Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 May 1966

Vol. 222 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 38—Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.

—(Deputy Sweetman.)

Mr. Dillon

I caused Deputy Fanning and Deputy Allen great indignation by asking the Minister to abstain from generalities and to recognise more fully the particular problems of the farmers. That caused Deputy Fanning and Deputy Allen great scandal as they thought it was a ridiculous request to make. I think they are wrong. I remember when I was Minister for Agriculture, I was told that there was very heavy cattle mortality in Loop Head and I sent for the head of the veterinary staff and asked him to take the veterinary staff to Loop Head and find out what was wrong. He found that there was a very acute situation of infestation of cattle and very heavy cattle mortality in that particular area. As a result of an intensive course of treatment, we reduced cattle mortality in that restricted area, by dealing with the problem that existed there, to a level far lower than throughout the rest of the country. It was a great source of benefit.

Deputy Reynolds will probably remember when he was a much younger man than he is now that in January 1955 after the bad year of 1954, there was an acute fodder crisis in north Leitrim. I remember sending for the chief inspector, Mr. O'Mahoney, and I asked him would he face down to Leitrim and let me know what the real position was. He came back and told me that cattle were dying for want of fodder. The Department of Agriculture put their hand to the task—and there are people who thought we were daft but I do not think we were daft —and we went out and bought hay and straw and brought it down to north Leitrim and distributed it among the farmers. They paid what they could afford to pay but we tided them over for the three weeks or a month until the grass grew, and we saved a lot of cattle.

Does the House think that is the wrong way to go about the Department of Agriculture? I do not think it is. I believe the Minister for Agriculture should have that personal sense of responsibility for farmers who are in trouble. You may come to the conclusion that some of the troubles they brought upon themselves by lack of expertise or lack of foresight or lack of prudence, but the reason for the trouble is not relevant; what matters is that it is trouble and they ought feel when in trouble that the Department of Agriculture is there, ready, willing and anxious to come with all the resources they have.

The Minister will find in his records another case in which we had extensive infertility in south Leitrim and east Sligo and I remember calling in Mr. Hartnett, then one of the principal officers in the Veterinary Department, and asking him if he would go down to see what was the matter. He said: "It is a pretty large assignment but we will take a shot at it." I never forgot it to him. It seemed to be one of these amorphous rumours but yet it was so persistent that I felt something should be done about it. We did go down and we discovered that there was in that area a large and enduring epidemic of trichomoniosis of which we had known nothing. That was one of the reasons for setting up the West of Ireland Artificial Insemination Centre and through its installation we have eliminated the disease. However, if our approach had not been entirely different from that of Deputy Fanning and Deputy Allen whose idea is "Do they expect us to come down and feed the cattle for them?" we would never have found that situation.

I feel that there was then, and I hope there still is, that sentiment of personal concern in the Department of Agriculture and all its technical and administrative staff, for farmers and if they were in trouble the first thing they would do was go down and help, whatever they might say to them afterwards. It is in that spirit that the present acute crisis affecting small farmers in the congested areas should be approached. I warn the Minister not to listen to me like Deputy Fanning and Deputy Allen who in this regard do not know what they are talking about.

Mr. Fanning

I think we do.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy has come back. I would not have said that if I had known he was there. I am not trying to vex the Deputy. I think he is underestimating the size of the problem of cattle mortality on the small holdings this year. I am not blaming the Minister. I can see that it is a problem that in part is a consequence of the heifer scheme in that there is an unprecedentedly large number of yearling cattle, as we call them, between 12 and 18 months, and that some farmers over-stocked themselves in their desire to get the grants for the three or four extra heifers. They now have the cattle and if the grass had grown at the end of March and the beginning of April, no acute crisis would have arisen. It was the inclement weather in April which has gravely complicated the situation.

I do not exonerate the farmers in that they over-stocked in their desire to get the grant. The fodder did not last out and some of them were inexperienced in the processes of feeding cattle and they bought bagged food with no roughage and the cattle died, but if I correctly interpret the approach of the Department to problems of that kind, they are not much interested in why the farmers are in trouble; their primary concern is that they are in trouble and they want to go to them and help them. However, the present Minister—as was every other Minister for Agriculture—is in the difficulty that when he wants to go and help them, he has no means of reaching them. That is the fantastic situation. Ultimately all the responsibility must devolve on the Minister for Agriculture but the Minister is in this fantastic position that he has no direct contact with the farmers except in so far as he met a few of their representatives in his Department. He has no advisory staff, no staff he can send out unless he does as I did, and takes some of the technical staff out of his Department, and asks them to go and do work which is really not a part of the duties they are paid to discharge. I never asked them in vain.

As long as we had the parish agent, I was in an immensely different position. If there was a problem in Leitrim I could call for Dr. Spain, for instance, and say to him: "There is a mass of correspondence coming into me from various people which suggests the situation requires immediate attention." In 24 hours he was on the scene, in consultation with the parish agents, and he knew that he was now in a position not only to place his own knowledge at the disposal of the agent and the people but to call on the whole vast resources of the Department, and there was not a single man in the Department not eager and willing to go to his aid. That no longer exists. I do not want Deputy Fanning to get vexed with me but does the Deputy not feel that the Minister for Agriculture for the time being, whosoever he is, ought to have that kind of contact with the farmers so that he can bring the resources of the Department of Agriculture, which are very great——

Mr. Fanning

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but even the city people know the conditions in the country since January.

Mr. Dillon

I have said ad nauseam I am not blaming the Minister. What I say is that unless he or his successors have some means at their disposal which will enable them to make personal contact with an emergency, they are paralysed. The Minister can exhort, but he has no power, no machinery. That is one of the great weaknesses of our present situation. It makes an immense difference not only to the people themselves but to the whole public image of the Department, if at a time of crisis and difficulty the word goes around that the Department of Agriculture are here and doing what they can.

The Minister knows that I have said in his presence to the farmers of this country: "For goodness sake, stop slanging the Minister for Agriculture. If you have any fault to find with the Government, slang the Government. But the Minister for Agriculture is the only person you have to fight your corner within the Government." I tried to build up for the Department of Agriculture in the minds of the farmers the belief that every officer of that Department was their servant and friend. I believe I had some success. I tried since the present Minister became Minister for Agriculture—God knows it was hard enough to do it for Deputy Smith—to tell the farmers: "Do not slang the Minister. Proceed on the assumption that if he is not doing all you think he ought to do, he is trying to get it done but there may be other reasons which make it difficult for him to carry the Government with him. There may be Finance reasons, Local Government reasons or Land Commission reasons. He is only one of many." It is by going to their aid when they are in trouble and helping them out of it—even if you have to say to them afterwards "How the hell did you ever get yourselves into that mess?"—that an effective relationship can be built up between the Department and the farmers they seek to serve, a relationship without which no Minister for Agriculture and no Department of Agriculture can properly discharge the task committed to them.

Here is the kind of observation which can drive a farmer daft:

Livestock are lower in condition than is normal at this time of the year because of shortage of keep and milk production in the first few months of the year, though running above last year's level, is not quite as high as we had anticipated. Those reverses are purely temporary and in the longer term the favourable factors I have mentioned are there and their cumulative effect must certainly be felt.

Can you imagine the feelings of a man reading that who has a dead cow? It is perfectly true that if you take the average of all the farmers in Ireland, that gentle statement may be true. But the only farmer that does not exist in Ireland or anywhere else is the average farmer. Certain farmers have lost their cows. It is poor consolation to tell them that on the average people are not so badly off and it is only temporary. It would be much better if the Minister would say: "I know there are men who suffered terrible losses this year and I accept that fact as true."

I know the difficulty of dealing with that situation, but I am tempted to say that the situation has been so severe that very serious consideration ought to be given to the possibility of helping some of them who have suffered crushing losses as a result of mortality among their cattle this spring. I do not underestimate the administrative problem of doing that. I had experience of that as a result of the Shannon floods in 1954 but we managed to get over it. However, that was in a relatively restricted area and doing it for the country is not so easy.

On page 7 of his statement the Minister says:

Our exports of fat cattle in 1965 were slightly lower than in 1964 and our carcase beef exports slightly higher.

I find that hard to reconcile with what I read on page 15 of "Notes on the Main Activities of the Department," where it says that our exports of carcase beef in the last three years have been respectively: 1963, 60,720; 1964, 51,893 and 1965, 54,166. I know the explanation. I think it is true to say that our export of prime beef, that is, beef for human consumption, has gone up somewhat. But that has been largely offset by the fall in the export of boneless boxed beef, to which the Minister refers in his statement. I think he is not strictly accurate in saying that the total exports of carcase beef have increased in total volume. The loss of that boxed beef trade is a catastrophe. However, I am encouraged by what the Minister says that he is not without hope it may be on the way back again. I hope it is.

In my judgment, that is the only beef export market we have as a permanence in the United States. I believe it could be built up into a great business. I am afraid we may have lost it as a result of diverting supplies of that quality of manufacturing beef to continental Europe. I am afraid the continental market for that quality of beef is a purely temporary one. I would regret it if it were true that we had diverted for a very passing price advantage supplies of this type of manufacturing beef, which are tremendously hard to find a market for, to a flash market in Europe and lost the position we built so successfully in the United States where the trade is producing a very large annual income.

I want to say a word about the heifer scheme. This is a very complex matter. There is no doubt whatever that the heifer scheme has resulted in a steep increase in the number of cattle born in the country and in the total number of cattle in the country. But I would direct the Minister's attention to one feature of Appendix II dealing with the number of livestock in the country.

The total number of cattle is up in the last three years by approximately 500,000 from 4,860,000 to 5,359,000. The total number of cows is up by 220,000, whereas the total of heifers has only increased to 193,000. Is there a danger that we are inducing farmers to retain in their herds an excessive number of old uneconomic cows that they would ordinarily have culled and sent to the meat factory but for the fact that they are holding them in order to retain their basic herd as determined by the relevant TB eradication scheme in order to qualify for grants for additional heifers that they are bringing into their herds? If that should be so, it is an unhealthy trend and a matter that deserves examination.

Another factor which I want to point out is one which I recognise as being hard to control. Here again I must call for Deputy Fanning's understanding. It was popularly believed, and I think the Minister believed it, that the £15 heifer grant, whoever got it, would ultimately filter back to the small farmer. It had a queer, unexpected and uncovenanted consequence. Everybody in Deputy Fanning's part of the country and in the east of the country who did not traditionally breed their own store cattle, all added heifers to their stock to qualify for this £15. All the small farmers in the west of Ireland, Cavan, Monaghan, Donegal, did their best to add heifers to their herd. Of course they had the prospect of selling the suck calf, the six months old calf or the yearling, and there is no doubt the price of those was very good 12 months ago, but now the full flood initiated by the heifer scheme is coming on to the market.

The strange consequence is that most of the small farmers who will have got the £15 heifer grant have lost more on the sale of their yearling or their 18 months old calf than they got in the grant. The man who is really going to get the benefit of the whole thing is the large grazier in the eastern counties who can now buy young cattle cheaper than he has ever bought them before, in the pretty certain knowledge that, under the Trade Agreement with Great Britain, whereby forward stores are linked to the British beef guarantee, he can bring up all these cheap yearlings from the west, the north-west and south-west and when they are nine to ten hundred-weight, can sell them as forward stores on the Dublin market, have them exported to Great Britain and get the guaranteed price.

I admit to the Minister that difficulty was inherent in the scheme. It looked lovely when you were getting the grant, but if you keep the cattle for 12 months and you come to sell them, what you expect to get £50 for you are getting about £30 for and you have kept them all the winter. The result is that most of the small farmers would have done much better if the grant had never been brought into existence. The Minister is entitled to say: "On average, over all, we have increased the cow population", but at whose expense?

It is true that some farmers may have brought some of the trouble on their own heads by overstocking. Where they had six cattle, they put in four heifers, whereas three would have been enough. They did not look forward and realise they could not feed them on the grassland and make enough hay to carry them through a bad winter. That is a situation which the Minister might examine. I doubt if there is much he can do about it. Some of them kept the old cows that ought to be going to the canning factory as they used to keep old hens. The Minister will remember the saying: “Vaco senescens delenda est”. The old cows should be let go and not kept around as a kind of monument in order to qualify for future grants.

I have already impressed on the Minister my view that he ought to give careful consideration to the two-tier price for milk. I fully acknowledge the administrative difficulties that arise therefrom, but I think he can pass back to the creamery committees the full responsibility for the avoidance of fraud. He can pay them the global sum and say: "It is up to you to determine who is entitled to the high price for the first 7,000 gallons and the low price for the remainder. If you cannot do justice among yourselves, do not come back to me. Taking it high and low, divide it equitably among yourselves because you know local conditions."

It is very relevant at this time when the Minister and the Government are making up their minds on the subject of milk prices, that the Minister should make as clear as crystal to the members of the Government something we cannot expect the bulk of them to understand. The yield of a cow does not consist of its milk. It might be thought that when you fix the price of milk, you have disposed of the question of a cow's profitability or non-profitability. A cow's yield is a calf and milk. Do not forget that the price of a calf has gone up from 10/-to £15.

Mr. Coughlan

It is a long time since a calf was 10/-.

Mr. Dillon

When I came in as Minister for Agriculture, it was 10/-. I closed down a factory in Charleville which was primarily occupied in buying calves for 10/- and killing them for their skins. I used to boast that the price of the calf had gone up from 10/- to £10. Ten multiplied by 240 with 400 gallons per cow is the equivalent of 6d a gallon for milk. In those days we were only making our way. It was in the difficult post-war period. Now the thing is reversed. Do I exaggerate when I say the price of a suck calf has fallen by 50 per cent? This time last year the suck calf for which I gave £24 will fetch only £12 now.

Mr. Coughlan

You would be lucky to get £12.

Mr. Dillon

Remember that with a price of £10 2,400 pence for 600 gallons represent 4d a gallon off the milk. If we think of milk and cows as one item, we have suffered a loss of 4d a gallon in the total output of the cow for the past 12 months. That fluctuation is part of the remote kick-back from the heifer scheme. It is important when the Minister is making his case to the Government in regard to the creamery milk suppliers' exasperation and general goings-on, that those who do not fully understand this question should have that element of the situation brought clearly to their attention. This is a thing to which very few people, because of not having been deeply involved, would advert.

The Minister has indicated a most laudable and excellent scheme to eliminate the warble fly. I hasten to provide my own alibi. I could not do it in my day because the drug which is now available to him was unknown to me as Minister for Agriculture. It is now available and is being used very effectively. I think. There are, however, two aspects. I wonder would it be worthwhile trying to supplement that treatment with the attempted biological control of the warble fly? The Minister will find a precedent in Australia. There they have succeeded admirably by biological control in the elimination of the male green tailed maggot fly. I shall not go into the technical details now, but the information is available in the Department. Whether it would be possible to do the same thing with the warble fly in this country is open to doubt. Whether it is necessary is open to doubt, but now that the Minister has this new drug, there may be areas of intense infestation in which biological control of the fly might just turn the trick and finish the job, thereby preventing a recurrence of infestation from one area to another.

Has the Minister received complaints about the compensation fund? There is a compensation fund. I myself have come across a particular case. There have been a great number of abortions this year. I have seen a case myself in which the aborted foetus had reached a state of development which corresponded pretty accurately with the date on which the cows were treated for warble fly. I am bound to say that in the same herd I saw 11 other cattle, but only one aborted. But the odd feature is that the abortion corresponded almost exactly with the day of treatment. We know the drug circulates through the lymphatic system. I should be glad to know some time if the Minister's veterinary staff have reason to believe that there is a direct association between this treatment and the kind of abortion I have described. If there is, would he consider whether these animals could be included in the general compensation scheme which covers cows that actually die?

Mr. Haughey

I answered a question very fully on that. There is no connection and there can be no connection.

Mr. Dillon

Maybe the Minister is right. The Minister's predecessor started a scheme for fencing mountains. I do not want to make little of any man's scheme. I am sure it was all done with the best intentions in the world, but I do not know what good a fence does on a mountain. Maybe it does; maybe it does not. It was a scheme that never appealed to me. Maybe my successor was wiser than I, but I should have preferred to spend that money on fertilising the mountain. I was trying to do that on the lines of the aerial fertilisation employed in New Zealand, but, at the time, I was confronted with a whole series of problems of commonage and so on and I could not get the Department of Finance to agree to fertilising the blooming place unless the locals subscribed. You would get 19 out of 20 all agreeing to make some contribution and the twentieth would be some old faggot who would not put up a tosser and the neighbours would not put up a penny because they would not gratify her by letting her get away with it. I always thought it was all cod. It was barely worth collecting the few shillings. But we have to bear in mind that some of these vast areas in Connemara and Donegal are owned by relatively well-to-do men. I think fertilisation of the mountains and the mountain sheep grazing on them would give a much better result in the long run, using phosphate and lime, than would the fencing operations, and I do not think it would cost much more.

I shall not recapitulate what I said with regard to parish agents, particularly in the light of what the Minister has found it proper to do in Glencolumbkille and, even more dramatic, what he has found it proper to do under what he now calls his pilot scheme. Pilot schemes are the parish plan and, instead of running pilot schemes, my advice to him is to take his courage in his hand, and say: "I do not want any pilot schemes. This is the right thing to do and I am going to do it in every area west of the Shannon and from Donegal into Monaghan and Cavan." In Meath and Westmeath, it may not be so necessary with the much more sophisticated men there, but I do not think the scheme will be long in operation west of the Shannon before the Minister gets applications from some of these boys when they see what can be done to provide them with better facilities. Some of the most ignorant and obstinate farmers are some of the wealthiest. Some of the land owned by these wealthy men is the most abused land in Ireland. Pilot schemes in the West will in due course spread east and I think the Minister would be entitled to say: "I am going to go ahead west of the Shannon and, if they want it east of the Shannon, they can blooming well come and ask for it. If they do, I will give it to them, but I will not push it on them."

With regard to the pig situation, I should like to ask the Minister one categorical question. Are we now facing the situation in which exports of pork are being restricted? When I was Minister for Agriculture, my view was that anyone who wanted to build a bacon factory and could make it conform with the requirements of the Department was fully entitled to go into business. I got myself into a whole lot of trouble in standing for that principle. Officers of the Department will be able to give the Minister full particulars of the woe I experienced in defending that principle because I felt the more manufacturing facilities there were, the better the price would be, and the better prospect there was of the efficient units surviving and the inefficient going to the wall.

Now we have reached the stage at which no one will get a new licence for curing on the ground that there is excess capacity. I do not see that the Minister has any obligation to control excess capacity. If there are to be no new entrants on the ground that the existing operators have excess capacity, then, so surely as tomorrow's day dawns, the industry will drift into the position in which these fellows will just sit back and there will be very little co-operation. It is true that co-operatives will get licences, but we all know there are efficient co-operatives and there are inefficient co-operatives. If an efficient, energetic entrepreneur wants to enter the trade and start a bacon factory, I would be very slow to stop him. Let him take his chance with the rest. If he gives a better service to pig producers and produces a better end product, he will become a very valuable asset and he will be a spur to others to conform to the standard he sets.

That is all changed by the fact that apparently we have now taken the decision not to allow anybody but a bacon curer to export pork. That is all very new because, up to relatively recently, pork and bacon were two separate trades. I knew a fellow in the town of Monaghan who was very largely involved in the pork export business. He is dead long since, God rest his soul. I wonder if his sons, by virtue of the fact that, for many years, he was involved in the pork carcase export business—he was never involved in bacon at all—are entitled to export or if they are forever excluded from their father's trade. These are the kinds of anachronisms that you create once you start establishing a permanently and irrevocably enclosed enclave into which there can be no new entry. It is a dangerous thing.

I brought to the attention of the Minister the application of a fellow called Reinhardt who was in the pork business here in Dublin and who took over a factory in the town of Clones which had become vacant. I need not elaborate on the big problems of the town of Clones. It is surrounded by the Border. It is extremely difficult to get any industry in the town at all. Another big industry, Ernetex, has folded up there and there is a receiver there. This chap, Reinhardt, came over and took over the bacon factory out of which another enterprise had disappeared. He wanted to export pork. He is also a considerable producer of sausage casings, the offals of the pork business. He was told, in effect: "No, you cannot. You will not be allowed to export. Pork exports are now confined to bacon curers".

As far as I can find out, we have got ourselves into this fantastic position that we have a quota for bacon under the Trade Agreement with Great Britain which we now find ourselves unable to fill. This chap, Reinhardt, says: "I can export pork without any subsidy. I do not want any subsidy except the right to export it", and the answer is, in effect: "No; you must convert the pork into bacon and we shall pay you £1 per cwt. to send it to Great Britain". Is it £5 a cwt? What is the export subsidy on bacon at present?

Mr. Haughey

£5.

Mr. Dillon

About £5. That is an extraordinary situation. These anachronisms——

Mr. Haughey

We do not believe he could export it without a subsidy.

Mr. Dillon

It would be a great strength to me if I were in a position to say: "Bring your premises into conformity with the Department's regulations and you may export pork to Timbuctoo but you will get no export bounty. They are not paying an export bounty on pork because they want us to fill the bacon quota but if you want to go into the pork export business, and to export without bounty, certainly no Minister for Agriculture here will tell you that you must convert it into bacon in order to export it with a subsidy of £5 per cwt on every side of bacon that you export".

Mr. Haughey

There is also the problem of the levy on the home market.

Mr. Dillon

I understand the anachronisms. Once you establish an enclave like that, anachronisms begin to arise which appear, certainly to the average man, to be grotesque. Clones has a long tradition in the pork carcase business. The town is hard-pressed for employment. Geographically, it is situated in an awkward spot. It drives them up the wall that a man with an empty factory who is willing to provide employment may not export pork. He wants nothing from anybody except leave to do it. He has the certificate from the Department that they inspected his factory after he had put it in proper condition for slaughtering purposes. He can slaughter pork in the factory at present and sell it in the Republic but the Minister says he will not be able to export without a subsidy, although he says he can.

If Mr. Reinhardt can export without a subsidy, is there any objection to saying: "Well, sell it anywhere you like but I am warning you that, in present circumstances, I cannot afford to pay a subsidy on pork exports. I will give an export bounty on pork exports to bacon factories which export nine-tenths bacon and one-tenth pork. You do not want to export any bacon and therefore you get no subsidy at all. I do not deny that I am giving an export bounty on pork exports to those who are exporting nine times as much, or more, bacon." It seems to me to be carrying things very far to say not only to the new entrepreneur but to the town that wants employment, that he may not export pork, even though he wants no bounty.

I quite admit that it is not impossible for the person making that case to employ 20 or 30 men and to slaughter a couple of hundred pigs and to ship the pigs and take the loss and then to go back to the Minister and say, in effect: "Either you give me the bounty or I shall sack the 20 or 30 men." I shall stand over the Minister. He knows perfectly well that, if he enters the business, there is no export bounty on pork, not being a bacon exporter. The people of Clones are not fools but they cannot understand why he is told that in no circumstances will he be allowed to export pork. The Minister should look into that.

I should be glad to have an express opinion on whether the sons of a man who was in the pork business up to the time pigs became short, about 1940, would be entitled, by virtue of that fact, to become pork exporters themselves now on the same terms. However, I regard the Clones matter as urgent and should be glad to know about the other one.

Here is a most interesting thing about sheep. I admit that I was six years Minister for Agriculture and that I never knew it. Did anybody else know that, in 1963, we exported 311,000 sheep and imported 392,000? Where did they come from?

Mr. Haughey

From across the Border.

Mr. Dillon

I never knew that before. I do not deny it. Does the Minister mean that they drove over more sheep on the hoof than we exported from the country? Did anyone else know that?

Mr. Coughlan

The Minister for Justice.

Mr. Dillon

I frankly confess—and I do not like admitting it—that it is a factor in Irish agriculture of which I had no knowledge. Now we are sending out 205,997 head and this year we brought in 131,819. I was not aware that our imports of sheep reached those proportions. Certainly, it is the first time in any recent year that we imported more sheep than we exported.

Mr. Haughey

It is a reflection of the efficiency of our dead meat factories.

Mr. Dillon

I do not want to give the Minister a short answer.

Mr. Haughey

That is what it is.

Mr. Dillon

I would advise the Minister to have a little chat with some of his more experienced colleagues about wangling the bounty.

Mr. Haughey

It is perfectly legal.

Mr. Dillon

I remember a time when pigs and cattle were worn out from wandering to and fro across the Border qualifying for bounties. Do you remember the time the cows with the holes in their ears used to turn up at the Dublin cattle markets?

Mr. Haughey

The pigs are different.

Mr. Dillon

The cows used to make that pilgrimage regularly and the poor creatures used to be worn out from going to and fro.

The decrease in tillage is a very remarkable development. I have been looking into the statistics with regard to wheat acreage and I refer to Appendix I. In the year in which I went out of office, there were 418,900 acres of wheat grown in this country. Last year there were only 182,170 acres. Is that not an astonishing thing? That is only a little more than one-third the acreage grown in my last year of office. I am sorry that Deputy Foley has left the House because in my last year of office the millers took every grain of wheat brought to them, and paid for it and made flour of it. Now they want to have it handed to them on a silver salver.

I am not surprised at the decline in the oats acreage, which coincides with the disappearance of the horse and the decrease in the number of fowl. Barley has increased satisfactorily. I think Deputy Foley is silly to be asking the Minister to put a clamp on Guinness. Thank God, we have them here and they are generally regarded throughout the country as always being prepared to negotiate a reasonably fair price with the farmers. Deputy Corry is always boasting of leading his cohorts into Guinness and forcing them to pay a just price but Deputy Foley and himself can argue that matter out in their Party room.

There is a grave situation with regard to the crop of sugar beet. The last year I was in office, 84,600 acres of beet were grown. That went up in 1963 to 88,300 acres and it is now 65,000 acres, down 30,000 acres. That is a lot of beet. When I asked the reason for it, the men I asked said that it was unremunerative. Deputy Corry is always boasting that he goes in like a lion to General Costello, catches him by the throat and lays down the price he is to get and that General Costello is like a baa-lamb and pays it out. If this is so, why is the beet acreage down by 30,000 acres? Can the Minister tell us? I think that is something the people want to know and something about which we have the right to inquire.

I do not think I could ever bring myself to be really contentious in regard to this Department because I have always had a warm corner in my heart for it. I make no apology for stating in this House that I consider it the most important Department of State in this country. It is the only office I ever aspired to hold and by the providence of God I held it twice. I never wanted to hold another office.

Mr. Coughlan

You will do the hat trick.

Mr. Dillon

I will not. My next job was to be that of Taoiseach and they turned me down twice with regard to that. When they did so, I felt that I could honourably retire from the arena. I never knew an unhappy day as Minister for Agriculture and I would say here that my reason for that was that I was doing every day useful and constructive work. I wish the Minister luck. I think he belongs to a rotten Government. I hope he will be out of office soon, but as long as he is Minister for Agriculture, I wish him luck. It would be a terrible reflection on him and on the Government if there were to be any repetition of the indecent performance of contemptuously denying a claim and subsequently conceding it when argument was abandoned in favour of unconstitutional conduct by some of the most decent men in this country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Fanning.

Mr. Coughlan

They have spoken twice already.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Since the debate commenced this morning, one Government Deputy intervened for half an hour and the Opposition have had four and a half hours. I do not think I am unfair to the Deputy.

Mr. Fanning

Deputy Dillon has referred to the parish plan but I do not believe that farmers are so slow that they do not know that there are grants for the improvement of farm buildings and other matters like that. Deputy T. O'Donnell criticised the amount of money spent on research but I think that is of great value to the farming community. With regard to the price of milk, I come from a constituency where there is dairy and tillage farming and I agree with the farmers that, to a certain extent, it is a full-time job. A farmer and his wife have to rise at 5 o'clock on a Sunday morning to get the milk ready for the creamery while other people can lie in bed and go to evening Mass if they feel like it.

The farmers are entitled to something and they have been told by the Minister that he is having the situation examined. When other people get increases in wages, there is no hesitation in passing the price on to the farmer. I do not think there is anything wrong in adding the cost on to the article which the man may purchase.

There is a lot of criticism as regards dairy farmers and production. Any man who has cows in my area is producing as much milk as the dairy farmers of Limerick. That is because they are doing tillage farming as well and producing the food to keep them. Some dairy farmers from Limerick to whom I was speaking recently said to me that it was all right for us, that we had the fodder for the cattle, but they should remember that it does not grow on the bushes and that it costs time and trouble to produce. I doubt if the Limerick farmers, if they have a bit of good land, could produce a couple of acres of something to feed their animals. We have had very bad weather since last January and the grass has suffered on account of the rain. I found that when I rolled it about a month ago it had no effect when the snow came. We had to try to close in the soil to let the grass come through. The dairy farmers' job is a tough one but so is that of the tillage farmer. The dairy farmer is saved a lot of drudgery nowadays by the use of milking machines. You can now go into a 20-cow byre and switch on the machines to do the work that formerly had to be tackled by two men perhaps after a hard day in the meadows.

There has been criticism about the drop of £10 in the price of calves. Some of my neighbours are small farmers with seven or eight cows. They rear seven or eight and then buy five or six more. Who brought down the price of calves? Is it not the farmers who buy calves from the farmers and not the businessmen or anybody else? Calves are not so cheap. I bought some lately at £16 and £17 which I thought was a good price. A year ago or more, I saw calves make £28 on the market in Thurles. People kept them seven or eight months but they did not realise the same price because I think they were too dear.

The £15 grant for heifers, it is said, is foolish and should not be given. It is contended that the small man is out. The purpose of the scheme was to increase the cattle population which it has done, thus giving more cattle for export. It was a very good scheme. I know the small farmers could not qualify for a great deal of it. We now have the question of the two-tier price for milk and the small farmer will not get very much out of it. I know the position of the small farmer as well as anybody and it is very difficult to get a scheme that will help him and give him as much as the big farmer.

It was suggested by a Labour Deputy that grants should be given on a valuation basis so that the small man would get a certain amount. The small farmer may be more anxious to produce more than the fellows with 300 acres who can make enough out of the large estate and need not work so hard. My sympathy is with the ICMSA. They may say: "What good is that; what are you doing?" What can any Deputy do for them except come in here and make a case for them? I hope the Minister will come up with some proposals, even if they mean increased taxation. I think we have the good wishes of both sides of the House and both Labour and Fine Gael are prepared to meet taxation to give the farmers a better price. There should not be much trouble in getting that through the House.

I heard Deputy O'Donnell speak this morning, and while he covered every aspect of dairy farming, he did not mention tillage. He told us of the dairy farmers' losses in cows. I know there were losses even in Tipperary but the people had fair warning. Since last December, people had to put in the cows and they still have them in. They do not do that in Limerick. I believe they did not save the hay last summer. There, we are contending with acts of God and we are sorry these happen, but cannot the same thing happen in the case of an ordinary man in regard to sickness or something like that and nothing can be done about it?

Deputy Dillon said he knew of a man with 22 acres and 12 year-and-a half-old cattle on it. I think he said six of them died. That is bad business. I interrupted and asked why he did not sell two or three and buy feeding for the others. If a farmer with 22 acres cannot afford to keep 12 such animals, I wonder what case we should put up to the Land Commission about the size of farms in the future? I know a young farmer living near me who purchased ten or 12 calves to rear and still has them on two or three acres and he hopes to make a good profit.

I was glad Deputy Dillon came in at the end and spoke about beet and wheat, the two crops I thought he would keep farthest away from. During his term of office, he made a statement for which he will never be forgiven, that he would not be found dead in a field of beet or wheat. As a representative of the Beet Growers Association, I am sorry the beet acreage is down but it is not all a question of price. When we met General Costello before we sowed the crop, he guaranteed that if wages increased for factory workers, he would automatically put up the price of beet. That statement was made only a week ago. I am glad of that. I know farmers who, for the past six weeks in some cases, could not go into their land to sow beet. It is not a question of price but of weather which hits the tillage farmer harder than the dairy farmer. No matter how bad the weather, the dairy farmer can milk his cows but the tillage farmer must wait to sow his crops. What compensation will he get? There are still farmers in my area who have not a grain of corn sown nor their main crop potatoes, although they are working day and night.

If we have a decline in beet acreage, I am sorry, coming as I do from Thurles where we have a beet factory. We know the loss it will mean to the town if anything happens to it but the farmers are making good efforts and in the past week they have sown a fair share but they are not getting much chance. Deputy Dillon says that the wheat acreage has declined since he left office. That may be so, but it is not a question of price altogether. I think the price is fairly good but when it came to harvest time, you would not see half of the price. When wheat was too plentiful, the millers were trying to find some fault. I know that good tillage farmers who had grown wheat for years gave it up for three or four years but went back to it and where they were good enough to get it in early. I have seen good fields of corn sown on good ground. But there are farmers who are not sowing any this year because it is too late.

A case has been made for giving some relief to the farmers. The question of rates on agricultural land arises year after year. The tillage farmer who employs an agricultural labourer or family labour gets some relief of rates; other sections of the community who find it hard to meet the rates do not get any corresponding relief. I refer to business people and others. There is no use in a Party coming in here when in Opposition to say what should be done and to have a different story when they become a Government. The Opposition can promise anything they like. That is Party politics. I like to be fair. There is a wide gap in the price of milk. The producer gets 2¾d and in some places 2½d while the consumer pays 7d.

Deputy O'Donnell went very far in suggesting the amounts farmers will lose. Some farmers will have to get rid of a number of cows over and above what they have already disposed of. The Department or the Minister or the Government cannot be blamed for that, although there was a time when Fianna Fáil were blamed for everything that occurred, including the weather.

To be fair, I think the Minister is giving this matter a good deal of consideration. The pitiful thing is that there are two farmers' organisations, as I know very well, being a member of them. Both bodies should be represented on one board. There is no use in having the tillage farmers and the dairy farmers against each other. The two organisations should be fighting for the same end, an improvement of the lot of the farmers. That does not happen. I have represented to them on several occasions that that should be their aim.

I deplore the fact that decent farmers should be parading outside this House. I am sure the farmers concerned find it a troublesome matter. Whether the weather is bad or good, a farmer always has plenty to do at home. They have to make their case, I suppose.

Last Monday the ESB power was cut off at 9 a.m. and did not come on until evening. Farmers did not get any concession from the persons concerned.

Mr. Coughlan

You can blame the Minister for Transport and Power for that.

Mr. Fanning

There was no power available for milking machines and pumps. I saw cows wandering around the fields in search of water that day. The persons concerned in that strike were not in the position the farmers are in. They had good wages. A man who has a weekly wage packet to get is not in a bad position. We saw on television that night that there were two patients in a hospital operating theatre when the power cut came. Fortunately, the operations had not started. There were babies in incubators. Consideration should be given to such circumstances. There are far too many strikes. One would imagine that this country was not the country of the persons concerned. One wonders what such strikes may lead to.

Deputy Treacy referred to farm labourers not being treated fairly. He suggested that when Labour tried to improve the position, Fianna Fáil voted against them. I have great admiration for farm labourers. I work with them when I am not in Dáil Éireann. They have been granted an increase of £1 a week. Deputy Treacy says the workers are not getting fair treatment from the Agricultural Wages Board. I think they are. Maybe the farmers have a little grievance there also. The amount allowed for food is very low in assessing wages. A road worker who is in receipt of £8 a week is not as well off as an agricultural labourer who gets a wage of £7 or more and his food. Food means a great deal to a man. I admit that a married man with a family working for a county council must find it difficult to rear a family on a wage of £8 or £8 3s. These people cannot be blamed for looking for more.

The suggestion is made that milk production is not a paying proposition but that suggestion would not seem to be borne out when one considers that the cow population has increased considerably. The calf is worth a good deal of money today.

Deputy Dillon referred to the small man in connection with the £15 heifer scheme which he suggested resulted in there being too many calves, which hits the small man very hard. I do not agree. A small man cannot keep any more cows than he always kept. If a man had 100 heifers, he got £1,500 under the scheme but he got it for one year only. He was out after that. Unless he could show that he had 100 heifers and a number over and above that, he would not get a further subsidy.

I would agree with the point made by Deputy Dillon and other Deputies that only about one-half of the estimated expenditure on the heifer subsidy scheme will be required henceforth, perhaps less. If that money could be diverted to milk support, it would be welcomed by everybody. The Government have not got a fairy godmother to fill the bags for them. When they impose taxation, there is an outcry. It would seem that there will be unanimity in this House on the question of taxation. We have the promise from Labour and Fine Gael that if taxation is imposed in order to give the farmers a decent price, they will support it.

The Minister means well. It is a great pity that there is a division between the farmers. Trade unions do not have such divisions. I hope the Minister will give the suggestions made in the debate his full consideration and will see his way not only to helping the dairy farmers but the tillage farmers also.

Mr. Coughlan

My contribution to this debate will have to be limited, in view of the long litanies that we heard from Deputy Dillon of his past achievements in the Ministry of Agriculture. For that reason I have to be as brief as possible in order to allow other people to speak. I do not want to be selfish enough to preclude anybody from contributing to this very important debate. First of all, I must take Deputy Fanning to task for complaining that 100 men in the ESB held the country up to ransom by going on strike. We must be fair and tell the truth about this matter. The fact remains that one man and one man only was responsible in this issue, and that was the Minister for Transport and Power——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

For that reason——

Mr. Coughlan

——who came along——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

——the matter cannot be discussed on the Estimate for Agriculture. Deputy Fanning mentioned the matter——

Mr. Coughlan

I want to rectify something that was said.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

——in passing and it cannot be discussed on this Estimate.

Mr. Coughlan

I am mentioning it in passing and at the same time, I want to get the matter rectified.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter does not arise here.

Mr. Coughlan

Be that as it may, we all know who is responsible and that is the man we have tried to remove from office, the Minister for Transport and Power. That is on record and I am satisfied. In regard to the question uppermost in all our minds at present, the problem of the dairy farmer and his legitimate demand regarding the price of milk, I come from a county which is completely a dairying county. The farmers there depend on what they get from their dairy farms and on their skills in that line. The increase which these farmers are seeking is justified in everybody's opinion. Unfortunately, the Minister was not tactful in his approach to this matter in that he should not have started negotiations with one particular section, who were set upon one particular aspect of the industry, and then start negotiations with another similar organisation. That was not helpful and although we thought we saw a settlement last week, we are now in the throes of a very difficult situation. I am sorry the Minister did what he did and his action must be regretted. What prompted him to do so, only he knows, but it was bad tactics and it was deplorable that such a thing should have happened.

The position in regard to milk prices generally is very simple. There are three or four different prices being paid for the same product and this is a matter which must be levelled out by the Department and the Minister. Some creameries give more for milk than others. We find that the Minister's creameries, the Dairy Disposal Company give 1d a gallon less for whole milk than the co-operative creameries. The price of milk for human consumption is five or six times the price the ordinary producer gets, and not alone that, but the milk is thinned down to a 3.3 grade and sold as full cream. What that makes per pint nobody knows, but that is the position. There is a gulf as between one price and another and it will have to be bridged in order to help the farmers continue. I have in mind particularly the farming community in my own county. We talk about ranchers and we have them in my county, too. Nobody knows that better than the Minister who every weekend, or every second weekend, is down in my county enjoying himself, more luck to him. It is a pity he is not here now.

There is in my area the man who milks ten, 12 or 14 cows. The heifer scheme meant little or nothing to him. It certainly meant a lot to some of the Minister's friends. They made well out of it and I will name them if I have to. However, these unfortunate men who try to milk ten, 12 or 14 cows and bring milk to the factory every morning, including Sunday, for the six or eight months of the year, are trying to exist on that income and it is an absolute impossibility. There is no use trying to fool ourselves about that. Because of this, you have had organised, intelligent men outside Leinster House for the last fortnight making legitimate protests because the Department has not tackled this problem.

We have another side to the milk question, that is, the question of skim or separated milk. The co-operatives pay 3d or maybe 4d a gallon for separated milk. Ballyclough, outside Mallow, pay 6d a gallon for the same product and Ballyclough will take it in unlimited quantities. The Dairy Disposal Company take it on a quota basis at 3d a gallon. I want to get down to the economics of this. We can talk about the farmers going here, there and everywhere, but there are farmers and farmers; there are creameries and creameries; and there are creamery managers and creamery managers. The difference in price for the same article is the upsetting part of this problem, as I see it. I cannot understand it. I will refer the Minister to statements he made in regard to the increase in milk production but when you increase your milk, you have to increase your skim milk.

I have here a letter from a man who is much more qualified to speak about agriculture than I am and certainly more than any man in the Department today, and that goes for the Minister down, and he says with regard to skim milk:

The farmers who responded to the call to increase cow numbers now have to spill skimmed milk because the Board have not geared themselves to take the increased production. On my own farm I am spilling about 30 gallons daily. We no longer keep pigs because the high cost of feed makes it uneconomic. If this is the best a large creamery amalgamation can do then it does not speak well for the general amalgamation of creameries. The Dairy Disposal Board pays at least 1d a gallon less for our milk than the co-ops.

That is a statement from a man who has a dairy science degree, who went through the dairy college and the agricultural college. This is the tragic situation. I do not blame those men for parading up and down outside the Dáil when faced with such a situation. The Minister would do the same himself, and so would I. Maybe we might do a lot more and a lot worse in a similar situation.

I believe the Minister and the Department have been remiss in imploring people to increase the cow population by the £15 heifer scheme and using other methods of increasing milk production when we find we have to throw it down the road.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Lalor)

Increasing the price of milk will not solve that.

Mr. Coughlan

It will help the people to live and allow them to keep their pigs. Milk is a fundamental so far as County Limerick is concerned. While Deputy Dillon throws in the calf for good luck, we all know we are not that stupid. There is a big difference between the price of the calf now and what it was two or three years ago. This has meant a reduction in the price of milk inasmuch as it has brought down the farmer's income. I do not know if those in the Department of Agriculture have come from the land. I am sure 90 per cent of them never saw a cow calving and know nothing about it. I would like some of them, from the great economist, Mr. Whitaker, down to come and live on one of these farms.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy might leave the names of officials out of his speech.

Mr. Coughlan

I am sorry about that; I withdraw it. When you know your case is just, you have to be as forceful as possible to try to drive something home to the people who should know something about it. I come from a dairying county and I know the position of these people. I know unfortunate fellows have to take grass at so much per acre and put the cows out on the side of the road at night to graze the long mile in order to have milk to bring to the creamery in the morning. That is the type of person I speak for here and not those the Minister visits from time to time in my county. However, I am not being personal about that. I do not deplore it. More luck to him, if he is enjoying himself.

It is all very well to talk about the unity of the farming bodies. Deputy Fanning was trying to draw a red herring across the trail. If there is a difference here, the Minister helped it. When negotiations started with one particular body, they should have been left there and nobody else should have been allowed to enter into any other negotiations. The Minister must take the blame for that. We went to see the Minister and did our best to solve the problem before the pickets were put on. We hoped the door would be opened some little bit, and it was. But it was slapped in everybody's face again by the introduction of another group. That is not fair play.

Mr. Lalor

The Minister did not close any door.

Mr. Coughlan

The Minister closed the door by his action. I do not know how it is to be opened again. If I can do anything as one coming from a dairying area, I will help. We must show up the mistakes that were made. I suppose it was not the Minister who made them but some of his advisers who never saw a cow calf.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible for his Department. The officials do not enter into this question.

Mr. Coughlan

Right. I come now to the question of pigs and pig production, having dealt with the question of milk. Pig production and the rearing of pigs is the other side of the industry. In reply to questions here over a period, the Minister has said there is no decline in pig production. He must now realise that the production of pigs is falling every week. I gave the reasons for that when speaking on the Supplementary Estimate. I would appeal to him to move in and save this industry before it is too late. It is no use telling Deputy Murphy that he is going to open a bacon factory in West Cork. We all know they have a licence already for a bacon factory in Charleville. But what use is there in building a factory when you have nothing to go into it, when the pigs are not there?

I want to give the Minister the benefit of my experience, since I come from an area that specialises in pig production and the manufacture of pig products, which provides much employment in my city. The pig is eaten in three forms. First, the pig is eaten in the processed form—luncheon meats, sausages, pies and all the other products made from what we call the leftovers of the pig. Then, we have of course pork and bacon. The most profitable side of the industry is the processed meat side. Bacon is a burden because it bears a very high subsidy; pork not so much. I find there is not sufficient encouragement given to the processed meat side of the industry. Here again the Minister must intervene to create markets. Every side of smoked bacon or hard cured bacon that goes out carries a heavy subsidy. I pointed out on the Supplementary Estimate that it was about 1/- per lb. I have not got the exact figure. I intended making a detailed survey of the agricultural situation but time will not allow me.

I find there is a lack of imagination on the part of these alleged advisers in the Department. I have seen them coming from the Pigs and Bacon Commission. I have seen agricultural instructors meeting big farmers trying to tell them this, that and the other. That is not the way to approach a situation such as this. Every serious businessman who wants to make ends meet, never mind a profit, will exploit the most profitable side of his business. The processed meat side of this industry is the side that is most profitable and for that reason it should be exploited and advertised. The Pigs and Bacon Commission take over all our bacon and our exports and even take over the carriage of it. Everything must go through them and, as I said here in my last speech, they would not know the difference between a crubeen and a pig's head. These are the people who try to sell our bacon in an isolated and scattered area in Wales instead of putting it into the most populous areas where it will sell better and more profitably.

Knowing how courageous the Minister is and how much ability he has, I am surprised he does not call these gentlemen in and say: "This is your job; do it or get out." We are coming to a very critical situation in the bacon industry. In the city of Limerick, there are three bacon factories sending all over the country for pigs to keep the men there employed, and they cannot get enough pigs. I shall give you the reason for that in a moment. The decline in our pig production has a simple reason. When you want a job done, you usually go to the person who is qualified to do it. There is no use going into a garage to get something done that has nothing to do with motor cars. To put a piece in a fellow's trousers, you do not go to the garage. The majority of people who think they know something about bacon production and bacon sales know nothing about the job. I challenge the Minister or anyone in the Department to refute that statement.

As I say, the reason for the decline in pig production is very simple. There is a body set up here under the Department, Bord Gráin, and we import our foodstuffs through this allegedly efficient organisation. The price of barley from Bord Gráin is £28 a ton; it is £21.10. a ton on the world market. There is a difference of £7 a ton. Maize from Bord Gráin is £27 a ton; it is £23.10. on the world market. This is all because certain protected importers, and well protected, can import through Bord Gráin and they are allowed to do it at a price of £4 extra.

That £4 per ton should be given to the farmers by way of a reduced price for barley and maize in order to help pig production. It takes 8½ cwt of meal to produce a two cwt live pig, that is, including the cost of feeding the sow. It takes 4½ cwt of meal to fatten an 18 lb bonham; a reduction of £4 a ton would mean 36/- a head per pig per farmer. This is the ABC of the economics of this problem. The farmers should be given foodstuffs at a price they can afford to pay. I read a letter from a man who cannot keep his pigs, who is throwing 30 gallons of milk a day out on the road because he cannot afford to pay these prices. It is all right to talk about production in a big way but to make calculations on that basis produces a false figure. It is all right to talk about the rearing of 300, 400 or 500 pigs. We have seen these things, but the man who wants to live on his land cannot keep 300 or 400 pigs. He can keep only a dozen or two dozen and he must feed them on these compounds. I want to direct the Minister's attention to the serious situation in the bacon industry. There is no use in our kidding ourselves about it. There are 700 or 800 men working in bacon factories in my town. I know what they are doing. I can tell you what pigs are killed every day of the week in every factory in Limerick.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Still, they cannot kill them as well as we kill them in Mountmellick.

Mr. Coughlan

Mountmellick is one of those new brooms that has come up in this bacon business. Limerick has been traditionally a bacon city. We send men from there as far as Russia and Denmark to train them in the curing of bacon. Maybe in Mountmellick the broom is sweeping away——

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The bacon industry has been in Mountmellick for hundreds of years.

Mr. Coughlan

It has not got the tradition of Limerick.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Pim's of Mountmellick were curing bacon before time.

Mr. Coughlan

I do not know. I only came with time.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We agree Limerick bacon is good, too.

Mr. Coughlan

It is known the world over. This industry must be preserved.

Now, let me come to the matter of fertilisers. If we want to increase production, we must increase our use of fertilisers. We find, unfortunately, that the demand for fertilisers fell by ten per cent in 1965 as compared with 1964. When we make a comparison with other countries, we find there is a greater use of fertilisers there. Holland uses 200 lbs per statute acre, whereas in Ireland we use 45 lbs of fertiliser per acre, one-fifth of what they use in Holland. In the Irish Times of 29th April, there was a report in relation to Gouldings which showed a loss of £143,000. I am sure the Minister has read this report, but there is one small paragraph which I should like to bring to his notice.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3.0 p.m. on Tuesday, 17th May, 1966.