history.

Mr. Pattison

This scheme can take credit for 240,000 of an increase and, if you divide that into £5,500,000, you get a figure of——(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Deputy Pattison. Deputy L'Estrange will have to cease interrupting.

Mr. Pattison

——£22 odd per head increase. When we take into consideration the implications in this article the figure works out at £39 10s per head increase. But there is another implication to be taken into consideration. In the years 1961 to 1963, before ever this scheme was heard of, there was an increase in numbers of 4.6 per cent. It is reasonable to assume that this increase would have continued on from 1963 to 1965, without the scheme, and we would have another increase of 4.6 per cent in cow numbers and heifersin-calf.

Mr. Haughey

Does the Deputy want to do away with the scheme? What is the Deputy aiming at?

Mr. Pattison

I am trying to prove to the Minister that the scheme could be disbursed on a more equitable basis and in a more efficient manner than at the present time. As I said, there was an increase from 1961 to 1963 of 4.6 per cent. If we take the 1963 figure and apply that 4.6 per cent to it we find there would have been a further increase in numbers of 70,000 between 1963 and 1965, and that without the scheme. Therefore, we take off from the actual increase of 240,000 the number of cows which should have been culled, which amounts to anything up to about 90,000, and we take off the 70,000 which would have been reached in any event without the scheme, and we find the scheme can really take credit for an increase in numbers of about 70,000. If the Minister wants to divide that 70,000 into the £5,500,000 he can work out exactly what the scheme costs the Exchequer or, in other words, what each head of actual increase costs the Exchequer.

Mr. J. Gibbons

If the Deputy does it on that basis he is a better man than I am.

Mr. Pattison

An increase of 240,000. Mr. Crotty points out that if only genuine additions, over and above the normal allowance for wastage, are counted, then there was only about 150,000 of an increase. We take off the increase that would have taken place normally, without the scheme, and we are left with an increase of 70,000 which can be attributed to the calved heifer subsidy scheme which, as I say, cost £5,500,000. To say then that the calved heifer subsidy scheme——

Mr. Haughey

Was a dramatic success.

Mr. Pattison

——was the reason for the vast increase in the cattle population is wrong.

Mr. J. Gibbons

What was the cause then?

Mr. L'Estrange

Deputy Dillon's 1948 Trade Agreement.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Pattison

How simple can I make it? What was the cause? There was an increase of only 70,000. What caused the increase between 1961 and 1963?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Is that a rhetorical question?

Mr. Pattison

Yes.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Then answer it.

Mr. Pattison

The calved subsidy scheme did not cause the increase because it was not in existence.

Mr. Haughey

Cow numbers were stationary for centuries in or around 1,300.

Mr. L'Estrange

Thirteen hundred?

Acting Chairman

Deputy L'Estrange must cease interrupting.

Mr. Pattison

Tillage increased——

Acting Chairman

Deputy Pattison may not discuss tillage and he may not repeat what he has already said.

Mr. Pattison

The truth takes a long time to sink in.

Mr. J. Gibbons

We have better grass now.

Mr. L'Estrange

Thanks to Deputy James Dillon. He was called the Minister for Grass.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Deputy Pattison is entitled to make his speech and he should not be interrupted. When he finishes some of the Deputies offering now, who apparently want to speak, will have an opportunity. But they may not speak twice.

Mr. Pattison

The Minister in his opening speech should have taken the January, 1966, livestock figures. Actually, he took only the June figures. At column 2242 of the Official Report of Thursday, 24th March, 1966, he said:

The official returns show that our cattle numbers have risen from 4,860,000 in June, 1963, to 5,360,000 in June, 1965, an increase of 500,000 in two years.

Acting Chairman

From what is the Deputy quoting?

Mr. Pattison

I am quoting from the Minister's introductory statement and I am asking the Minister why he did not quote the figures for January, 1966, which would be more relevant to this Supplementary Estimate. I have pointed out that it is likely that butter production in 1966 will be no higher than in 1965. I proved that earlier on in my remarks.

Mr. Haughey

I do not remember you proving it.

Mr. Pattison

I have proved it from the data issued by the Department which shows that production of butter has fallen by 2 per cent in the first three months of 1966.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy will be proved wrong.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Do the cows know about this data?

Mr. Pattison

I have also referred to the possible reduction in the number of pigs available to the factories in the next 12 months and the serious repercussions this will mean for farmers and the employees in the bacon factories if it is allowed to develop. I was speaking of the proposal of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society to rationalise and amalgamate the dairying industry when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance came into the House and indicated that he would like to hear the facts and figures about the heifer scheme.

I now want to take up where I left off on this scheme of rationalisation. I had asked if sufficient information was available on which to base this decision and if sufficient research had been carried out. The proposals seem to be based on two assumptions, that there would be a 50 per cent increase in milk output between now and 1970 and that larger creameries will produce more cheaply than smaller ones. Both assumptions are open to question. Milk production may not increase and we cannot say from the facts and figures available to us that there will be an increase of 50 per cent in milk production between now and 1970. The present indications do not lend themselves to this assumption.

Nor has it been proved yet to my knowledge that production costs in the smaller creameries are greater than those in the larger creameries. This is a matter that requires serious and thorough research and much more information would be required before a decision on it could be arrived at. It is important that all concerned should be informed of the benefits that may be got from rationalisation and amalgamation. I have already quoted the leading article from the Irish Independent of Wednesday, 30th March, and I might say that the general sentiments expressed in that very fair leading article put both sides of the question fairly well.

I have pointed out to the Minister that this scheme, about which he has tried to give the impression that it is the sole responsibility of the IOAS, has been put forward by the Government in the section of the Second Programme dealing with the agricultural sector of the economy. What everybody who is concerned in this industry must know is whether it will involve heavy public and private capital expenditure, whether it will involve large scale redundancy, whether it will result in cheaper butter production, whether it will result in butter being produced in a more economic way thereby helping the producer, the worker and thereby helping to relieve the Exchequer of the present subsidy.

We want to know if these proposals will have this effect. There must be a through study made of all these aspects, a study that will produce a complete blueprint for the reorganisation of the Irish creamery industry. The public, the Government, the milk suppliers and the workers, if this blueprint was available, could then decide on the facts, knowing in advance how this reorganisation would affect all concerned. I want to emphasise that if all these people knew in advance how the scheme would affect them I can see no reason why such a scheme should not be implemented. All these aspects of the matter must be investigated.

The suspicions generated by lack of information are now showing themselves and the co-operative societies at a meeting in Limerick over the weekend rejected these proposals probably because they have not got the guarantees which I have indicated they should get, probably because they do not know what the future will hold. It is essential that there should be complete research on this proposal to reorganise the creameries in order that all concerned will know where they are going, how it will affect them and how it will benefit the dairying industry in general.

These are three items in this Estimate that I have selected for study and research. I have aired my views on them. The fact that I am not a farmer has allowed me to speak more freely and in a more practical manner about them. I have not been influenced by any prejudices or experiences. Every statement I have made is backed up by facts and figures supplied by the Department of Agriculture—every one of them. I challenge Deputy Gibbons, the Minister or anybody else to say where I have given wrong figures. If they are wrong, then the figures issued by the Department are wrong.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not know what the Deputy has done with the figures. It is as if he put them through a wringer and produced the most fantastic results.

Mr. Treacy

I presume that Deputy Gibbons will have an opportunity later of making his contribution to the debate and giving us his views.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Deputy Pattison challenged me directly.

Mr. Treacy

It will be interesting to hear Deputy Gibbons.

Mr. Pattison

These are facts. Any Deputy is free to give his views on them. I should especially welcome the Minister's views. If he can prove that my deductions from these figures are wrong and misleading, I shall graciously bow to him or to any Deputy who can prove I am wrong.

I am not a farmer. I am dealing with facts and figures as I see them and with Government reports as I see them. I am not prejudiced by influences in the working of a farm or in any aspect of agriculture. It would ease my mind a lot if some of the conclusions I have reached, as a result of these figures, could be proved to be wrong. It would especially ease my mind in regard to the calved heifer scheme because, at the moment, this scheme is highly questionable.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): This Supplementary Estimate has been fairly fully dealt with on behalf of this Party by Deputies Donegan, Dillon, O'Donnell, O'Hara and others and, no doubt, we shall have further expert contributions from this Party before the motion is put. I therefore rise to deal concisely with one or two points in which I am interested.

I see that provision is made in this Supplementary Estimate for a substantial sum for the prevention or eradication of fowl pest. I know that this is very praiseworthy on the part of the Department of Agriculture. I know it is very important that fowl pest should be eradicated. I want to make it clear that I am all in favour of it but I think that poultry farmers who suffer a lot through the activities of the Department in eradicating the pest should be compensated.

I appreciate that where fowl, after test, are found to be suffering from fowl pest and are destroyed, the poultry-keeper is compensated, perhaps not by payment of the full market value of the birds but, at any rate, he or she is compensated. The case is different where a poultry farmer who is supplying eggs to hatcheries at a fairly good price is suspected of having fowl pest on the farm. The farm is frozen for some time, perhaps several weeks, as I have known it to happen, in order to carry out tests to ascertain whether or not fowl pest is there.

During the period that the farm is frozen, the poultry farmer is not allowed to sell eggs to the hatchery. He may sell the eggs only for table purposes or at commercial value, at a loss sometimes of several shillings a dozen. If it transpires, after several weeks, that there was a false alarm and that there was no fowl pest there, the farm is declared free again and the poultry farmer is allowed to resume the sale of eggs to the hatchery, but, if I am correct, no compensation is paid to the poultry farmer for the very substantial loss sustained during the period he or she was prevented from selling to the hatcheries.

I think that is unfair. I think it is a mistake. It is not calculated to encourage the poultry farmers to co-operate in the scheme for the eradication of fowl pest. I have known one case in my constituency, about 12 months ago, where a poultry farmer suffered quite a substantial loss in the circumstances which I have been discussing and I consider that provision should be made for the payment of compensation to such a poultry farmer. I have made my point. I hope I have made it clearly. I should like the Minister to deal with it in his reply.

Since I came in here to make this point, I have been listening to a discussion on the heifer subsidy scheme. I have heard the Minister claim that it has been an unqualified success.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will see that there is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate relating to the heifer subsidy scheme. It is true that the Minister mentioned it, in passing.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): In your absence, Sir, there was a long and learned discussion on it which has prompted me to make the very brief point I want to make. I understand that the Minister dealt with it in his opening remarks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In one or two sentences, in passing.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I shall deal with it in the very same way, if I may. I am afraid this heifer subsidy scheme is catering for quantity more than for quality. I think it is doing considerable damage to the standard of the cattle industry. Heifers are now being put in calf which, before the scheme was introduced, would not have been considered the type of animal suitable for breeding at all. Now, the farmers are interested in getting the £15 subsidy and get rid of the heifer any way they like. That is something that should be looked into. We are in a competitive age. We are seeking to expand and develop our cattle export market. I should like to have the Minister's comments on that in his reply.

There is money in this Supplementary Estimate for the promotion of co-operative societies. I think these co-operative societies should receive encouragement from the Minister for Agriculture and from the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, Limited.

I am speaking now of the smaller co-operative societies throughout the country. I know one co-operative society group which for two or three years has been endeavouring to set up an industry to process skim milk and that group have been kept on a string for a couple of years. They have been referred by the Minister to the IAOS and they have been told by that body that they can do nothing until they get a decision from the Minister. The Minister says the IAOS are advising him. I think that leads to frustration.

Mr. Haughey

What are you talking about?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): About a group of societies endeavouring to establish a factory——

Mr. Haughey

Who are they?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan):——who are endeavouring to establish a factory to process skim milk in County Cavan. The Minister knows perfectly well who they are because I applied to him for a permit.

Mr. Haughey

I do not recognise the version of the situation given by the Deputy.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Perhaps the Minister's official will know. The Minister has a lot of things on his mind. He may take it that the societies are sponsoring a project to manufacture casein in County Cavan and they have been held on a string for a couple of years. When a group of people get together like that, they should be encouraged. They should be made aware of the facts and told the situation.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy would not like me to encourage people to put industries in the wrong places?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): No, but they should be told: “There is no hope of your ever having the industry there.” They should not be told that they would get a decision in three or four months' time and they should not be led on. They are entitled to be treated frankly.

If the Parliamentary Secretary had not left, I might have availed of the opportunity to say something about a visit he paid to County Cavan. It might be relevant to the provision of money for Macra na Feirme and the Irish Countrywomen's Association, as we are providing money here to finance the activities of these bodies. They are very interested in the provision of piped water in rural areas. The Parliamentary Secretary came to my constituency and held a meeting at which he promised a number of things to the people of Templeport, including the immediate installation of a group water scheme. I know the Minister is not responsible for that and, strictly speaking, I suppose it is out of order, but, as the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary promised, perhaps the Minister would ask his Parliamentary Secretary to use his good offices to implement the promise.

I stood up to deal specifically with the question of fowl pest. I am asking the Minister to deal with that in reply and I should also like his comments on my remarks regarding the heifer subsidy scheme.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am glad that there is nothing in this Estimate about the eradication of political pests, because if there were, I would be on shaky ground from the start.

We are discussing a Supplementary Estimate of £2,045,000. From my observation, there is very little of this amount going into the pockets of the farmers. The first figure is for a sum of £415,000 under the heading of "Salaries, Wages and Allowances". What I cannot understand, having read today's Irish Times, is what the Minister for Finance said yesterday about the dairy farmers: that the Irish people are well known to resist pressures or compulsion of any kind, that the Government are composed of Irish people who have, by and large, the same characteristics as the ordinary Irish people and that therefore they might reflect on these things before this action is undertaken.

Every other section of the community have in the past held, and are even at present holding, the Government up to ransom and in many cases the Government have given way to them. Why are the farmers not entitled to the same rights under the Constitution? I believe they should have them. All the Irish dairy farmers want is a fair deal and a reasonable return for their labour. They are not getting that. We all realise that they have been in the front line trenches in every war, political, national, social and economic, and we know that 300,000 of them —between farmers and farm labourers —have left the land in the past 30 years. The dairy farmers who have to milk their own cows daily have no 40-hour week. They have a seven-day week and must get up at 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock in the mornings.

The Government have refused to increase the price of milk. This has resulted in the exposure of one of the most shameful rackets ever put across in this country. In 1956 and 1957, when the whole Fianna Fáil Party machine was engaged in a campaign throughout the length and breadth of the land, demanding a large increase for milk for farmers, they moved in on farmers' organisations and used them for a venomous campaign against the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon. Milk marches were organised throughout the country and it is well known that on the day of the Kerry by-election a Fianna Fáil Deputy from Limerick was seen putting up posters in Kerry encouraging farmers to come here and march at that time. Now, when the farmers talk of marching, the big stick is used and they are told they will not be allowed to march. I think they have the same rights as any other section of the community.

This situation reminds me of a story of a farmer who was travelling in an aeroplane and went into a small room to wash his hands. When finished, he saw a notice saying: "Do not pull the chain over cities or towns". He said to himself: "Yes, do not let it down on the city people or the town people but anything is good enough for the farmers. You can crucify them in any way." I think I may tell the Minister that out of the chaos of the conflicting ideas of the present time, the voice of the dairy farmers will be heard demanding attention. There is a limit to the endurance of any section of the community and that limit has been reached by the farmers. There is no use in the Minister or the Minister for Finance saying that it is their intention to bridge the gap. There is a gap of almost £3 10s. already and it is time the Government started to bridge the gap instead of the golden boy fooling the farmers' organisations with promises about this, that and the other thing in the future.

The dairy farmers and pig farmers are entitled to a fair crack of the whip. They are not getting it today. The farmers represent, roughly, only 35 per cent of the population and are responsible for 75 per cent of our exports, including meat and pigs, but they are getting only 25 per cent of the national income. The Minister must admit that that is unfair and unjust.

On page 12 of the Progress Report there is this statement:

Let us face the fact that agricultural production is down by one per cent in 1965.

If we are to get out of the mess we are in today it is to agriculture and the farmers that we must look for the necessary increased exports. Therefore, it is regrettable that at the present time pig production is decreasing. When I asked the Minister some questions about this a few months ago he denied it. I said that the farmer was not paid a just price, that I remembered when pigs were selling at £6 or £7 and that last August and September in Mullingar they could not be sold at £4 or £4 10s. The Minister told me that I was talking through my hat. I warned him that producers would get out of pigs because they were not paying. The Minister said that was nonsense.

It is no harm to quote the official statistics. On page 329 of the Statistical Abstract, 1964, under the heading “Pigs, Porkers, deadweight” it is shown that, in 1953, they were fetching as much as 256/- per cwt deadweight. I went to the trouble of getting the figures for 1965 in the office today. They were 239/- per cwt deadweight. That was the average. That is a reduction of 17/- per cwt deadweight.

Having regard to the decline in the value of the £ since that time, it is obvious that the farmer is getting 30 to 35 per cent less today for his pigs than he was getting at that time. No farmer can continue at that rate. If the Minister does not believe me, let him get the official figures. I presume that he has the average price for 1965 which I obtained in the office today.

Mr. Haughey

What price are they today?

Mr. L'Estrange

The Statistical Abstract gives the average price.

Mr. Haughey

Has the Deputy noticed recent prices and the price today?

Mr. L'Estrange

There is no use in the Minister or anyone else giving a figure for any particular week or month. On those figures one could make arguments but they would be one-sided. It is the yearly average that must be taken into consideration. The averages I am quoting are those for 1953 and 1965. On those figures, pigs have dropped by 17/- per cwt, despite the fact that the 1965 £ is worth only about 14/- of the 1953 £.

In 1948, young pigs under 12 weeks old were 106/9. In 1951, they were 113/3. Last year they were less than £5. In these circumstances, it cannot be expected that people will stay in production. They must be paid for their work and the Minister cannot argue that pig producers are being paid for their work. There is no other section of the community who are asked to work harder and for longer hours for less than they were getting 10 or 12 years ago.

I welcome the statement by the Minister on 24th March:

The official returns show that our cattle numbers have risen from 4,860,000 in June, 1963, to 5,360,000 in June, 1965, an increase of 500,000 in two years.

We welcome that trend and have always stood for that. In the last 30 or 40 years the members of the Party of which I have the honour to be a member preached the importance of the cattle industry and of the British market and were told by the people on the other side of the House that that market was gone and gone forever, and thanks be to God. Their own President said that the cattle industry was finished, that he knew it, and that the farmers should get out of cattle and into bees and that he had it on expert advice that the best type of bee was the Egyptian bee. The Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the present Taoiseach would have looked well going to England a few weeks ago to meet Mr. Wilson with swarms of bees under each arm.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This has nothing to do with the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. L'Estrange

It has this to do with it——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must confine his remarks to the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. L'Estrange

We welcome the fact that there are more cattle in the country at the present time. The Minister should also remember that at one time, due to his Party's policy, there were very few cattle left in the country. At column 2243 of the Official Report the Minister spoke at length of the increase of 10/- per live cwt in the guaranteed price for fat cattle and the increase of 4d per lb. deadweight in the guaranteed price for fat sheep and went on to talk of the terms of the Free Trade Area Agreement and the value to the country of those price increases.

I must point out that it has nothing to do with the Free Trade Agreement, that that increase is due to the 1948 Trade Agreement on cattle. At that time the cattle prices here were tied to cattle prices in Britain and if there was an increase in Britain we automatically got that increase. This increase was not passed on because Mr. Wilson wanted to get the votes of the farmers of Ireland today. We will get the increase but no thanks are due to the Minister. We shall give credit where credit is due.

As regards pigs and bacon, too much has been made of the Free Trade Agreement. The Minister seems to hang all his hopes on that Agreement. He has spoken of it on numerous occasions. Even the Minister for Finance said yesterday that the farmers would benefit to the tune of £5½ million. He is talking through his hat. When speaking about pigs and bacon or any other commodity that the farmer is producing, he has not taken into consideration the increase in rates, overhead expenses, et cetera.

Under the Free Trade Agreement with Britain we are getting a paltry 1,000 tons extra, bringing the quota up to 28,010 tons. It should be remembered that Denmark, which is making to move to enter into a free trade agreement, has been given an extra allocation of 11,060 tons, bringing their total quantity up to 300,000 tons. A country that is one-quarter the size of this country is exporting over ten times the quantity that we are exporting.

Has it not been a great loss to Ireland that we have not had a Government that would look after the small farmers and the pig producers, since 1932? Denmark tops the list of suppliers to the British market with 300,000 tons; the British home suppliers come second with 232,240 tons; Poland is third with 50,900 tons and we come a very poor fourth with a miserable 28,010 tons. A country that is only one-fourth the size of this country is exporting to Britain 47 per cent of Britain's imports, whereas we are exporting only 4.5 per cent.

Mr. Haughey

Under James Dillon they exported butter to us.

Mr. L'Estrange

At column 2253 the Minister stated that the Coalition Government had to import Danish butter. He tells us now that the British had to export butter to us. The Minister may have been a young boy at the time, but from 1932 to 1948 his Party were in office and despite the fact that we had 2.8 million people and five acres of land for every person, under the Fianna Fáil strong one-Party Government the people in this agricultural country were rationed to two onces of butter per week. The Minister knows that and he should not be talking about importing butter.

If the Minister checks back, he will find that we were exporting £6 million or £7 million worth of butter and £506,000 worth of bacon to Britain in 1932. Our total exports in 1932 were £36 million. After 16 years of Fianna Fáil Government, and despite the fact that prices doubled due to a world war, our total exports in 1947 were £39 million. The Minister can check on those figures. If there had not been a world war we would only be exporting about £20 million worth. That is how the Fianna Fáil Party killed the dairy industry and the pig industry and put an end to our exports at that time. When he says that the Coalition imported butter from Britain let him get the full facts.

The Department officials in 1951 went to Deputy Dillon—and in the three years he had been in office the 1948 Trade Agreement had been negotiated, two years before, the cow population had increased, we had better grass and more food for our cattle—and they told him that they believed that we could export butter to Britain. He said: "We will take a chance, but if the spring turns out to be bad what will happen?" They started to export butter and the spring weather turned out to be bad and our Government were left in a position that we had not enough butter for a month or two. Danish butter was imported some of which was yellow but it should be remembered that the English people prefer yellow butter. Fianna Fáil started a campaign and helped to put out the Government but they were back again in three years. That should answer the Minister's interjection.

Mr. Haughey

No, it does not.

Mr. L'Estrange

It certainly does. What is the Minister doing at present? We have an agreement to export a certain number of cattle to Britain who in turn are exporting them to Germany. Why not allow us export them direct to Germany and get a proper price for them? We are tied first to John Bull. The Minister could and should have done much better in the Trade Agreement. We are entitled to more than one-tenth of the quota allocated to the Danes whose purchases from Britain are less than two-thirds of ours. Of course, the Danes, it should be remembered, did not have a Fianna Fáil type Party in office since 1932. They had a business Government, the members of which had their eyes open and who sent their trade delegations to Britain and elsewhere, and their Ministers and got good terms for their products. The facts are there for everybody to see. They are a wealthy nation today. Even as far back as 1938, before negotiations took place, we were allowed to export 29,350 tons of bacon to Britain. The Minister seems to be relying far too much on this Agreement. It is not going to be a cure for all our ills. Everything will not readjust itself overnight.

In the Supplementary Estimate there is provision for £58,700 for university colleges and in Subhead I.4 there is a grant-in-aid of £1,000 to Macra na Feirme. We welcome that. We have always stood for education and we believe that our young farmers should be educated. We have always stood for co-operation with the various farmers' organisations. Indeed, I have often argued that such organisations should get generous State grants. We are agreed that if we are to hold our own in the competitive years ahead, and keep our places in the markets, our young farmers must be properly educated. They must make the most of the land in order to get the best results from it. They must be put in the position that they will be able to adopt up-to-date methods and modern techniques. Other countries such as Denmark and Holland have proved that if farmers are properly educated and co-operate with one another they can increase their exports enormously. We on this side of the House are in full agreement with that.

Subhead K.9 provides £43,000 for the prevention of diseases, etc., in livestock. I have already drawn the Minister's attention to the fact that contagious abortion is rife. He has denied that and I cannot understand why. I know that in my county it is. I know of farms which have been taken by the Land Commission and which have been let to farmers and business people who have heifers on the land, and in some cases are getting the £15 subsidy, but contagious abortion is rife there. When the farmers come up with their herds of five or six cows, I do not know what is going to happen to them. It is unfair to them and it is something the Minister should look into. As far as——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Carter)

Contagious abortion does not arise on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. L'Estrange

Subhead K.9 reads "Prevention of diseases, etc.," £43,000. What diseases? Surely that covers contagious abortion and other diseases.

Acting Chairman

Contagious abortion is not appropriate to this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am sorry to have to say that if we are discussing——

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will please move away from it.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is covered——

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will please move away from it.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am not going to be bullied like that. If the Chairman looks up prevention of diseases under last year's Estimate he will find that contagious abortion and other diseases are under it.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy was finished with the subject anyway.

Mr. L'Estrange

I was.

Acting Chairman

I must direct the Deputy's attention to the——

Mr. L'Estrange

Does it come under Subhead L.1—Diseases of Animals Acts?

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will proceed on the Supplementary Estimate. The Deputy may not cross-examine the Chair on this matter.

Mr. L'Estrange

Under the heading "Marketing", there is a sum of £956,000 and we welcome that. There is no denying that our marketing system has been antediluvian for a long number of years. We welcomed the setting up of such bodies as Bord Bainne and we think they are doing good work. I suggest that we should have more aggressive young salesmen abroad in our embassies and legations and not have our people there aping foreign countries with lavish feasts and so on. It would be much better if we had talented young salesmen who knew something about marketing and trade and who could get better prices abroad for our produce.

Mr. Coogan

I will be very brief.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will resume his seat until he is called.

Mr. L'Estrange

Wait now. On a point of order, how can a Deputy be called if he does not stand up?

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will resume his seat.

Mr. L'Estrange

We are not going to put up with that. A Deputy must——

Acting Chairman

Deputy L'Estrange will resume his seat.

Mr. L'Estrange

I certainly will not resume my seat. I will not stand for this biased action. How could the Chair know who was going to speak if no one stood up? There must be some sense or reason to this.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will resume his seat.

Mr. L'Estrange

I will not. I will not stand for this. How could the Chair know the Deputy was going to speak? You could not call on him if he did not stand up. I am certainly not resuming my seat. There is too much of this going on at present.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will resume his seat.

Mr. L'Estrange

He certainly will not. He will not stand for the like of that. You must stand up before the Chair knows you are offering to speak.

Mr. Coogan

Has anybody else effered?

Mr. L'Estrange

No; he could not call you until you had offered. He has no authority to tell you to sit down until you offer. He can have me removed.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will not bully the Chair. The Deputy will resume his seat.

Mr. L'Estrange

He certainly will not.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will be removed.

Mr. L'Estrange

Get somebody to remove me, so.

Mr. Haughey

Might I suggest——

Mr. L'Estrange

I will not stand for the like of that.

Acting Chairman

If the Deputy will resume his seat, I will explain the procedure.

Mr. Haughey

I suggest that the Deputy should do so.

Acting Chairman

If he will not do so, I shall have to call on him to withdraw from the House.

Mr. Haughey

Listen to the Chairman's explanation.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will resume his seat.

Mr. Haughey

Go on, do.

Mr. L'Estrange

I might, for you.

Acting Chairman

When a Deputy offers, he has not to be called. The Chair has to search around the House to see who offers. In this case the Chair had not searched left and right and could not call on Deputy Coogan until such time as that was done. Therefore, I am quite in order. The Deputy may not challenge the Chair.

Mr. L'Estrange

That is completely wrong. Deputy Coogan was on his feet and you told him to sit down until you called on him.

Mr. Haughey

It is all a misunderstanding.

Mr. James Tully

On a point of order, we are trying to get the business finished. We can all understand that the Chair and Deputy L'Estrange come from the same constituency, but I do not think we should have a row in the House. I think a mistake has been made by the Chair, but I think it is in order now.

Mr. L'Estrange

If the Chair admits he made a mistake——

Acting Chairman

The Chair will preserve order in this House regardless of what Deputy may be speaking.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Chairman should be fair and unbiased. We will not put up with dictatorship.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will resume his seat. I am calling on Deputy Coogan.

Mr. L'Estrange

We will not stand for the like of that.

Acting Chairman

The Chair told the Deputy to resume his seat, not to sit down.

Mr. Coogan

I take it nobody else is offering?

Mr. Haughey

Except myself.

Mr. Coogan

I said I would be brief. In fact, I would be well finished by now but for what happened. I asked a question today in regard to the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme in Galway. I was told in reply that it would not be in accordance with usual practice to give particulars of the number of animals and compensation paid, as the heards concerned could readily be identified. I have no way of readily identifying them. I want to nail certain rumours going around. I do not say I hold with them or suggest there is any irregularity. But the people of my town are asking questions which I am afraid require answers. I have not been given the answers here. To straighten the matter out the Minister should have an investigation in my area in regard to this question. I do not suggest anything against the profession involved but I believe it would be a good thing to clear the air.

I have already raised on this matter of bovine tuberculosis eradication the question of farmers in my area who have had their herds "freezed" for about six weeks. This imposes a grave hardship on the people who have to wait for a fair at a time when they might be pressed to pay their rates. Something will have to be done to help them and I would ask the Minister to give attention to it. This is something that can make or break the small farmers. I know you cannot allow diseased herds to be going around but the Minister should provide some compensation in these cases even in respect of feeding stuffs.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Haughey)

I understand there is agreement with the Whips that business should be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, I shall not reply at any great length, particularly as this is a Supplementary Estimate and I do not think it is expected the House should debate it in the same, broad comprehensive way as we would the main Estimate. However, a few points were raised by Deputies to which I should like especially to reply.

Deputy Donegan and others took the line that there was nothing in this sum of £2,045,000 for the farmer. They went on to add there was a provision of £415,000 for salaries and wages of civil servants and were inclined to contrast these two matters. I shall deal first with this £415,000 salaries and wages for civil servants and officials. I want to point out that the overwhelming bulk of this sum is as a result of no action of mine but of the award of the arbitrator under the scheme of conciliation and arbitration which exists in the Civil Service and which has now been approved of by every Party in this House. The Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party from time to time have taken credit for the fact that a Coalition Government introduced permanently here a scheme of arbitration and conciliation for the Civil Service. If they want to take credit for that I do not blame them, because it is true that conciliation and arbitration for the Civil Service was first made permanent under the Coalition Government. On the other hand, they cannot get up here and complain about the results which this scheme of arbitration and conciliation gives. The bulk of the figure of £415,000 provided in this Supplementary Estimate is as a result of the decision of the arbitrator under this scheme.

On the other side of the fence there is the suggestion that the Supplementary Estimate contains nothing for the farmer. Of course, that is just so much nonsense. Firstly, I claim that this £2,045,000 all goes for the benefit of the farming community one way or another, either directly or indirectly. Every penny of this money will redound to the advantage of the farmer and the farming community whether in the form of providing better veterinary services, better advisory services, better education for young farmers or the eradication of disease in livestock —in some way or other every penny involved here goes to the benefit of the farmer and of the agricultural community generally.

But specifically—and this is where I want to challenge Deputy Donegan, Deputy M.P. Murphy and others—in this sum are included two items which go directly and immediately into the farmers' pockets. One of them is the amount provided for the milk quality bonus scheme, £526,000, and the other is the amount we are providing extra in regard to pig prices. The £956,000 which is provided in Subhead N for Marketing of Dairy Produce includes the full amount payable this current year for the bonus on quality milk, namely, £526,000. That is an extra sum into the pockets of our dairy farmers. As many Deputies know, we increased the price of feeding barley last season by 5/- a barrel. In order to compensate the pig producer for that increase in the cost of his raw material we brought in a corresponding increase in the guaranteed price for pigs of 10/- a cwt. That increase of 10/- a cwt has cost us in the current year about £275,000. It is quite clear that whether it is in the form of a better price for barley or a better price for pigs, that £275,000 is an extra amount into the farmers' pockets. I only mention these two items to indicate that there are included here amounts of money which go directly and immediately to increase farming income.

There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the trend in our cattle population statistics, and Deputy Dillon, in particular, put to me a number of queries in this connection. I cannot understand the violent dislike of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties for the calved heifer subsidy scheme. They never seem to miss an opportunity of attacking it in some way.

Mr. James Tully

Is the Minister sure he is in order?

Mr. L'Estrange

He said no one else was in order.

Mr. Haughey

I must reply to the debate as fully as I can. They never miss an opportunity in this House of denigrating this scheme or of endeavouring to prove it is not really achieving the results it seems to be achieving. The simple answer is that it is the most successful production incentive scheme ever introduced in agriculture in this country or, I would go so far as to say, in any other country. Its success has been dramatic. We are well on the way, as a result of the scheme, to achieving the cow numbers we need to reach the output targets set in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.

Deputy Dillon said the scheme might encourage farmers to retain old cows in their herds which they would otherwise dispose of. The statistics show that that suggestion of Deputy Dillon's is not sustainable. Since the scheme was introduced, in 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966 there has been culled from the herds every year a satisfactory number of either old or unsuitable cows. In the year 1963, for instance, between milch cows and heifers in-calf, there was a total of 1,472,400 head; in the following year there was a total of 1,290,100 milch cows, so that between 1963 and 1964 there was a culling of about 12 per cent. The same applied between 1964 and 1965. The total of milch cows and heifers in-calf in 1964 was 1,565,400 head; in 1965 the number of milch cows was only 1,404,800 head. Again, there was a culling of about 10 or 11 per cent from the herd. The same process took place between 1965 and 1966. The total of milch cows and heifers in-calf in 1965 was 1,716,900 head, and that was reduced to only 1,535,000 head of milch cows the following year. Even though the number of cows and heifers in-calf has increased dramatically as a result of this scheme, nevertheless there has been in each year an adequate amount of culling of old and unsuitable cows.

It is also true that as a result of the BTE scheme there has been a considerable lowering in the average age of our dairying herds and of our milch cow population. It is believed, and I think with very good reason, that the average age of our cow population is now much less than it was ten years ago when the BTE scheme began. Therefore, there is no justification whatever for the suggestion by Deputy Dillon that the calved heifer scheme has resulted in the retention by farmers in their herds of old and unsuitable animals.

Deputy Dillon also raised the question of our pork exports to the United States, and the relation of these exports to our bacon quota in the UK market. He suggested that it was not good business to cease exporting pork to the US market if it were unsubsidised and sell the material instead in the form of bacon or pork to the UK market where it would have to be subsidised. I noticed that the Irish Independent, in an editorial, took the same line. This is based on a misconception. We were building up a small volume of pork exports to the US, about 600 or 700 tons a year, but it had to be subsidised. The pork which we were exporting to the US had to be subsidised just the same as pork and bacon going to the UK market.

Mr. Clinton

To the same extent?

Mr. Haughey

Practically to the same extent, so that there is really no difference from that point of view.

Mr. L'Estrange

Except that it was an extra market in the dollar area.

Mr. Haughey

I was about to say I agree it would be desirable if we could build up trade in pork and bacon exports to the US but, as a Deputy mentioned in the course of this debate, the important thing in any market is to consolidate your position in the market by ensuring that your supplies flow in regular quantities at fixed standards, and so on. We must as a matter of business make sure that we fulfil our quota to the UK market, and only when we have supplied the normal requirements of that market should we then consider building up in a regular way markets elsewhere. We would all hope that as time goes on we would have adequate supplies to fill all the requirements in the UK market and have supplies available for other markets. That would be the ideal position, but there is no question, at the present time at any rate, of diverting supplies from an unsubsidised market in the US to a subsidised market in the UK.

In connection with pigs also, Deputy Dillon asked if there were any developments about the co-operative pig fattening units. The situation there is not unsatisfactory. There is a number of these pig fattening units in operation, more of them are planned and we are doing everything we can to encourage an expansion of these units. At the present time there are seven units in operation on a co-operative basis and, as Minister for Agriculture, I have guaranteed loans in the case of five of these. There are a further seven in operation, associated with creameries, and there is talk of a number of others. As referred to by Deputy O'Hara, there is one, we hope, about to come to fruition in the Balla/Louisburgh area of County Mayo.

There has been some discussion also on our supply of butter to the United Kingdom market and some Deputies have asked why the subsidisation of our butter in the United Kingdom market is turning out to be expensive. Unfortunately, the position is that the price of butter in the United Kingdom market for all supplies fell catastrophically last year and, while we improved our position relative to earlier years, we still had to take for our butter in the United Kingdom market a very unsatisfactory price indeed. There is no doubt that the weakness in the United Kingdom market was a more or less direct result of an excessive supply into that market from all the supplying countries. To that extent, the butter agreement did not have the results most of us hoped would flow from it. Despite the more or less rationing scheme which was introduced, the price was not maintained to the extent hoped.

In that connection also I want to point out that the quota of 23,000 tons which we have secured under the Trade Agreement is of vital importance to us. It has now been shown that this is even more important than we thought. Last year we had a basic quota of 12,000 odd tons but we were able to secure allocations from the reserve which ensured that we could, in fact, send all the butter we had available into the United Kingdom. We sent in something in the region of 19,000 tons, as a result of this allocation from reserve on top of our basic quota. But this reserve has been drastically reduced—from about 40,000 tons to 5,000 tons so there would not be any reserve available to us from which we could get an allocation, as we did last year. The fact that we have a quota of 23,000 tons available to us is very important, indeed, because we expect to have in or around 23,000 tons of butter available for supply to the United Kingdom market.

I am sorry that Deputy M.P. Murphy is not here because he has made the suggestion to me a couple of times that something should be done for the milk producers on some of the islands off the coast of Cork.

Mr. James Tully

He has implicit faith in the Minister.

Mr. Haughey

I have been examining this matter as closely as possible, endeavouring to decide in what way the problem could best be tackled. I have, by kind co-operation of the Dairy Disposal Company, been able to work out something which I hope will be satisfactory and acceptable. We have decided that from the first of May of this year the Dairy Disposal Company will pay 4/- a pound for all butter produced on the islands, provided it is of an acceptable commercial standard and provided the Dairy Disposal Company can, with a reasonable degree of economy, make arrangements for the collection of it, so that——

Mr. James Tully

——bulk butter.

Mr. Haughey

Yes, farmers' butter. The only stipulation we make about it is that the butter must be made on the islands. The Dairy Disposal Company must be satisfied that it has been produced on the islands, that it is of reasonable commercial quality and that they have a collection point reasonably convenient to the islands in question.

Fine Gael Deputies are quite amusing on the question of the 1948 Trade Agreement. I believe they have repeated this nonsense so often they have now come to believe in it themselves. I do not want to get involved in a sort of futile or sterile type of argument about the 1948 Agreement but it was a completely miniscule thing compared with the present Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. What happened in 1948 was that certain arrangements were made with the British Government, at a time when the British Government were bulk-buying British requirements in food. The British Ministry of Food purchased in bulk their requirements and the agreement made in 1948 related entirely to short-term arrangements for these bulk purchases by the British Ministry of Food.

All that was decided about cattle at that time was that the British Government guaranteed that they would not introduce any excessive increase in the existing differential of 5/- a cwt, which applied at that time. First of all, there was a differential of 5/- a cwt which was to be continued. All the British Government said was: "We promise we will not excessively increase that 5/- a cwt." That Agreement was expressed to last for a period of four years only. How can anyone suggest that that in any way compares with what we have achieved under the recent Free Trade Area Agreement? Now there is no differential. Our cattle will qualify for the British guarantee payments system in exactly the same way as the British home-produced cattle qualify. The three months' waiting period has been reduced to two months.

Mr. James Tully

Was it not two months before that?

Mr. Haughey

It is three months at the moment. It will be reduced to two months on 1st July.

Mr. James Tully

Following the 1948 Agreement, was it not two months?

Mr. Haughey

It was increased to three months in 1956. I have the facts and the figures here in front of me.

Mr. James Tully

Does the Minister say it was never two months before now?

Mr. Haughey

It was—again under a Fianna Fáil Government. I will tell Deputies exactly what happened.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Did it make any odds when it was increased?

Mr. Haughey

Yes. I brought this out in this House when we were debating the Free Trade Area Agreement. It was followed by a catastrophic decline in the price of our stores.

Mr. Clinton

That is the greatest nonsense.

Mr. Haughey

It was introduced in 1934 for the first time. Under a Fianna Fáil Government in 1941, it was reduced from three months to two months. In 1947, under a Fianna Fáil Government it was again confirmed at two months. Under a Coalition Government in 1956, it was increased from two months to three months.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister said it was three months in 1948.

Mr. Haughey

It has continued at three months since 1956 except that under the 1960 Agreement the price differential was abolished in respect of Irish attested store cattle exported to the UK and fattened there for three months. Now we have reduced it to a period of two months. It is nonsense to compare the temporary and inadequate provisions of the 1948 Agreement with the sound permanent arrangement provided for us under the present Free Trade Area Agreement which comes into operation on 1st July next.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

When the Minister says it is permanent, does that mean it cannot be reduced below two months?

Mr. Haughey

The Free Trade Area Agreement is permanent. There is nothing to prevent us getting it reduced, but it cannot be increased.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

If it can be reduced it can be increased.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Dillon also mentioned the boneless beef trade with the United States. I agree this was an excellent trade. It was built up very substantially. I think in one year it went up as far as £10 million but unfortunately with the movement of prices, particularly the more attractive prices for cattle and beef on the Continent and the tailing off of the BTE scheme, the meat factories here were not in a position to keep up this trade with the US and it declined to practically nothing. I am glad to be able to say it is now beginning to revive and get going again. It is a very valuable trade and one which we hope will continue to expand and develop.

Deputy M.P. Murphy asked about the proposed bacon factory in his constituency in west Cork. The position from my point of view is quite clear. I have indicated that if there are 1,000 pig producers who are prepared to form themselves into a co-operative society and build a bacon factory, I must and will give them a licence. There is no argument about that. I have already indicated to the interests concerned down there that that is the position. I know there have been negotiations in a couple of different directions with a view to getting capital participation and also expert management facilities. These negotiations are of course a matter for themselves, and I do not come into them.

I understand that they are planning a factory with a capacity of about 1,000 pigs per week initially which will be able to go to 2,500 pigs per week eventually. They also propose to provide facilities for the slaughter of sheep. There is a question of a grant from Foras Tionscal involved but it is not a matter for me to say whether Foras Tionscal would be in a position to give a grant for such an enterprise. That is entirely a matter for Foras Tionscal to decide. I am quite sure Foras Tionscal would have to have regard to the fact that there is excess capacity in the bacon industry at present.

Mr. Clinton

They would qualify for a grant?

Mr. Haughey

Let me put it this way. I do not think that Foras Tionscal would be statutorily debarred from giving them a grant. I do not think I can go any further than that.

Mr. James Tully

They are doing good work anyway.

Mr. Haughey

I am talking about Foras Tionscal.

Mr. James Tully

Do they come under the Minister's Department now?

Mr. Haughey

No, but they come into the question of the bacon factory in west Cork.

Mr. Kenneally

Would they export pork to America or the Continent?

Mr. Haughey

The Pigs and Bacon Commission now do all the exporting of pork. All exports are centralised through the Commission.

Mr. Kenneally

It is too bad we cannot avail of that market.

Mr. Haughey

I have already dealt with that. I mentioned that for some time we have been sending about 600 tons or 700 tons of pork cuts to the US. We have to subsidise them as we subsidise pork and bacon exports to the UK market. There is no great difference from the point of view of the Exchequer whether our bacon and pork go to the US or the UK. I have already indicated that it would be desirable, if we had the supplies, to be able to build up a long-term permanent market in the US as well as in the UK, but whatever market we are in we must put it on a regular basis and send our supplies consistently, and of uniform quality.

The only other point which I feel I should mention at this stage is the question raised by a number of Deputies about the price of milk. I have already indicated that I and the Government were pressed very strongly this year to do something about the price of milk. We would very much like to have been able to do something and we would particularly like to have been able to do something in regard to quality milk. Unfortunately, the position simply is that the resources of the Exchequer were not such that we could do anything. Anything you do in regard to the price of milk is very expensive from the point of view of the Exchequer. A penny a gallon on the basic price would cost about £2 million and a penny on quality milk would cost somewhere between £700,000 and £800,000. This was a commitment we could not undertake this year whether we liked it or not.

I have also mentioned that the income of the dairy farmers could be increased in a variety of ways. I have been reading reports that the ICMSA intend to take action by picketing the Dáil.

Mr. L'Estrange

Deputy Allen will be in trouble if the Minister looks round.

Mr. Haughey

It does not bother me at all. If the members of the Fine Gael Party have nothing better to do than delve into those petty, personal trivia and barrackroom gossip, then it does not bother me.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

We like to see the Minister's Deputies sitting to attention.

Mr. L'Estrange

The garda was reading the paper and that bothered the Minister.

Mr. Haughey

I will tell the Deputy the whole story some time and I think he will agree with me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Haughey

No doubt any Deputy over there would agree if he were told the whole story. As the Chair pointed out quite correctly, we are discussing a Supplementary Estimate for £2,045,000 for agriculture. I was saying, with regard to the price for milk, that we would have liked to be able to do something this year but unfortunately, in present circumstances, it just could not be undertaken. I have pointed out time and time again that there are other ways in which we can increase the income and improve the position of the dairy farmers. We can try to get rid of mastitis and brucellosis. We can try to reorganise the dairying industry in a way that will give the farmers the best possible price for their milk. I would be very sorry indeed if the ICMSA embark on a course of action which will prevent me and them from working together for the development of the dairying industry. There is a great deal of work we can do between us in co-operation. I hope they will not embark on any course of action which would prevent that full co-operation between us to improve the dairying industry in the variety of ways in which it can be improved.

I do not think I would like to say very much more about that particular matter at the present time but I hope that commonsense will prevail in the councils of the ICMSA and that the course of action, which it is alleged they are about to embark on, will not be pursued because I think it would only result in harm to the dairying industry as a whole. By harm, I mean it will prevent us getting on with a number of improvements, which we all know to be necessary, and which can only be brought about if we are working together in harmony and co-operation. I do not think any farmers' organisation today can achieve anything by fighting the Government. The mistake should have been learned long ago. It is only by working with the Government that farmers' organisations can bring about improvements.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Or by changing the Government.

Mr. Haughey

That would be a disaster.

Mr. L'Estrange

What a pity you did not say that in 1956 when your Deputies advocated demonstrating.

Mr. Haughey

There is one final matter which Deputy Fitzpatrick asked me about. The position is that where we go into a place and find that fowl pest exists there, we compensate for all the birds which are slaughtered as a result of the discovery of the disease. We cannot go further than that.

Mr. Farrelly

On a point of order, will you compensate the people who are put out of business by the loss of stock?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This has nothing at all to do with a point of order.

Mr. Haughey

The point, as I understand it, made by Deputy Fitzpatrick, was that we should go further and compensate, not alone for the actual stock, which is slaughtered, but for the loss of business which resulted. I do not think we can possibly accept that principle. It would have to apply generally throughout the whole range of diseases where animals have to be slaughtered. If we were to have an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which heaven forbid, would Deputies suggest that we would not alone compensate for the animals slaughtered but also for the consequent loss of profits resulting to farmers as a result of that?

Mr. L'Estrange

I think the Minister has got the point wrong. The point was that when people are locked in for a couple of months and the fowl have not got fowl pest, those people are not compensated for the loss and inconvenience of three or four months when they have been locked in. They lose valuable contracts on account of that. That is the point that Deputy Fitzpatrick was making.

Mr. Haughey

Even then I do not think we can go further than to compensate where we actually discover the disease and slaughter. Mind you, it is not an ungenerous provision where, because of the disease, we slaughter and compensate fully for stock which we have slaughtered.

Mr. L'Estrange

Those people are quite satisfied.

Mr. Farrelly

Safeguard the small units and you will not have any trouble with fowl pest.

Mr. Haughey

I do not think there are any further points I wish to make in reply to the debate. On the whole, the debate on the Supplementary Estimate took the from I expected it would. The Fine Gael and Labour Parties vacillated as usual, between two completely conflicting points of view.

Mr. L'Estrange

The same as the Fianna Fáil Party—Deputy MacEntee at one end and the Minister at the other.

Mr. Haughey

On the one hand, they said this £2,045,000 which we are providing for agriculture is of no importance and of no real benefit to the farmers and on the other hand, they proceeded to say it is not enough.

Vote put and agreed to.