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. T. O'Donnell

When I reported progress last night, I was referring to the two-tier price system which has been put forward by the ICMSA and which has been rejected by the Minister. I pointed out that I had an open mind on a two-tier price system but that, irrespective of its merits, this suggestion recognises the very fundamental and important principle that our small farmers are in need of special assistance.

The Minister has put forward various objections to the two-tier price system. He refers to the fact that the average delivery per creamery milk supplier is only about 3,600 gallons per annum and that the suggested level of 7,000 gallons would, therefore, cover the bulk of the milk supplied to creameries and would cost about £6 million per annum. He then went on to say that there are other objections to the two-tier price system the first of which is that it would involve a disincentive to increase production at a reduced price. I do not believe that at all. On the basis of a two-tier price system, the figures put forward by the ICMSA are an increase of 4d per gallon on the first 7,000 gallons and of 2d per gallon on subsequent production. To suggest that this would limit production is, in my opinion, utter and complete nonsense. A large milk producer whose annual production is in excess of 7,000 gallons will not reduce his milk output for the simple reason that there will be a two-tier price system.

We are dealing here with a fundamental principle of very great importance, that is, that it is time this House and the country at large recognised that some practical steps will have to be taken to solve the problem of the small farmer and to enable him to remain in production. This two-tier price system is one way of doing it: there may be others. I am sure the combined brains of the Department of Agriculture and the Agricultural Institute could work out some other method which would benefit the small farmer if this two-tier price system is not acceptable.

The second objection the Minister mentioned was that it would be impossible to avoid abuse of the scheme by producers putting part of their supplies in the names of members of their families. That is all punk and I resent the suggestion that dairy farmers would do this. My experience of various other schemes operated by the Department which could be open to abuse is that the number of attempts at abuse have been few and far between. This is a stupid statement on the part of the Minister. If the two-tier price system were introduced and if a number of suppliers to any creamery asked to have their creamery books changed and asked for two separate books, it would be quite obvious what they were attempting to do. That objection of the Minister's is without foundation. I do not believe the scheme would be abused.

A third objection is that the two-tier price system for agricultural produce in other countries has been aimed at restricting or reducing production. That is a classical example of the type of thinking in this country for far too long. All comparisons are made and if a scheme is successful in Denmark, we are told that it will work here. If a scheme is not successful in Denmark, we are told that it would not work here. It is time we tackled our own problems and put forward our own solutions for them. The Minister suggested that those who put forward the two-tier scheme should have another look at it but I respectfully suggest to him that he should examine the scheme again, and if he finds it is not practicable to introduce it, that some other scheme of a similar nature should be introduced to give recognition to the fact that the small farmers are finding it extremely difficult to continue in production.

This 25-page speech of the Minister, coming at a time when there is a serious agricultural crisis, has been received by the agricultural community with amazement and disappointment. Throughout the whole speech, there is not one item or one concrete suggestion to indicate that the Minister and his Department are conscious of the serious problems which confront Irish agriculture. There is no indication here that the Minister realises the gravity of the situation. There is no indication of a new approach or of new thinking or of immediate steps being taken to alleviate the situation.

The Minister does refer to his intention to have a review of farm prices and farm incomes later in this year but says that in view of the adverse weather conditions during the spring, he now realises that the anticipated increase in incomes will not be realised to the extent counted upon and that an earlier review is to take place. It is no wonder that the country, not merely the agricultural community, but everybody who realises that the present situation is bad, is critical of the Minister's approach to the matter. The Minister came into this House to present his annual Estimate and he gave no indication of the steps he proposes to take to remedy matters. This House is the place in which to make any such announcement and I cannot see any reason why the Minister could not tell the House of the steps he proposes to take to alleviate the serious situation of the agricultural community.

He goes to extreme pains at the outset of his speech to repudiate any suggestion that the Government are indifferent to the interests of the farmers or that they have been prepared to let the incomes of other sectors improve while doing nothing for the farmers. The plain fact of the matter is that the agricultural community, and particularly the dairy farmers in whom I am interested, because dairying is the main enterprise in my constituency, when they realised that the Minister had introduced this Estimate and had made no announcement of any increase in the price of milk cannot be blamed if they feel that they have been forgotten and that the Government are indifferent to their problems.

The Minister states that there is a genuine desire on the part of the Government to help the farmer to improve his position and that when practical cases can be put forward, they will be dealt with sympathetically. The case for the farmers has been put forward in a reasonable, constructive and practical manner over the past 12 months. The Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers and the NFA have had meetings with the Minister and his officials at which these problems were discussed in a calm and rational manner but the two organisations have found that calm and practical discussion is a waste of time. When that type of discussion has failed, they have been compelled to take drastic action and the fact that they have taken this action and come to protest at the gates of Leinster House is a clear indication of the desperate straits to which they have been reduced.

Mr. Dillon

It produced results which all the talk did not. That is the real tragedy of it.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

I have memoranda here of two meetings which were held, one on 3rd June, 1964, and the other on 18th February, 1965. These memoranda were submitted by the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association to the Minister for Agriculture, putting forward the problems of the dairy farmers in the creamery areas. No action was taken as a result of these deputations coming to Dublin and therefore the Minister's statement that there is a genuine desire on the part of the Government to help the farmers to improve their position cannot stand up to close examination. If the Minister had been serious about the matter, the situation which presents itself at the present time could have been avoided.

The Minister should have been aware for a long time past that all was not well with Irish agriculture. We had the NFA taking drastic action in the early part of the year and now we have the ICMSA doing likewise. What surprises me is that if the Minister is not aware of the gravity of the situation— and his speech yesterday clearly indicates that he is not so aware—there is a serious weakness in communication between the Department and the ordinary farmers. During the Easter recess, the situation was becoming very serious, with a high incidence of contagious abortion, fluke and other diseases and there was a very high mortality rate among livestock in the southern areas. I watched a Telefís Éireann newscast in which a report was given of interviews which Telefís Éireann had had with the chief agricultural officers who were meeting in Dublin at that time. Mr. Kevin O'Kelly, the Telefís Éireann reporter, painted a picture in this report of his interview with the officers and his words were: "The situation is bad, but it is not too bad." And every farmer in Ireland will remember this: "There is nothing that a couple of days' sunshine will not solve."

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

On the following morning I protested personally. I telephoned the news editor and he told me that what Mr. O'Kelly reported the night before was a true account of what he had been told by the chief agricultural officers. If that is so and if the men who are chief agricultural officers and who should be in touch with the problems of the farmers can come to Dublin and give a picture not in accordance with the facts, then it is time the Minister took some drastic action to make these gentlemen aware of the problems around them. There has been a lack of realisation on the part of the Press in general of the problems of the farmers.

There are at least six reasons which I mentioned last night and did not have time to develop, why the dairy farmers are now protesting at the gates of Leinster House. First, as outlined in these memoranda, one of which is dated January, 1964, and the other February, 1965, the present basic price is totally uneconomic. Since 1953, there has been only a 16 per cent increase in the price of milk delivered to creameries. During that time the cost of production has soared. It is a simple problem of economics: nobody in any business could continue in production profitably if his costs of production increased by 50 per cent over a certain period and at the same time, the increase in the price he gets for his product is only 16 per cent.

There are other problems which have made this situation worse. The clearance of bovine TB from southern dairy areas imposed a serious financial strain on many dairy farmers because the prices received for reactors were not adequate to finance the purchase of replacements. There was a high incidence of contagious abortion, a very serious problem which the Department are now tackling and in which I hope their efforts will be successful because it is the greatest menace. It is one thing that is dreaded by every dairy farmer because in one month his entire herd can be wiped out. The incidence of this disease has reached alarming proportions in many parts of the southern dairy area. Then, as the Minister said in his speech, the severe spring weather made the situation worse, particularly the scarcity of fodder and grass during the month of April.

I said last night, and I stand over it and defy contradiction, that it has been costing most dairy farmers an average of £5 to £8 per day to keep their dairy cows alive during April because they have had to go to stores and co-operatives and bring home loads of bagged stuff to keep the animals alive as their own fodder was gone and grass had not grown. I know, because creamery managers have told me, as well as hundreds of farmers to whom I have spoken recently, that there are many dairy farmers in creamery areas, who, at this stage of early May, have obtained credit almost to the extent of the entire money which would be due to them. In other words, they are in debt to the creamery so much that it will take them until August to pay back what they have borrowed. Many dairy farmers will get no cheque from their creameries before August next.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Many dairy farmers never see a creamery cheque.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

Some may receive no cheque at all because they had to go to the creamery manager to get money to pay the rates and rent and running expenses of their households. These are facts. In addition, there is another problem. I have made extensive inquiries throughout County Limerick in the past few weeks and from the information I have compiled, I can tell the Minister that in April alone approximately 5,000 dairy cows have gone out of the dairy herds there. The meat factories have not been able to cope with the number of animals offered to them.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear, and not only in County Limerick.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

Therefore, the situation is serious. If it were not serious, these people would not have resorted to the drastic action to which they have resorted. They would not be parading in Dublin.

The attitude of the Minister and the Department to the dairying industry is difficult to understand. When I refer to the dairying industry, I mean the creamery industry. This is an industry which provides a livelihood for 110,000 dairy farmers and their families and which provides employment in the creameries and processing factories for approximately 5,000 workers. In 1965, this industry contributed £18½ million worth of exports and it is a conservative estimate that the dairying industry accounts for from 60 to 65 per cent of our cattle exports. It is difficult, then, to understand the negative attitude being adopted by the Minister and by the Government towards this most important industry which is now in a very grave and serious position.

There is another problem arising from this. The Minister said that milk output was up on last year. That may be so, but my information is that in County Limerick milk production has been running for the past three or four weeks at a rate ten to 12 per cent down on last year. This creates another difficulty. The projections announced by Bord Bainne are that to meet the entire market commitments for 1966 an overall increase of 7.5 per cent in milk output will be necessary.

In the journal of An Bord Bainne, winter edition, page 3, there is an article by Mr. A. J. F. O'Reilly, General Manager, in which he states that the most fundamental responsibility of 1966 will be to ensure that the intake of milk at creameries will cover, first, the formal butter quota of 23,000 tons; secondly, existing commitments to secondary markets and the increased output of diversified products. This means that an increase of approximately seven per cent in milk production is necessary if all targets are to be reached.

On every occasion on which I have spoken in this House, I have paid tribute to the Milk Marketing Board. Bord Bainne is the one bright spot in Irish agriculture. I pay tribute to them for the tremendous market research and exploration that has been carried out. After all the effort that has been put into the development of export markets by An Bord Bainne, we are faced with the situation that we cannot possibly meet the target of a 7.5 per cent increase in milk output this year. This will give us a very bad name on the export market.

We must supply the 23,000 tons of butter to Britain. What will happen? In the same issue of Bainne, on page 5, an account is given by the Chief Marketing Officer, Mr. J.F. Kenny, of the efforts made to introduce Kerrygold butter to Jamaica, which were tremendously successful. There are other accounts of the efforts of Bord Bainne to introduce other products in other territories, for example, powdered milk in Africa and various other countries.

We cannot hope to get the 7.5 per cent increase that is needed. It is vitally important that the dairying industry should know as soon as possible what is to be done. If we supply 23,000 tons of butter to Britain, we will have to cut down our supplies of butter to other markets and we will have to cut down on cheese production, milk powder, chocolate crumb and the various other products.

In my opinion, the most serious question facing the entire dairying industry is what is going to be done and how will Bord Bainne cut down on exports of products other than butter to countries other than Britain; by what amount; and can this be done without jeopardising future exports? To meet the commitments to which Mr. O'Reilly refers, of butter, secondary products and diversified products, we will have to increase milk production by 7.5 per cent.

The situation is alarming. It is a terrible reflection on the agricultural policy of the Government that this situation was not foreseen in time, that steps were not taken to obtain the necessary milk output to meet all our market commitments. If the Minister is not prepared to take some concrete steps now and in the immediate future to enable our dairy farmers to overcome the tremendous difficulties they have had to contend with over the past 12 months, there is no doubt that, not only will we not achieve this 7.5 per cent increase in milk production but milk production for 1966 will be down on the figure for last year.

On every occasion on which the heifer subsidy scheme came up for discussion in the House, I have consistently expressed my disagreement with it. I still disagree with it. However, in my opinion, the provision made in the Estimate for the heifer subsidy this year will not be needed. From my survey of Limerick and the adjoining areas of North Cork and Tipperary. I find that due to abortions, and mortality from other diseases, most dairy herds have been reduced from last year and therefore the farmers who will qualify for the £15 heifer subsidy in 1966 will be very few. The Minister can therefore anticipate a considerable saving on the provision made for this subsidy this year. I said I did not agree with it. I am convinced it was a bad scheme, for the simple reason that it was not of very much use to the small farmer. I stated here before, and I still hold the same view, that an economic basic price for milk is the best way not merely to secure the increased output of milk which is now necessary if we are to meet all our export commitments, but also to secure an increased output of livestock.

The worst feature of the £15 heifer scheme was the fact that the quality of our livestock has been impaired because no standard was laid down for the type of animal that was put in calf and for which the £15 bounty was claimed. If the incentive had been given by way of an increase in the price of milk, every dairy farmer would have ensured that the right animal was selected and put in calf, an animal that would produce milk and produce a good calf as well. With the introduction of the £15 heifer scheme, many people who had never been in dairying suddenly became dairy farmers overnight. They became dairy farmers for the sole purpose of claiming the £15.

I suggest to the Minister that he should now scrap the scheme altogether and provide the proper and only incentive. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Meaney, who is familiar with these problems and who made a very good point last night when he said that now that the people in the non-dairying areas who are not interested in milk production have obtained the maximum amount through this £15 grant, the country will have to rely on the ordinary dairy farmers, the traditional milk producers, to produce the livestock and the milk in the future.

One argument that is always advanced in reference to increased milk production is the difficulty of disposing of our dairy products. There is no doubt whatever that there is tremendous scope on the export market for our dairy products. I have a figure here which I mentioned before on the Supplementary Estimate which shows that the 23,000 tons of butter, the figure fixed as a result of the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement, represents only 3.6 per cent of the total British market for butter. There is plenty of scope there for improvement. Our cheese exports to Britain in 1965 represented only 3.63 per cent of the total British market for cheese. Surely there is scope for improvement there? If this Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement is all we are led to believe it is, there is considerable scope for improvement.

The records of An Bord Bainne tell the same story not merely in Britain but in many other countries. The surveys carried out by An Bord Bainne leave nobody in doubt that there is a tremendous market for dried milk, powdered milk and for instant milk powder as soon as we can produce it. What is necessary now is that the dairy farmer should be put in the position that he can increase his milk output and increase the production of good quality store cattle. We must largely depend on the dairy farmers in the creamery areas for this. The only incentive which means anything to a dairy farmer is an economic basic price for his milk and the sooner the Department and the Minister realise that the better.

I have spoken at length about the dairy industry but I have dealt with only one aspect of it, that is, the production aspect. Many other problems confront the dairy industry at present. As I have said, the manner in which the milk producers have been treated by the Minister and his Department is nothing short of scandalous but when I turn to another aspect of this industry, I find that the attitude of the Department and the Minister is still more difficult to understand. I come now to the second important aspect of the dairying industry, that is, the processing and manufacturing of dairy products. In common with all other aspects of agriculture, the only aspect here which has shown an increase in output in the past couple of years is the increase in the output of documents and books of all descriptions. There are so many of them available now on all aspects of agriculture, and particularly on the dairying industry, that one would need to be a research scientist or a highly qualified economist to be able to wade through the mass of material and contradictory suggestions put forward by so-called experts.

This is clearly to be seen in the proposals made following the different surveys carried out into the dairy products industry. We have, first of all, the Department's report of a survey team set up by the Minister to go into the dairy products industry. This was produced in February, 1963 by three gentlemen nominated by the Minister. They examined this industry and published a report which includes the most fantastic ideas about reorganising the entire creamery industry. They wanted the wholesale closing of creameries and suggested that the entire processing be concentrated in five or six monster units situated at strategic points. There was to be bulk collection at the farmer's gateway by huge tankers and the dairy farmer was to have the most expensive refrigerator equipment to keep his milk in order.

This was the most fantastic document ever produced. It was completely out of touch with the realities of the situation. The suggestions, if implemented, would at one sweep write off the co-operative movement in the dairy areas. Fortunately, the Department did not get away with implementing these proposals because when they were studied, every organisation connected with the dairy industry disagreed with them. To be fair, and I always try to be fair, there are certain minor recommendations in this which are logical and full of common-sense, but they are only minor. I am condemning this document on the grounds of its whole approach.

I come now to a rather amusing situation. Among the organisations which commented on this report of the survey team established by the Minister was the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, 84 Merrion Square. They published a memorandum on the report of the survey team. It is an excellent document running to 14 pages. I will not read the lot of it but I will pick out the main points. It says:

Taking into account the extent of the investigations the time was too short to enable the team to formulate proposals which could be received with confidence by all who are concerned with the Dairying Industry. This is apparent from the fact that many of the recommendations in this Report are based on insufficient and inconclusive evidence.

It goes on to say that the report

is open to the most serious objection from the point of view of its general attitude to the structure of the industry as it stands and in respect of a number of its specific recommendations. The general impression which the casual reader is likely to get from it is that the Industry is composed of far too many small units under management which might be regarded as indifferent or under the control of Committees of Management who give indifferent supervision.

The memorandum states that there is an apparently hostile attitude to the co-operative idea. The third point it makes is that the Report shows

...a complete misunderstanding of the basis and practice of co-operative undertakings. All in all the members of the Survey Team have shown a lack of appreciation and understanding of the basic principles applying to co-operative organisations and the lack of knowledge of the practical work of their Committees of Management.

Subsequent to the issue of this report, another document was produced by the Department of Agriculture entitled An Appraisement of Agricultural Co-operation in Ireland by Joseph G. Knapp, an American expert. He produced this Report in January, 1964. He states here in the foreword:

I spent the month of June in Ireland, gathering information and inspecting co-operative facilities while on leave from the Farmer Co-operative Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. Since then I have worked on this report at night and over weekends as my official duties would permit.

He must be a man of tremendous ability who can come to Ireland for one month, go back and in his spare time at night produce an appraisement of agricultural co-operation in Ireland. Though he spent only one month here, his report makes far more sense and is much more practical and realistic than the report of the experts of our own Department of Agriculture, who should be expected to know the situation and who had adequate time to examine it.

In page 69 of his Report, Dr. Knapp refers to the Report of the Dairy Products Survey Team and comments on its major recommendations. He states at page 70 that the survey team

proposes a plan of consolidation which would be more of a State effort than a group effort. It does not envisage economic studies to see how the existing co-operatives could voluntarily achieve a reasonable goal of rationalisation without a demoralisation of their existing organisations.

It is believed that an alternative programme to the one proposed by the survey team could be suggested, one that would work from the known to the unknown. This would accept the idea of consolidation as desirable and in fact no one questions this. Dr. Knapp's idea is that instead of wholesale closure of our creameries and concentration of production on five or six major units the dairy industry could be rationalised by

giving co-operative encouragement to consolidate or federate or otherwise to strengthen their existing organisations. Studies would be made for logical areas to determine what advantages could be achieved through better combinations or better organisation.

Dr. Knapp also go on to state:

The report of the survey team gives a rather misleading picture of existing co-operatives which are probably not nearly as ineffective and weak as represented. The report does not analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the industry as it exists. Rather it sweepingly assumes that a major reorganisation is necessary to change completely the character and form of existing co-operatives.

He sums it all up very well by saying that at no point did the survey team state that the farmers would be better off if the changes recommended were adopted.

I mentioned already that the IAOS produced a memorandum on the Report of the Survey Team in which they disagreed violently with most of the main recommendations of that report. But I have another document here, headed "Irish Agricultural Organisation Society—Proposals for Reorganisation in the Dairy Industry, February, 1966." This is the document that has caused all the controversy. It has been circulated to the various creamery societies. In it suggestions and plans are outlined for amalgamating the creamery societies of this country. What I cannot understand is this. A year or so prior to the production of this document, the IAOS produced the other one from which I quoted. These two documents are completely contradictory. One disagrees with amalgamation but the recent one suggests amalgamation and puts forward proposals for it. It says:

These proposals are submitted for consideration after very careful preparation. They are based on the understanding that the societies within each group will amalgamate.

This document was considered by the creamery societies in various parts of the country. It has not met with approval.

Surprise has been expressed and severe criticism levelled at the co-operative creamery society members because they did not accept this document. Of course, this document is not acceptable for the simple reason that, as Dr. Knapp pointed out regarding the area survey by the Department of Agriculture at no point have the IAOS in their recent proposals for reorganising the creamery industry stated the farmers would be better off if the changes recommended were adopted. They would not tell the farmers how much it was going to cost, beyond the statement that the farmers would be asked to subsidise this reorganisation to the tune of £3 per gallon at peak production. For a farmer who has 50 gallons per day going to the creamery at the peak period, participation in this reorganisation programme of the IAOS would cost £150.

That is all right. The farmers are no fools or, to use an expression of my respected colleague Deputy Dillon, the farmers are no daws. They want to know what they are to get in return for this. The IAOS document says it has been proved conclusively from Canada, Denmark, France and other countries that amalgamation of creamery societies is a good thing and will put more money in the pockets of dairy farmers. Instead of sending the milk down the road to the local branch creamery, the farmer will now have it collected from him and transported 15 or 20 miles to a major processing centre. He wants to know: "How much more per gallon is that going to mean for me?" If the costings are worked out, can I or anybody else go along to a creamery society and say: "Gentlemen, this is a good idea. These are the facts and figures. If you agree to this amalgamation, it will mean ¾d per gallon, 1d or 2d per gallon more for your milk"? They have not been told this at all.

I do not know what is going on between the Department of Agriculture and the IAOS. I have a sneaking suspicion that the two bodies are at loggerheads over this and that the Department of Agriculture want to implement the report of their own survey team. However, no farmer and no creamery society could agree to the implementation of the proposals suggested in February of this year by the IAOS for amalgamating the creamery industry. No farmer in his sane senses could agree to it because there is not one scrap of evidence to prove that this would benefit the dairy farmer or the creamery industry. In fact there is evidence available which shows that it could cost the farmer a considerable amount of money. I mentioned already that it is suggested in this document that it would cost him £3 per gallon.

The only costings that have been done in respect of the whole dairying industry are in relation to the transport of milk from the farmer's gateway to a central processing station, and comparisons have been made between the cost of that and the cost to the farmer of delivering the milk himself two or three miles down the road. It is conservatively estimated from those costings that the introduction of bulk haulage over long distances to central processing stations could not be done under 2d a gallon. It is well worth the farmer's while to take his milk down the road to the local separating station at 2d a gallon. The sooner the better the Minister and the Department of Agriculture, the IAOS and all other bodies realise that the Irish farmer wants facts and figures and a plain statement of what all this involves. I admit, and most people who are familiar with the problems of the creamery industry admit, that a certain amount of reorganisation is necessary and that a certain amount of amalgamation is good, but this global approach of a survey team from the Department of Agriculture and the IAOS, who seem to have been converted to the Department's idea, can achieve nothing.

This IAOS document has caused such a furore and so much controversy that I propose to say a good bit more about it. Creameries are put into 19 different groups. Let us look at some of the groupings in my own area. I find it difficult to understand what advantages will accrue. For example, there is a group which has been referred to down south as the Nenagh Group. A certain number of creameries in East Limerick and adjoining areas in Tipperary are to be grouped together and a central processing station is to be established at Nenagh.

To give the House an example of the type of irrational planning that has been going on in the creamery industry for a long time: there are two creamery societies within two or three miles of Limerick city. In Limerick city we have the Lansdowne, a large processing plant operated by the Dairy Disposal Company, commonly known in Limerick as the Condensed Milk Company. The Drombanna Co-operative Society is two miles from Limerick and the Annacotty Co-operative Society is about the same distance. Those two societies are only a short distance from the Lansdowne plant. What do we find? We find that Annacotty is being grouped with Nenagh and that Drombanna is being grouped with the Golden Vale, each of which is 25 to 30 miles away. Surely it is more economical to have the milk of these creameries processed at the nearest plant?

This document which has caused so much controversy should be forgotten. As I said, while everybody connected with the creamery industry knows and appreciates that a certain amount of reorganisation and amalgamation is necessary, it is no use putting forward any proposal unless it is supported by self-evident facts and figures which the ordinary farmer and members of creamery societies will understand.

There is one final point I should like to make. In the notes circulated by the Minister, we find that the average price paid to the producer in 1965 was 22.45d per gallon, or 1/10½d. There is a very striking figure here. The average return per milk supplier is £377. That is the average income of the creamery milk supplier. It is not necessary for me to comment on that figure. Neither do I think it necessary for me to draw the logical conclusions in support of the arguments I have put forward for an improvement in the price. Again, I want to remind the Minister that the one and only way in which the dairy farmer's income can be improved, and improved immediately, is by an increase in the basic price and I ask him to reconsider the two-tier system.

There is provision in this Estimate for the Agricultural Research Institute. I have referred to this Institute on numerous occasions. No doubt agricultural research is very necessary but I am beginning to wonder if the Irish farmer is reaping the benefit of all this research costing several million pounds. I think it is time we took stock of the work of the Agricultural Institute. No doubt they are engaging in very valuable scientific work but the real test as to whether or not this research is of any practical use is to ask oneself the simple question as to how it has benefited, is benefiting and will benefit the Irish farmer. I have devoted a good deal of time to this lately because many people have been expressing doubts about the practical results. This country, in addition to having its own research institute, is subscribing to international agricultural research bodies. Some of the work on which our Institute is engaging is a mere duplication of the work being carried out by agricultural research institutes in other countries and the results of that work, in the sphere of dairying and other aspects of agriculture, are applicable to the problems of this country. I am not convinced that the Institute is being brought inside the farmer's gate. In fact, I have found very little evidence of communication between the Agricultural Research Institute and the ordinary farmer.

One cannot examine these things without coming across a number of problems. I think it would be well for the Minister now to review the work of the Agricultural Institute since its foundation, to see what results it has produced, how it is benefiting the Irish farmer on his own farm, and to determine whether this continued substantial expenditure is or is not justified, or whether it could be spent in a better way for the benefit of the farmer. There is no proper liaison between the Agricultural Institute, the Department of Agriculture and the Faculty of Agriculture in University College. All the evidence I have leads me to believe that there is a lack of both co-operation and co-ordination between these three bodies. There is an obviously independent spirit which is not going to be of benefit to the farmer. I could say a great deal more, but I shall not do so at the moment. It would be well for these gentlemen in the three bodies I have mentioned to realise that they are expected to work in their own fields and also expected to co-operate in those fields for the benefit of the ordinary farmer.

There is very little in the Minister's speech about co-operation. The Minister dealt at some length, though, with one aspect of co-operation in relation to the dairying industry. What progress has been made in the effort to introduce the principles of co-operation to agricultural production? I am convinced, and I have stated this here on many occasions, that one of the ways in which the small farmer can be maintained on the land — indeed, one of the only hopes for the survival of the small farmer — is co-operation. It is rather strange that, despite all the research being done, very little research is being done into this important question of co-operation. It is vitally essential and vitally important that every agricultural adviser in this country should have a practical working knowledge of the principles of co-operation. I have been told by groups of farmers who have attempted to co-operate so as to produce more efficiently that one of the big barriers to this type of development is the lack of proper technical advice.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

I know of a group of farmers who decided to come together some years ago to explore ways and means of co-operating to produce more efficiently on their farms, thereby reducing their production costs. These men were believers in the principles of co-operation. The amazing fact emerged that it was practically impossible for that group of farmers to get advice as to the best way to combine to work most efficiently.

I remember that exactly two years ago this group of farmers—I think five of them had tractors — decided to operate a machine: there was a question of purchasing a forage harvester because all of the group concerned had gone into silage. They wanted to work out simple costs. They wanted to know how the man with the tractor who lent it to the person who had not a tractor could be compensated for the use of his tractor and how the cost of operating the silage outfit could equitably be spread over the members of the whole group. Every avenue was explored. All the official agencies in this country engaged in agricultural advice were consulted. With courtesy and kindness, a certain professor in University College, Dublin, came up with the costings and produced the plan of action.

I believe that the small farmer can be kept on the land, provided he is shown how he can co-operate with his neighbours to farm more efficiently. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that, in every county, there should be one adviser who has a specialised knowledge of the principles and practice of co-operation. This type of specialist advisory service is most essential.

Agriculture is now at the crossroads. Despite the trials and hardships of the Irish farmer, the opportunity now exists for a complete re-appraisal of our agricultural industry. I believe in the future of Irish agriculture. I have the greatest confidence in the ability of our farmers to produce as efficiently as any farmers in the world. I am convinced that the small farmers of this country can be kept on the land, provided they are shown how to co-operate. This can be done through an efficient advisory service, supplemented by a specialist advisory service.

Not alone is it necessary for the Minister for Agriculture to take a new look at this major industry for which he is responsible but it is necessary for the Government to review this industry, to realise the contribution it is making to the national economy and to give due recognition to the problems of the industry and to its potential for expansion. We must never again have a repetition of what happened when a National Industrial Economic Council was set up here, a body which has produced excellent reports on the economy of this country, but which has not a representative of the most important industry, a body which produced a recent comment on the economy of this country and, except for one sentence which referred to the decline of cattle exports last year as being a contributing factor to the economic problems of the country, made no reference to agriculture.

The big mistake was when the Government formulated what has now become a fiasco, the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. When that document was published and when the targets for the various sectors of the economy were noted, it was commented upon by everybody connected with Irish agriculture, and by many independent economists, as well, that the targets fixed for agriculture in that document were far too low and showed a lack of confidence by the Government in the potentialities of this major industry. All that is past.

The Minister for Agriculture now has the grave responsibility of facing up to the situation, a situation which is probably as serious as any situation which has confronted a Minister for Agriculture in this country. He must realise the problem and must take extreme care to prevent any worsening of this position. I would appeal to the Minister that in the interests of this major national industry, whatever announcement he is going to make he will make as soon as possible so that the farmers will be able to get down to the work of improving their production.

Mr. Treacy

I do not pretend to have the same detailed knowledge of this important industry as Deputy O'Donnell and I should like to congratulate him on the obvious research which he has done in the preparation of his speech and on the knowledge which he has imparted to us all. My primary purpose in rising here today is to make a plea particularly for the small farmer and the farm labourer. I do not know of any other section of our community, outside the most depressed and destitute sections, outside of those bereft of income because of sickness, infirmity, old age and unemployment, more depressed than the small farmers and farm labourers of Ireland today. Everything would seem to be against them: the elements, the markets and the Government.

It is evident to the whole nation and to the world at large that the small farmers of Ireland have been beaten down to a subsistence level of existence. The spectacle we see outside these Houses of Parliament of farmers picketing, of farmers leaving land and homes and having the temerity to break the laws of the country, of farmers sacrificing time and effort and protesting in the only way they can concerning their sad predicament is surely an indication of their serious plight.

I regard the agitation now going on outside the House, not as an organised effort but as the spontaneous reaction of men who feel indignant and outraged at the lack of help and consideration afforded to them in their present difficulties. It must be appreciated that the past winter has been a particularly severe one, that vast areas of arable land are still under water, that the hardships attending farming life in recent months have been particularly severe. In these circumstances, the reaction of our farmers is quite understandable.

The most disconcerting feature of all this is that at a time when we should be showing a united front in matters pertaining to agriculture, when there should be the utmost unity and co-operation in facing the problems of entering into free trade in a few months time, when we are about to battle with the gigantic forces of Britain and possibly with those of the Common Market, we should have the disunity and unrest evident today. It is all the more disconcerting when one considers the vast amount of money expended on agriculture by way of subsidies down the years. The millions of pounds spent on subsidies and aids to agriculture by various Governments at great cost to the taxpayer would seem to have been wasted in view of the chaotic conditions we have today.

There is no evidence that there is any increase in agricultural production. If there was an increase this year, it must be in the nature of about one per cent. The margin of increase in respect of revenue from imports has not been handsome either. In 1964-65, there was a money increase of £2 million on an export figure of £244 million. Despite all the aids and inducements to increased agricultural production, it is worrying to find that we have lack of growth, lack of efficiency and lack of harmony. The Minister has a grave responsibility for the present situation.

The entry of Ireland into a Free Trade Agreement with Britain and entry into the Common Market in the near future have been held out as the real hope and salvation of the farming community. The Minister has availed of every conceivable opportunity since Christmas week, 1965, to portray to the farmers the kind of bonanza they were about to experience in respect of the new Trade Agreement. It has now been realised that there is nothing new or spectacular in this Agreement as far as the farmers are concerned. This is the one aspect of our economy in which free trade does not exist. It is ironical that we have complete free trade in respect of industrial goods but not in respect of agriculture. Free trade exists in respect of cattle, sheep and various other exports but quota systems still apply.

It is true that the quota in respect of butter has been increased in the Free Trade Agreement from 12,905 tons to 23,000 tons but it is crazy economics to assume that this concession will bring any real benefit either to farmers or the community at large when we realise that every pound of butter is still being subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of approximately 1/-. Neither is there free trade in respect of bacon which is limited by quota and any extension of the quota does not confer any benefit on the farmers or the economy because it seems we have not been able to fill the bacon quota which we had prior to the Agreement. We have always enjoyed virtually free trade with Britain in agricultural goods and the Government have not conferred an iota of benefit on our farmers in their recent Agreement with Britain. These markets were always there. It was rather a failure on the part of the Minister negotiating the Agreement that he was not able to do better in the circumstances.

I should have hoped that the Minister in his recent talks with the ICMSA and the NFA would have realised fully the predicament in which these people are, especially the small farmers. I was pleased to see some indication in his speech that moneys are being provided to bolster up prices in agriculture. I support the contention of the ICMSA that they are entitled to an increase in the price of milk and I do so in the knowledge that this will perhaps automatically have the effect of increasing the price to the consumer and of increasing the price of butter which is at present excessively high in this country. It is ironical that one can buy Irish butter at nearly 1/6d per lb cheaper in London or any English city than one can buy it here in this land allegedly flowing with milk and honey. Justice demands that the farmers be paid a fair price for their produce, that the poor farmers be assisted to survive on their family farms and that they be afforded an opportunity of living in decent comfort.

I am impressed by the case the small farmers have made, and particularly by the suggestion of a two-tier price for milk. I heard the Minister's statements on the matter and I appreciate his views about the difficulty or the wisdom of implementing a two-tier price. Still, it is a suggestion which will prove a distinct benefit to the smaller farmers and obviate the necessity of passing on an increase to the richer farmers who do not need that kind of bolstering up. It is generally admitted here and in the country that all the grants and aids made available to farmers in recent years have, in the main, been advantageous to the rich farmers. It is not good enough to say grants and subsidies are available if they cannot be availed of by farmers. In order to avail of these grants and State aids, one must have the necessary capital and clearly many thousands of small farmers struggling to eke out an existence on an uneconomic holding cannot avail of many of the grants and aids available. The Minister must turn his mind to this problem. He can no longer afford to be seen as the Minister who is making the rancher bigger and richer and the small farmer smaller and poorer. He must devise some means whereby the help required by small farmers is readily available to them without let or hindrance.

The two-tier price system for milk is one way in which small farmers can be helped in a big way. I see nothing wrong with the suggestion to give a much higher price per gallon for a gallonage up to 7,000 and a lesser price for any amount over. I believe the ICMSA devised this scheme specifically to help the small dairy farmer with a few cows and a very small acreage. These are the people I am most anxious to see helped today.

Apart from the question of financial aid in respect of milk, the Minister's Department should take a more active lead in helping farmers in respect of the provision of decent homes, proper access roads and, above all, in regard to flooding of land. I have felt for some months past, particularly because of the high rainfall this year and the snows and sleet of recent times, that where there are such vast areas of land under water — some of it is still under water — some Government Department should have come to the rescue of the farmers. I know of no other Department on which this obligation devolves more heavily than on the Department of Agriculture. It was pitiful for members of county councils who are members of the Oireachtas to find that there was no help whatsoever which we could bring to these people in respect of the acute flooding which they experienced.

County councils were clearly unable to find moneys for this purpose. There was no Government agency on which we could call. The situation was such that a national emergency should have been declared and the Department of Agriculture or some other Department should have stepped in and done something positive to relieve the farmers in this serious situation.

Farmers suffered great losses in sheep, cattle, pigs and horses as a direct result of floods and the severe weather. The tillage farmer has taken a terrible beating in recent months from the elements. Tillage is very far behind and on the odd fine day we find farmers working late into the night by the headlights of tractors in order to get a little work done.

In all the circumstances, there is a greater obligation than ever before on the Government to come to the aid of these people and to concede all that which is reasonable in the demands of the ICMSA and the NFA.

I can well understand the indignation felt by small farmers at the indifference of the Government in their plight when it is well known that substantial amounts of money have been doled out to other sectors of the community. There is the example of the status increases given in recent months of as much as £17 a week to higher civil servants, a sum which represents the average wage of a tradesman and which may well include overtime. This was an increase over and above the existing salary scale which was in the region of some £3,000 or £4,000 per annum. We cannot blame the Irish farmers for being indignant and outraged at the reluctance of a Government to concede something to them in respect of their produce when lavish handouts of this kind are extended to other sectors of the community. The amount of money conceded in status increases would go a long way towards giving a penny or twopence extra on the gallon of milk.

It is my view that the Minister for Agriculture is living in a world of his own, a world of glamour and opulence and wealth, that he is so utterly removed from the everyday life of average Irish farmers that he simply does not know how they exist and does not seem to care very much. I would ask the Minister to come down off his high horse, go down the country and see exactly how farmers are trying to eke out an existence on small holdings, to see for himself the hardships and privations of farming life today and then he will readily understand why men can march to Dublin and display placards outside the House of Parliament.

Yesterday, I did not see anything on these placards about an increase in the price of milk. I saw a more pertinent slogan: "Save the small family farm". That is the real interest, to save the small family farm today. Clearly, if reasonable prices are not paid for the produce of the land, small farmers will be driven out of existence.

I have mentioned that the Government and the Minister are living in a world of their own, completely removed from the problems of farming life. There is much to substantiate that allegation. The Minister for Agriculture is thinking big. He is thinking in terms of big markets, free trade with Britain, common markets. He is thinking in terms of mergers, take-overs and amalgamations.

When a man starts to think in these terms, he is bound of necessity to forget about the small man. I am not alone in feeling that the small farmers are being written off by Fianna Fáil, that they are no longer of any consequence, that they do not fit into the context of common markets and that that is why they are not receiving their due from the Government.

We are tending towards the days of ranching all over again. The battles of Fintan Lalor and Michael Davitt would seem to have been of no avail. The small farmers, as I have said, are of no consequence any longer. They simply are not wanted and the kind of legislation emanating from this House in recent years and the thinking of Ministers and the indifference being shown to the pride of small farmers are indicative of the approach, that there is no future for small farmers and that gradually they must be squeezed out.

We are returning to the days of the estate walls and the rancher. It is deplorable that in recent years, while small farmers could not get any additional help to improve their farms or to take in extra land, city slickers and speculators of all kinds were moving in and taking whatever advantage was to be got out of agriculture by way of grants and aids and helps and stimulants. The small farmer could not avail of them but it is evident that speculators could.

Our basic philosophy should be that we help in the first instance those people who are deriving their livelihood solely from the land. These are the people we should help first but instead we have had this speculation in regard to the acquisition of grazing rights, tillage, and the growing of various crops and cereals. That was the kind of competition with which the small farmers could not compete.

In this regard I want to say — perhaps it may be that I get the more difficult cases in regard to applications for loans from the Credit Corporation — that in recent times I have been surprised at the number of applications which have been turned down for one reason or another. I know that the Government interfered with the finances of the Corporation in regard to the alleged loan which they sought from that body to bolster up their own weak finances. It is becoming more and more difficult for farmers to get loans from the Agricultural Credit Corporation and it is written into the most recent stipulations of that body:

When it became necessary during 1965 to restrict public capital expenditure, the Corporation ensured the maximum availability of credit for directly productive purposes by suspending the issue of loans for land purchase and the funding of debt.

This is just one of the restrictions which at present is being operated with a vengeance. To stipulate that loans shall be for productive purposes is to express it very vaguely. I do not know of any purpose for which a farmer would require a loan of this kind other than productive purposes on the land. I sincerely hope that whatever the limitations on capital expenditure may be, the Government will not skimp on this particular body and that they will ensure that all necessary moneys required by farmers, and particularly small farmers, will be made available to them and that they will not be frustrated in their efforts to secure these loans by the various tricks and stalling devices which are operated by the Corporation.

I have heard Government spokesmen referring to the plight of the farmers and I have seen them shed crocodile tears about that plight. I have heard them express the hope that the farmers will be granted better prices for their produce and that generally the farmers and their workers will get a better deal. This seems to me to be somewhat hypocritical because all they have to do is to put pressure on their own Government and Ministers to do the things that are required and then all will be well. It is hypocritical of Fianna Fáil Deputies to bemoan the state of the farming community and yet, when the Opposition put forward measures for improving the lot of the farmers and their workers, to march into the Lobby and oppose them. They cannot have it both ways. It is not good enough to pay lip-service to the ideal of improving the lot of the farmers and the farm labourers, if on the appropriate occasion they vote against legislative proposals to do so.

In this connection, I have in mind particularly the measures put forward by the Labour Party in this House to improve the lot of the farm worker. On every occasion the Government opposed these measures vociferously and voted against them. It is true that farm workers' wages are about to be improved and the £1 increase has been conceded to them but unfortunately it is being phased and they are getting half soon and the balance later on in the year. Even with this £1, the farm worker's standard of life will be miserably low. No man could be expected to maintain a wife and family on £8 or £9 per week. In view of the intolerable conditions and extremely bad wages which these people have had foisted on them for years, it is no wonder that we see such an exodus from the land. They are running from the rural areas at the rate of 20,000 a year. It is becoming extremely difficult for farmers to get skilled workers in certain areas today. I appreciate that the small farmer might be unable to pay the minimum rates laid down by the Agricultural Wages Board because of his inability to maintain himself and his family in frugal comfort, but I also appreciate that there are many farmers who could pay more than the minimum rates and, mark you, they are minimum rates, and do not do so. It is true that there are some generous farmers who do pay more than the minimum rates.

If the Minister wants to do something really effective to stimulate agricultural growth, he must regard these people as the backbone of the economy, treat them as human beings and secure decent wages and conditions for them. Up to now they have been treated as second-class citizens and that has been demonstrated in many ways. Firstly, we have had the example of the Agricultural Wages Board, the body which lays down conditions and wage scales for agricultural labourers. On occasion we have had to bring to the attention of the House the need for abolishing this body—the need for not merely a slight change in its form but its complete abolition. I repeat that in its present form it is autocratic and undemocratic. In its findings and personnel, it is weighted against the workers. Its composition is such that while there are equal numbers of farmers' and workers' representatives, there are also on it so-called neutral representatives who invariably vote with the employers' side. Clearly, you cannot expect the unions and workers to have any respect for a body of this kind where the dice is loaded against the worker at all times.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is discussing legislation.

Mr. Treacy

I am sorry if I am, but this is the Minister's responsibility.

Mr. Haughey

He has so many horses to ride he is not quite sure how he can do them all.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): The Minister is good at them.

Mr. Treacy

Unfortunately, I have not got Miss Cossie. I am asking that these workers be given the right to go to the Labour Court the same as any other worker. I say this, bearing in mind the new powers to be vested in the Labour Court. One of the first things to be done is to bring agricultural workers under its jurisdiction. Many other categories of workers will be coming under the aegis of the reorganised Labour Court and we know of no good reason why agricultural workers should not be included. To expect them to be satisfied with the present form of arbitration and of dealing with wages and conditions is something no reasonable man could expect. I hope the Minister will see the wisdom of conceding to these workers the same rights and privileges as every other section of workers in this country have today. In that way he will be making a positive contribution towards accelerating agricultural growth as well as doing something to improve the lot of the farming community in general.

I hope the Minister will soon bring about the unity and harmony so desirable among the various groups in our agricultural community and that the present differences of opinion between those two large and influential groups, the ICMSA and the NFA, will be resolved. In the meantime I would appeal to the Minister not to say or do anything which would render that desirable objective more difficult. It is inevitable that these two organisations must come together. When they do so, they will constitute a force to be reckoned with in the economic and political life of this country in the years to come. They have inherent in them when unity comes, the power to win the respect not conceded to them today. I believe that the day of that unity is not far off.

Mr. Foley

The debate on agriculture is always a very wide and detailed one. This is not surprising since one-third of our population are engaged in the industry and it accounts for approximately two-thirds of our total exports. To my mind, having listened to their speeches, not one of the Opposition speakers has any interest whatever in the Irish farmer. The only reason they criticise the Minister is to obtain a good local press. The sooner they realise the importance of agriculture, the better. They should devote themselves to improving the lot of the farmers in their areas rather than slanging the Government. For heaven's sake, will they come in here and offer some constructive ideas? It is not my intention to go over all they have said.

For many years past the Fianna Fáil Government have been devoting more money to agriculture than was ever given by the Coalition Government in their terms of office. I cannot understand why Opposition speakers say we are trying to pull down the Irish farmer to the lowest level. They should realise what Fianna Fáil are doing to improve his needs.

Mr. Dillon

His needs — hear, hear.

Mr. Foley

Deputy Dillon will get his chance. During their term of office, they nearly ran the farmer out of business altogether. I agree that agricultural output this year will be down. No doubt we had very adverse weather conditions. Many tillage farmers were unable to get their ploughing done in time and the subsequent sowing was late. Even those who could utilise the few dry weeks had their crops put back by further downpours of rain. These are the hazards of agriculture which we farmers are prepared to accept, but in accepting these hazards, we do want some compensation. Agriculture is no longer a game in which farmers indulge for meagre profits. It is a profession in which every farmer seeks to gain a comfortable living and a good education for his family.

In regard to corn, it seems that our barley acreage will be down this year. Irrespective of the 3/- increase which was given last year, the acreage was down and I believe it will be down again this year. I do not think that kind of incentive will increase our acreage of barley. There is only one way to increase that acreage, that is, to put the clamps on Messrs Arthur Guinness and their colleagues who disregard the Irish farmer and repeatedly give their contracts to agents, agents who at no time have to till or sow or run the risk of growing one acre of barley. I would appeal to the Minister to use his good offices to obtain contracts for Irish farmers for the growing of their barley and not to allow these agents from outside, men who have other jobs as distributors of seed, to come in and accept these contracts from the millers or from Messrs Guinness and reap the reward to which the Irish farmer is entitled for growing contract barley.

We shall have a very great problem on our hands in regard to the wheat crop. The acreage was down considerably last year and I believe it will be down this year. An incentive increase of 10/- was given but unfortunately this 10/- was given at a very late stage. I would urge the Minister and his Department, if possible, to make the announcement of wheat prices at an earlier stage so that farmers can make earlier and better preparations. An attempt should also be made to develop a variety of wheat which could be sown as a winter wheat and which would be acceptable to the millers. In the adverse weather which we suffer in this country and which has prevailed in the past six or seven seasons, it is essential to get a suitable variety of wheat such as Quern, which is now a common variety in many areas, and which would not be rejected by the millers. I should like to see a variety which could be sown in the winter with the possibility of having an earlier harvest, even if it is only a week earlier.

In regard to the haulage of wheat, I would ask the Minister to use his good offices with his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power, to have the 15-mile haulage limit abolished. There are many farmers in my area, and I am sure there are many in the areas of other Deputies, who would request their neighbouring farmers to draw their corn to the mill, to the city of Dublin, to Drogheda, Dundalk or wherever it might be, but these farmers cannot facilitate their neighbours because they would be going outside the 15-mile limit and they have no licence to do so. Surely in 1966 it is not too late either to extend the 15-mile limit or to abolish it completely for the sake of farmers who wish to facilitate their neighbours and to enable the quick and ready transport of corn so that it will not be lying in the field, and when transported to the mill, will not be rejected as unmillable because its moisture content is so high. I would ask the Minister to look into that matter.

The Minister dealt very vividly in his speech with the dairying problem but I do not think he gave sufficient attention to the tillage man. We are all very ready to plead the case of the dairy man because at this moment the dairy farmer is on our lips and he is outside our gate. I want to say on behalf of the tillage farmers that they could be just as difficult if they wished but they are living in the hope that now that their crops are sown, things will have improved considerably by the autumn, that they will get a good harvest and there will be no necessity for picketing or parading.

The Minister referred to the fact that the acreages of other crops were down. The acreages will continue to be down as long as the present marketing system is allowed to continue. The marketing system for the sale of potatoes or green vegetables is absolutely antiquated and we farmers in County Dublin are greatly affected because of being adjacent to the Dublin market, probably the biggest distributing centre in the country. Take the potato problem. At the present day it costs us approximately three times as much to sow one acre of potatoes as it did ten years ago and for that acre of potatoes, we get the same price as we did ten years ago. People might be under the impression that we are getting more. The farmers in County Dublin are not getting more nor are they getting more anywhere else. The shopkeeper, the middleman, is getting more. If the farmer were allowed to sell his produce direct to the housewife, the cost of living would come down. The middleman would be cut out. There would be a better marketing system and profits would be equally divided. The farmer would derive a fair profit as compared with the present system under which he has to sell to the middleman and it is the middleman who makes the profit. I do not regard 6/- to 8/- a cwt. on potatoes a fair profit. That is what the middleman is making, if he is not making more. The present system of marketing is antiquated. We should devise some system by which produce would be supplied directly to markets to which the housewife had free access. That would do away with the tolls which have to be paid at the moment to Dublin Corporation.

Deputy O'Donnell said that, in his opinion, the cow population was down since January by 5,000. I cannot for the life of me see how that could be true, but, if it is true, I should like to ask him what the price should be per gallon for milk to compensate for the 5,000 cows which have gone out of production. According to the Minister's figures, there are 421,000 more cattle in the country today than there were in 1963. In January, 1966, we had 1,535,000 cows. In 1963 the figure was 1,274,000. That makes Deputy O'Donnell's statement incorrect.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): These are the January figures.

Mr. Foley

We will leave it to the Minister to contradict him.

Mr. Haughey

All nonsense.

Mr. Dillon

What is all nonsense? How many thousands have gone to the knackers?

Mr. Foley

The criticism offered here by Opposition Deputies of both Parties is definitely not in the national interest. There are many things we would all like to see done by way of improvement in agriculture, things we would do if we had the money, but the criticism offered by Opposition speakers will not help to improve matters.

Deputy O'Donnell referred to the Agricultural Research Institute. That institution is doing a tremendous job of work. Deputy Dillon will verify that. He was one of those mainly responsible for it.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy will get shot for saying that.

Mr. Foley

All these agricultural institutions are of great benefit from the point of view of the research done and the tests carried out. Leaflets in relation to these are available. Anyone may go in to see the work and to get advice. Farmers from all over the country have free access. Condemnation of these institutions is wrong.

Deputy O'Donnell spoke with some emphasis about the dairy farmers — the men outside the gates. He conveniently forgot to mention the dairy farmers in East Limerick who are buying imported Dutch cabbage instead of supporting the home industry.

Mr. Dillon

What in the world are they buying the cabbage for?

Mr. Foley

I suppose to eat it. I am not sure if they do anything else with it. The men parading outside Leinster House are buying imported Dutch cabbage. They refuse to buy Irish cabbage. We are all farmers. Dairying is not the sum total of the farming community of this country.

Reference was made to the heifer grant scheme. That scheme was a marked success and the fruit of its success lies in the considerable increase in cattle and in cows in particular. I have already given the figures.

With regard to the agricultural worker, the increase in pay is very welcome. If at all possible, the agricultural worker should be given parity with the industrial worker. The agricultural worker is a very skilled worker. He has to operate tractors, harvesters, combines, sowers and all manner of machinery. He is as quick and clever as any industrial workers and he should be given parity with industrial workers. I should not like to see the gap between him and the industrial worker growing any wider.

With regard to land rehabilitation, I am glad the Minister has increased the maximum grant from £30 to £50 per acre in the West and in certain parts of the South. This is a most essential scheme. If farmers are willing to avail of it, they will receive whatever co-operation is available from the Department and will thus increase the area of arable land in the country. We have a considerable amount of bad land which can be drained and made arable. In my area there were about 75 acres of rushes and, as a result of the Land Rehabilitation Scheme, I have seen wheat grown on those 75 acres, although when I saw the rushes growing there, I could not imagine that wheat would ever grow on that land. That is an essential project and it deserves every co-operation and every aid from the Department.

I am disappointed that there has not been an increase in the use of fertiliser this year. If we take from the land, then it is necessary to put back into the land. It is just as it is with a human being. The land has to be nourished if it is to continue in good heart. It is necessary to put whatever fertiliser is suitable into grassland or arable land in order to enable it to produce even grass. Some farmers do not fully realise that in order to produce good and substantial grass, it is necessary to nourish the land. The general opinion in years gone by was that grass grew as a result of the droppings of cows which were harrowed over the land and nourished it but it has now been proved that in order to get good grass, it is necessary to use fertiliser. If our farmers avail of the grants from the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the special scheme of grants for fertilisers, then it will be possible for them to increase their output of milk and maybe to bring in their stock a month or so earlier.

I am somewhat disappointed in the standard of fertiliser which is available. This year, we received fertiliser from a very big firm in this city. The fertiliser is granular high unit and is for the purpose of growing corn. When we received this fertiliser in our yards, it was full of hard lumps. I was utterly disappointed because this granular type of fertiliser must run freely. It is subsidised to the tune, I think, of £5 10s per ton and, in approximately three tons of it, we got four bags of hard lumps which we had to seperate from the rest. It was an utter disgrace that that should happen in this day and age. Our farmers should not have to sort and seperate the fertiliser before using it. I would openly condemn the firm that supplied it. I hope that, in future years, they will take due care to ensure that the fertiliser will be fresh and free-flowing when the farmer gets it.

Deputy Treacy made some very vicious condemnations of the Minister who, I think, was not in the House at the time. The Minister is fully conversant with the farmers all over the country.

Mr. Haughey

I have been in more farm kitchens than Deputy Treacy ever was.

Mr. Foley

I cannot fully understand how Deputy Treacy is so conversant with the farmers in view of the trade with which he is associated. The farming community are capable of criticising the Minister but persons who are not fully conversant with the subject should not criticise him or run down the Government.

Mr. P. Belton

It is a shame.

Mr. O'Leary

Fianna Fáil Deputies have not bolstered him up much.

Mr. Dillon

It is a very good thing to hear a young Deputy on the back benches make a very good speech. I suggest to him, however, that all his colleagues in the House have the right to state their views and he should not charge them with venom or presumption because they venture to intervene in the debates in the House. That is a right which is conferred on each of us by those who elect us. I rejoice that so young and enterprising a farming Deputy as Deputy Foley, in dwelling on the benefits enjoyed by farmers under the Department of Agriculture, has been gracious enough to dwell exclusively on the schemes of assistance which it was my privilege to inaugurate when I was Minister for Agriculture.

Deputy Foley spoke in glowing terms of the Land Project: he was perfectly right. He spoke in hopeful terms of the Fertiliser Credit Scheme: he was perfectly right. He spoke, and indeed had the grace to refer to me, of the Agricultural Research Institute. I find myself in substantial agreement with him. I think that some of the strictures on it by Deputy O'Donnell were perhaps too harsh: I shall deal with that further on.

I am glad Deputy Foley, albeit he was unconscious of what he was doing and caused the present incumbent of the Department of Agriculture to move uneasily in his seat, recognised the benefits of the far sighted Minister for Agriculture who inaugurated the Land Project, the Fertiliser Credit Scheme and the Agricultural Institute. I can make a recommendation to him to deal with his problem in regard to the lumps in the fertiliser. I agree with him: I think it is utterly wrong that a wealthy monopoly which is heavily subsidised should deliver fertiliser in that condition to farmers. I assure him that the very best possible remedy will be to return the four bags of lumps, carriage forward——

Mr. Foley

We did it.

Mr. Dillon

Good. I do not think the Deputy will get many more lumps in the fertiliser if he consistently does that. He ought also to send them a bill for time and trouble in sorting the lumps from the granules, with a solicitor's letter. As I was listening to Deputy Foley talking — and he spoke well — he said that barley will be down in its acreage this year. Then he said that wheat would be down in its acreage this year and that potatoes would be down in acreage this year. It is not a very optimistic picture. I think he is right in saying that the announcement of an increase of 10/- a barrel in the price of wheat in the month of April is ludicrous.

Mr. Foley

January.

Mr. Dillon

I used to be told by the Minister's colleagues and predecessors in the House that, if I did not announce the price of wheat in September, I should be undermining the whole economy of the country. It is not reasonable to blame the Minister for Agriculture of the time being for inclement weather of an unprecedented character.

I agree with Deputy Foley when he says it should be our proper aspiration to put the agricultural worker on the same basis of equality as the industrial worker. We should not forget that west of the Shannon there are practically no agricultural workers working for wages. They all work for themselves and there is this further distinction, that the family farmer works seven days a week year in and year out. There is no five day week for him and quite commonly he works 12 and 14 hours a day because there is nobody else to work for him. As Deputy Treacy has said, we are rapidly reaching a time when we have to ask ourselves the question whether we intend to keep the small farmer on the land or whether we should make up our minds to get rid of him. I want to keep him there.

I have one fault to find with Deputy Treacy, and it is a fault common to many speakers in this House, that is, the constant dwelling on the alleged size of the subsidies given to agriculture. Does Deputy Treacy realise that when the farmer goes to buy his coat, his suit, his shoes, his shirt, a pot for the kitchen, a fork for the manure heap, a plough, a harrow or anything else, he pays the industrial enterpreneur and the industrial worker a very substantial subsidy through the tariffs which give them the protection under which they enjoy their employment? The farmers have provided that subsidy for the past 40 years. It does not appear in the Estimate. It goes into the hands of the manufacturer who distributes it to the industrial worker, and in the last analysis the bulk of it is paid by the farmer who lives on the land, bearing in mind that up to relatively recently agricultural produce represented nearly 70 per cent of our exports.

When we speak of subsidies as represented by the Government, and not all the things the Government call subsidies to agriculture — many are subsidies to the consumer — we ought to remember that there is a constant subsidy flowing into industry from the agricultural community of which no record has been kept at all except in the cost of living to the self-employed farmer and to the farmer who employs labour.

There is another matter to which I have already referred, that is, that the occasion taken for the status increases to the Civil Service was most inappropriate. It was a bad time to do it. It is easy for Deputies and everybody else in the country to lambaste the Civil Service because ordinarily they are not in a position to reply. I have said it once in this House and I now say it twice, and if necessary, I will say it a third time with more emphasis, that we in this House ought to consider our own moral position very carefully before we start lambasting the civil servants about status increases. If I am forced to return to that topic, I shall do so in greater detail.

Everybody must have admired the contribution made to our deliberations today by Deputy Tom O'Donnell. He dealt somewhat critically with the mass of documents being turned out, reports from various people about various aspects of the agricultural industry. We are being smothered in a cloud of largely irrelevant material. I feel that to call in an American, no matter how distinguished he may be, to gallop around the country for a month and then report back to us on the co-operative industry, we having introduced the co-operative system to America, borders on the ludicrous.

I say, with a full sense of responsibility, that the dairy farmers of this country should not reject out of hand the IAOS proposals for the re-organisation of the dairy industry. These proposals were adumbrated by the IAOS as a basis for discussion and they ought to be examined on their merits. There are meritorious proposals in them. When I began as Minister for Agriculture, I was completely married to the idea that at all costs we ought to preserve the small parochial co-operative society. I was forced by the changes in the world at large to change my mind in that regard. I do not find it easy, having once made up my mind, to change it, but in that regard I did change my mind. I believe that consolidation is essential to the Irish co-operative dairying industry.

While I do not think anybody expects the co-operative societies of the country to accept these proposals as the laws of the Medes and Persians which must be accepted verbatim, I would say that they are worth study and consideration. I believe that if they are rationally approached on their merits, there is something in them that the co-operative societies could, with advantage and perhaps with adaptation, adopt.

There is one specific question I would like to ask the Minister. Deputy Hogan of South Tipperary and Deputy Donegan yesterday put a question to the Minister as to the annual price per gallon paid to farmers for milk supplied to creameries during the past decade. The Minister gave the prices for 1956 to 1965 and when he came to 1965, the price given was 22.45d per gallon. Is that price arrived at before or after the levy is taken from it?

Mr. Haughey

Before. It excludes the price of skim. I have not got the figures in front of me.

Mr. Dillon

Should I take from this figure of 22.45d the figure of 1?d?

Mr. Haughey

I think that is the figure returned to the farmer but I must check it.

Mr. Dillon

After the levy is deducted? If the Minister has any reason to amend that, he can let me know later. I want to say categorically and unequivocally that I do not believe that the farmers or anybody else should picket their own Parliament. There is no use in anybody saying that it serves any useful purpose to prevent those who are elected to represent the Irish people from coming into the Parliament of this country to defend their interests in the only place where we can defend them.

Mr. Haughey

The 22.45d is net.

Mr. Dillon

After the deduction of the levy: thank you. I ask this House to reflect: suppose we are all agreed that nobody ought to picket Dáil Éireann for the purpose of preventing Deputies coming in here, how does it come to pass that the salt of the earth, respectable, decent farmers, our own neighbours, our brothers, cousins, uncles and nephews are at this moment parading up and down outside Dáil Éireann? Has not something radically gone wrong when the most stable element — I would say one of the most conservative elements — in this country are engaged in an activity which no responsible Member of the Oireachtas considers justifiable? When that happens, I ask myself what has gone wrong. The tragic fact is this: this agitation for an adjustment in milk prices has proceeded for months with no result and the respectable men parading outside Leinster House are loaded into Black Marias, carted off to the Bridewell, arraigned in the District Court and, lo and behold, the Minister for Agriculture comes into Dáil Éireann and says: "I have changed my mind; I am going to increase the price of milk."

It is a catastrophe for the country that an object lesson should be held up before everybody that so long as you act constitutionally and reasonably nothing is done, but if you act unconstitutionally, unreasonably and violently, you get results the following morning. My mind goes back over the years and I remember 100 years ago, from being told by my father, my grandfather coming home from exile and trying to preach conciliation with the British and being contemptuously rejected by the Fenian supporters. I remember, from my father telling me, of the struggle to persuade the Fenians to abandon violence and join with him and Michael Davitt in the New Departure and to try to get, by constitutional means and reasonable argument, the reforms that were desired. I saw an alien Government betray the attempt at reconciliation and then we had 1916 and all that followed from it and the lesson, we said, was that you get nothing from the British except by taking it by force.

Now that we have our own Government, are we to embark on the task of teaching our own people that they can get nothing from the Government except by violence and unconstitutional action and by being carted off to the Bridewell?

If we are doing that, we are embarking on a most dangerous course of action. There is not one of those fellows outside who had not a grandfather or other relative arrested during the Land War. They were then fighting an alien administration which was unjustly oppressing our people. It would be a tragedy for our country if it is carried over in the minds of our people that our own Government, elected by our own people and answerable to our own Parliament, can be moved to act only by sidestepping Parliament and having recourse to what, in modern parlance, is described as direct action, but which in its last analysis can only lead to anarchy.

If the ultimate authority moves out of this room in which we sit, there is no place for it to go to. I suggest to the Minister that he and his Government by dithering, by hopeless, fatuous dithering, by the betrayal of their promise to proclaim on the occasion of the Budget Speech by the Minister for Finance what they intended to do in respect of agriculture, having precipitated the situation in which appeal is being made by the most stable element in our community from Parliament to anarchy and that when that appeal is made, what was not conceded to argument is now being conceded to anarchy. That is a terrible situation. What causes me profound concern is that I believe that situation is due not so much to ill-will as to fatuity and bewilderment.

I believe the Government are in a state of utter bewilderment. They do not know from Tuesday to Friday what they will do next. That is a very alarming state in which to have a country. They have a Government meeting on Tuesday and solemnly resolve that they were going to stand fast and then on the following Friday somebody begins to say: "We will have to do something. Martin Corry will be bawling in the Dáil, Deputy Collins of Limerick will be bawling and there will be other fellows and then there are the fellows walking up and down and the Black Marias. We will have to do something". The Minister for Justice says: "What do you want me to do? Have I not got to take them to the Bridewell?" Then the Minister for Agriculture intervenes and eventually there is a fluthering kind of decision that: "We will have to do something. But let us leave it over until Tuesday. We will go on to the next item." Then you come to Tuesday and the first item there raises the question: "What are you going to do with this thing we decided to adjourn last Friday? Sure, we will have to do something." The Minister for Finance says: "We can do nothing: we have no money and I cannot borrow any more." The Minister for Justice says: "You want me to fill the Black Marias." The Minister for Agriculture says: "We will have to do something." I am sorry to say I think the Taoiseach has lost control of the whole situation.

That may present a pretty amusing picture, but it is not amusing. It is a very tragic picture. If a Government allow themselves to drift into that position and have no Taoiseach at their head to say: "There is no leaving this room until this matter is resolved and on that decision we stand or fall. This is not a matter which you can let drift into the arbitrament of anarchy. We must make up our mind what is just and right and take our stand on that. If the Dáil do not like it, they can put us out but I warn the Dáil that I will make no midnight ride to the Park. If they do not like what we have the courage to decide to do, let them put us out and put somebody else in." That is not happening. It is right that the Government should awaken to the fact that that is the road to anarchy.

What am I going to say to the members of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association who asked me in my own constituency before they drove to outside Dáil Éireann: "Do you think we ought to go to picket Dáil Éireann," and to whom I said: "No, you should not. Nobody should picket Dáil Éireann"? I am going to meet these fellows on Saturday night and they are going to say to me: "So long as we did not try to picket Dáil Éireann, we got nothing. We went up there and you were passing us picketing there and the Minister has now said that he will give us an increase." What do I say? Do I say to them what my father said when he heard of the Sinn Féin Party in 1918, when he came home to join the Volunteers' resistance to conscription in Ireland: "They would not listen to reason in Westminster, so I have come over to join with you in a declaration that we will resist conscription by every legitimate means at our disposal because my representations and reasoned argument have failed to prevail in the Parliament of Westminister"? Am I to tell the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association in Monaghan: "I admit that argument and reason failed to prevail in Dáil Éireann, but since you combined and laid siege to Dáil Éireann against my advice you got what I could not get for you"? It is a terrible thought.

I believe that the men who were outside Dáil Éireann have the prudence and the quality and the wisdom to realise the dangers inherent in the remedies to which they have had recourse. They are the most stable elements in our society. But think of the younger ones who have not got their wisdom and their experience and their sense of responsibility. Think of the lesson they are being taught. What are they going to say to their children? Remember, the men who are marching outside are not boys and young lads. They are married men with families, married men who, all of us know, never dreamed in their whole lives that it would be conceivable that a civic guard would ever lay a hand on them, never conceived the possibility that they would ever be brought into court in this country and put in the dock, would have laughed at the suggestion that it was conceivable that they would ever know the inside of the Bridewell. What are they going to say to their sons when they say: "Certainly, we will join some society and to hell with Dáil Éireann. We will go up and tell Dáil Éireann to take a running jump at themselves. We will picket them and go on picketing them until we get what we want. That is the way you got an increase in the price of milk"?

These are the fruits of a Government who lost their head and they are very terrible and they put everybody who wants to support orderly government in this country in a desperate dilemma. Remember, the Government we have today are the Government elected by the Irish people. I deny the claim of Arthur Balfour that the Irish people could never govern themselves. I believe our people are capable of choosing from either side of the House as good a Government as is to be had in the world, in any democratic country, but all this chaos is rooted in the fatal, diabolical, insane decision to launch us into the tornado of inflation at the present time with the accursed turnover tax. It has undermined the whole capacity of the Government. One evil has rolled out on top of another and as soon as you settle one problem, a worse one presents itself and under that burden this Government are collapsing.

I would say now to the Minister that he should not reject out of hand the two-tier price proposal. I know and fully appreciate the difficulties that will be involved in administering it. I know, despite what my colleague, Deputy O'Donnell, said, the capacity of a small minority to avail of any loopholes fraudulently to benefit under any Government scheme but they are a small minority. There will be frauds under a two-tier price system but it will represent a very small minority. It does not make sense in the whole industrial sphere to say in any prices and incomes policy or adjustment of wages policy that regard should be had primarily to the lower-paid worker and then go to the farmer and say that the man who is delivering 20,000 gallons of milk to the creamery is to get the same advantage as the man who is delivering 4,000 gallons. It manifestly is unjust. It manifestly is inequitable and the Minister certainly ought to try that sensible suggestion about a two-tier price. If the first plan gives rise to a multiplicity of abuses, we can adjust as we go along.

I remember starting the Land Rehabilitation Project and committing it into the hands of senior officers of my Department who came and said to me: "We will have to prepare a scheme". I said: "Prepare no scheme. Go out and lay the drains and as we go along, we will develop a scheme, but if we sit here in the Department preparing a scheme that will provide against every possibility of abuse, mistake or loophope, we will never drain anything. We will be sitting here for the next three years preparing the plan. Go out and drain the land and we will make mistakes but all we must resolve is that we will not make the same mistake twice". We did make mistakes and some chancers put their fingers in our eye but nobody put his finger in our eye twice or succeeded in getting his finger into our eye by the same method twice, but we got the land drained.

I put it to the Minister that the sensible thing to do would be to accept the equity of this principle of a two-tier system, which is the principle advocated in the industrial sphere of giving the low-paid worker a somewhat larger share than the higher-paid worker is getting in any attempt at a national wage settlement and I suggest that if, in fact, the Treasury pay on the total volume of business handled by the creamery and leave it to the creamery committee to administer the two-tier system, the local committee who know farmers pretty well will not be greatly fooled by the fellow who divides his milk up among four sons and, instead of delivering 28,000 gallons, delivers it in four 7,000 gallon parcels.

A local committee is representative of all farmers, small and large, and will not let one chancer plunder the total sum received for milk for manufacture into butter. They will distribute it in accordance with the scheme which has been agreed by the co-operative system as a whole. I do not think it is impracticable or unreasonable to say to the local creamery committee: "It is your job to see that every supplier gets a higher price for the first 7,000 gallons and that for the second 7,000 gallons and any supplies thereafter, he gets the lower rate."

Now, in dealing with the broader subjects, I want to say that I agree with Deputies who have said that agriculture is at the crossroads. I am happy to feel that the administration to which I belonged foresaw the problems that are going to arise and as a result of that foresight, we now have the Agricultural Institute. I again find some measure of disagreement between myself and Deputy O'Donnell. He complains that there is overlapping between myself and Deputy O'Donnell. He complains that there is overlapping between the research being carried out by the Agricultural Institute and by other institute abroad could also ask: "Why are we looking into things which are being looked into in Dublin?" We have to carry on our own investigations as they are appropriate to our conditions.

An agricultural research institute has two functions: one is pure research and the other is applied research. The Institute received a clear direction, unless the present Minister has changed it, and the clear direction was: "You must give priority to applied research. If you are presented with a specific problem, your first duty is to resolve it. That does not mean that your exclusive function is applied research. You are expected to, and it is intended that you should, engage on pure research the precise application of which may not be apparent when you undertake it but applied research is a primary function which must be given precedence over your other work."

I saw in their last month's popular publication what seems to be a most revolutionary discovery, or the application of the results of a discovery, and that is how to take the scale out of the pipe. I wish I had known this for the past 40 years because I have been harassed with that problem, living as I do in an area where there is hard water. A device has now been discovered whereby you can melt the scale in the pipes of an irrigation system or a household supply or any other supply. If housewives were told that they could get soft water out of their kettles without having to boil marbles in them, they would make jubilee and here the Agricultural Institute have presented the farmers with a practical and simple procedure not only to improve the position in regard to lime accumulation but where it has accumulated to dissolve and wash it away. This to somebody living in Dublin may appear a trifling problem but the Institute are meeting a problem which, for farmers living in hard water areas, can produce very serious difficulties.

Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Crowley said that there is no effective machinery for carrying the results of the applied research down to the level of the man working on the land. I knew that when I was in the Department of Agriculture. I found myself in the fatuous situation on one occasion when I had gone to a meeting of the county committee of agriculture in Laois or Offaly — one or the other; I cannot remember which — and a venerable gentleman got up and addressed me for one and a quarter hours on his experiences in Honolulu. He was a member of the committee and I said: "But I have just come back from Honolulu and I know more about it than you do", but you might as well have tried to stop the waters of the Niagara. I spent my day listening to him and when I wanted to discuss the advisory services and how they could be improved, nobody took the slightest interest. There were exceptions and I know there were committees of agriculture which were effective, but by and large I found the advisory services operated by the committees to be deplorable.

That is not a popular thing to say. Certainly when I was in the Department of Agriculture, I found myself in this exasperating situation that I was satisfied that in respect of a large number of agricultural instructors in rural Ireland they were simply sailing around the country on bicycles, motor cycles, scooters or in 8 h.p. cars and filling in reports to the effect that "I called on Patrick McNulty, on Edward Dillon, Thomas Scanlon" or somebody else and the reports were going from one fellow to another but they never tried to find out where the true problems lay.

I wanted to set up a new organisation and I called in an agricultural parish agent and said: "There are more rushes than grass growing in that parish. You have three years and then I am coming back to look at it and if the rushes are still growing, you have lost your job. There is no use telling me that you are advising the farmers. The work of an agricultural adviser does not exclusively consist of knowing agricultural science. It consists of being able to persuade the small farmer that agricultural science is not book farming. It consists of being able to get his confidence and co-operation and willingness to work with you."

I have told this story before and I will repeat it now. I remember when I started the parish plan and I remember appointing the first parish agent. I called him in and said: "I am going to give you the most difficult job you could get. I am asking you to go down to Bansha and do absolutely nothing for six months. Sit on your sash there in your office and be in the street after the last Mass on Sunday but do not go into any houses in Bansha until you are asked. Do not bother to advise until you are asked. This is going to be a test of patience. It is the most difficult job I could give you, to preserve your spirit and zeal and readiness to serve."

He did sit there, not for six months but for six weeks, before anyone came to him. Then somebody did come in with a problem and he went out and helped to resolve the problem and called on the Department for any assistance he required and discussed with the man the various schemes that would assist him. Before that chap left the parish, he had been invited into every home in Bansha. The records are in the Department — I have forgotten them — as to what that man's work meant in regard to the user of fertiliser, the reduction of cattle mortality and increased output in that parish.

I tried to spread that out and I got 28 parish agents working to cover 84 parishes. The purpose was to have one agent to approximately 1,000 homes. My successor, Deputy Smith, as I think, largely out of jealousy, tore that whole structure down. The thesis was that this was the preserve of the county committee of agriculture. I never put in a parish agent without the specific consent of the local committee of agriculture. I remember I had some in Leitrim, Monaghan, Limerick and Tipperary, and one in Cavan, but none of them was put in without the specific consent and approval of the county committee. I was prepared to say to any committee: "If you want to lift the cost of the advisory services off the rates, hand over that function to the Department of Agriculture and they will discharge it for you. Hand over your agricultural instructors. We will take them all over. If they do not fit into the job, if we think they have not got the gift of communicating to the small farmer, we will find them some other job in the Department. But their status and occupation is guaranteed. We will take off the rates the entire cost of the advisory services." All that was swept way.

I want to tell the House — as usual, you will not believe it; but as surely as we are standing here, you will when it is too late — you will never save the small farmers of this country if you do not provide the proper agricultural advisory service. What is wanting in every parish is a trained man, not only trained in agricultural science but trained in public relations, who can secure the confidence of the small farmer and who will encourage him to realise that there is a decent living for a man on his own holding and that if he will only seek the help of the Department of Agriculture, there are men there bursting with the desire to help him. Go to any small farmer in this country. He does not know of the existence of one-third of the schemes available to him if he would only ask for them. He does not know how to apply them.

Go to a farmer at present with his broken-down old byres and collapsed buildings and tell him that one postcard and a fellow will come out and draw plans for him. The Government will give him a large grant and the agricultural advisers will help him to borrow the balance from the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Not one in three farmers knows that these services exist. They do not know that the Government will help them to bring the water into the kitchen or farmyard. They do not believe they can get rid of rushes. I heard Deputy Foley talking about the 70 acres of land growing wheat in North County Dublin where the rushes grew ten or 11 years ago. But you cannot get the rushes off by drainage alone.

One of the great problems and dangers of the Land Project was this. A small farmer reclaimed his three acres, fertilised it and of course it grew grass of a kind he never had before. The result was that every bullock, every sheep and every pig he had ate that down to the bare boards, whereupon an entirely new variety of rush grew on the land, a variety which grows as a consequence of overgrazing. How many farmers know there are two varieties of rushes? There is one which is evidence of waterlogged, undrained land and the reason for the other is the overgrazing of fertile land. If you want to save the small farmers of this country — and they are the sheet anchor of our economy — make up your mind to it that the sooner you institute the Parish Plan the better.

That brings me to the Minister's speech and that other admirable institution I inaugurated "Notes on the Main Activities of the Department," and I would like to recall the blessed day I first instituted that practice and the derisive yells from the Fianna Fáil Party then sitting on these benches. I see they followed my admirable example. I am delighted they did because it is the most useful and informative circulation.

I want to draw your attention to the fact that when the Department was forced, very reluctantly, to participate in the development of the parish of Glencolumbkille these "Notes on the Main Activities of the Department of Agriculture" say:

Glencolumbkille Hill Farm Experiment — A unique experiment launched in Glencolumbkille towards the end of 1965 is designed to show how far it is possible to develop agriculture in an area of this kind where special conditions obtain in the way of remoteness, physical characteristics of the terrain, small holdings and poor soils coupled with an active community leadership and an active co-operative society. The Department, which is working in conjunction with the Errigal Co-operative Society, is providing a full-time manager to direct the experiment as well as other technical advisory staff.

"A rose by any other name will smell as sweet." If we are afraid to call them parish agents call them full-time managers. I do not give a damn what you call them. Here you have the case of Glencolumbkille, a poor parish of small farmers, where you are trying to work intensively. What do you do? Appoint a parish agent. Of course, you are perfectly right. If you had not a parish agent working there, the whole thing would disintegrate. They would be starting schemes every month. The whole of the little committee working on the scheme would be there the first Monday night. On the second Monday night, there would be seven out of 12. On the third, there would be three. They would not reach any decision but would adjourn the meeting. At the following meeting, there would be one. Then Father McDver would deliver a savage sermon and the next Monday night the whole 12 would be back again, and it would take place all over again. Eventually, the little project would be frittered away and the people would say: "I always said Pat was a bit daft. I wouldn't mind him. He is a decent kind of a fellow and we humour him."

However, if you had what the present Minister chooses to describe as a full-time manager and what I call a parish agent, he would keep the meetings going. When they were not there at 8 o'clock, he would get up on his motor bicycle or whatever he has and collect five or six other fellows who he knew were interested and say to them: "Come on up: give me an hour one night a week to keep this thing going." When he had picked out five duds that would not ever come, he would go around to them and say. "If you do not want to come, say so and we will get somebody else who will." Finally he will get a dozen who really want to help. In his absence, the whole thing would fritter away. Why did you put a full-time manager into Glencolumbkille? Was it not because you recognised that a rural parish, consisting of self-employed farmers, wants that bit of leadership, wants that bit of confidence in a person who they have learned by experience is not only a theoretical scientist but a practical scientist, a man who is interested in their problems and not in the problems applying to South Wexford or North County Dublin?

Until we can have advisory service of that kind operating, the money spent on all the other activities we have in mind, all the grand schemes, is being frittered away. The maddening thing is that it would cost relatively little. I cannot remember now what the numbers were but I think there were to be 800 parish agents. There are, I think, 2,400 rural parishes with one agent for each three parishes, which would require 800 parish agents throughout the country. It would cost a relatively trivial sum and would give employment to some of the most valuable elements in our community. Some of those fellows were going off to Rhodesia, Chile and all over the world where their services were most eagerly sought. I used to be persecuted by FAO asking me to provide men for their technical staff. I would like to have been in the position to say: "I have not got them to spare. I want them all here." But I was not, and a great many of them went because we would not employ them. Whether or not it was 800 agents to cover all the rural parishes of Ireland, my ultimate objective — and it would be the best spent money we could spend — would be to put an agent in every parish, as is being done in Glencolumbkille. I do not want to be rude or abrupt to the Minister. There is no use in his shaking his head in agreement with me.

Mr. Haughey

We cannot get them quickly enough.

Mr. Dillon

You will get them but you will not get them in a dud scheme. Remember it is not a question of ensuring that these agricultural advisers do their work but that they will know when they do their work somebody cares. These men do their work and nobody gives a damn. Somebody says: "Where is your diary?", a date is entered and that is all. Nobody seems interested. I remember my first assignment of a parish agent and I went on to say to the young parish agent: "When you have been three or six months working as an agent, or whatever the director of the advisory service considers a reasonable length of time, I am going to see not you, not the farmers but the parish. If the results are not there you are no good. You may be excellent in some other job, livestock inspector or something else, but you are no good as a parish agent." All the parish agents knew the head of the Department was interested. They knew I was interested. They knew that if they worked there was somebody to care and that got a thousand times more out of the majority of them than any apprehension, that I as Minister could go down and express dissatisfaction. Even though we had only a limited number of men — I think the optimum figure we had was 28 before Deputy Smith tore up the scheme and destroyed it — we had a couple of duds; we knew they were duds and we were in the process of moving them out to other work. These things have to be done prudently and sensibly and we would have done it.

The Minister has now re-adopted that plan in Glencolumbkille because he cannot do without it. I do not mind what he calls it but if you want to save the small farmers of this country you must do it for every parish in Ireland and I am as certain as I am standing here that if the Minister promotes schemes in different areas and even adopts cheap alibis for using parish agents, I think he is right. I do not blame Deputy Smith because he was like a bull in a china shop. I must admit I treated him roughly when he was lining the farmers ditches with Civic Guards and breaking down their gates with bulldozers. I do not blame him for feeling irascible with me. He was a great man for putting his fist through every window he saw but he was a decent well-intentioned man in his own way.

Mr. James Tully

Provided he did not break your windows.

Mr. Dillon

I suppose he did the best he could. There is no doubt that the Department of Agriculture has been the grave of political reputations. I have often thought there was a queer analogy between that Department and the administration here under the British Government. There were more brilliant and well-intentioned men who became Chief Secretaries of this country and destroyed themselves than in any other Cabinet post in the British Government; similarly, there are more men who broke their hearts in the Department of Agriculture since this State was founded and it will break the present Minister's heart. They did their best to serve the farmers. It is the most exciting Department there is and the most worthwhile.

Mr. Corish

Does the Minister like the excitement?

Mr. Dillon

He loves it. He is quite intelligent; the only danger is that he is too clever by half. His great danger is cynicism. I like to believe that he can be redeemed from that delayed adolescence and that is why I bothered to intervene in this debate. I sympathise with Deputy Smith if he wanted to abolish all the parish agents to show his independence. The present Minister has re-adopted this scheme under a new name. I sympathise with his difficulties in reviving the title.

Mr. Haughey

I do not think the title is a good one. I think "adviser" is better.

Mr. Dillon

I shall tell you where I got the title. In Douglas County in the State of Colorado where I lived when I was young, the agricultural adviser was called the county agent. He was so successful in capturing the confidence of the people that if a child scalded its foot out of the kettle, the first thing to do was to call up the county agent; he would get the doctor and he would be out himself to see if he could help in any way. He became the confidential friend of every farmer in that area. If the county agent came and asked him to do something, the farmer would listen. That is where I got the idea. Instead of calling him the county agent, I called him the parish agent. We wanted somebody more than an instructor. We wanted somebody who certainly would not be an inspector.

Mr. Haughey

An adviser.

Mr. Dillon

We do not want to go round the whole of our lives proclaiming to our neighbours we want an adviser.

Mr. Haughey

"Agent" has a bad connotation in this country.

Mr. Dillon

No; the Minister is mistaken. In rural Ireland it is the bailiff who has the bad reputation. There were no hard feelings against the agent. Very often the agent was a decent man. It was the bailiff, the bum and the grabber who were hated. The agents were often decent men. Charles Strickland, the agent of Lord Dillon's Estate, was a decent man. Am I not right in saying that? "Agent" has not a bad connotation; "bailiff" has; "inspector" has. I always remember the woman in Tourmakeady clapping the door in my face and, when I went round to the back door, she said to me: An tusa atá ann? Ba dhóigh liom gur cigire thú. When she thought I was the inspector, she clapped the door in my face. When she got a right look at me, she welcomed me in.

In any case, that is the source from which I got it and the purpose was to create a completely new grade which would carry no stigma. I wanted people who would develop an intimate personal relationship with the people. I wanted a man who could drop in and sit down at the fire for a cup of tea, saying, after he had consumed it: "John, will you come out with me until we walk the land". And, during the walk, he would advise: "You could improve that" and the farmer would say: "I can't; I haven't got the money." The agent would then be able to say to him: "You do not want the money. I can get you the fertiliser on credit. There is a scheme in the Department under which you can get it all done. You do not want any money." And, if he then said: "Sure, the fences are bad"—"But there is a plan. We will meet that problem." Unless you get that, and the Minister himself knows it, there will be nothing but exasperation at people coming in, asking: Why do you not do this? Why do you not do that? How much better to say: "There is a scheme there if only you ask for it. We are longing to do it."

I would say that two-thirds of the schemes in existence are not availed of at all, or not one-tenth as much as we would wish, and they never will be until you can establish that kind of relationship between the officers of the Department and the people. My greatest pride as Minister for Agriculture was that I substantially succeeded in doing that. I pride myself that, when I went into the Department of Agriculture, the officers were regarded as the enemies of the people; they hated the sight of them and their ambition was to prevent them coming in on their land. I remember saying, a week after I went in there: "From this day forward no man will go in on a farmer's land unless he is invited". I remember the older officials saying to me: "God, Minister, that is terrible." I said: "You can make up your minds." And they did make up their minds. We never enforced regulations through our advisory staff. A great many people think that is odd but, if a member of the agricultural staff goes to a farmer, even though he sees the farmer breaking the law of another Department maybe, he will not bring him to the courts. The officers of the Department are not law enforcement officers. So we operated from that out and I was happy to see, as time went on, that the people were asking for officers from the Department in such great numbers that I could not comply with all the requests. Until that is restored and until a comprehensive system of parish agent is devised, there will be no effective end result.

The Minister said in his speech that, despite various difficulties in 1965, the value of gross agricultural output, including livestock changes, increased by about £12 million or five per cent. I wish the Minister could realise the sense of frustrated exasperation that these generalities give rise to in times such as obtain at present and have obtained for some time past. What the heck is the use of telling farmers, particularly small farmers, that despite various difficulties in 1965 the value of gross agricultural output increased by about £12 million or five per cent? That is poor consolation to the small farmer with an 18 months old bullock for which he could have got £50 this time 12 months and can only get £30 now.

Mr. Haughey

This is a report to Deputies. We must be reasonably scientific reporting to the House.

Mr. Dillon

I am only asking the Minister not to be talking in generalities.

Mr. Haughey

The farmer never reads this. He never comes across it.

Mr. Dillon

I do not agree.

Mr. Haughey

It is meant for Deputies.

Mr. Dillon

I do not agree. And I have stood in Gurteen fair with small farmers and I do not pretend the situation affected me personally as it affected them. Last year they could sell their 18 months old bullock for £50. This year, they were craving me to buy them for £30, because there was nobody else to buy them. I do not blame the Minister entirely for that. It is, I believe, one of the unforeseen consequences of the heifer scheme but it has been largely precipitated by the scarcity of fodder and the unprecedented delay in the growing of grass. In parts of the west of Ireland the grass has not even begun to grow yet because, every time it puts it head above the ground, the frost comes.

Deputy O'Donnell spoke of 5,000 cattle. Has the Minister asked the officers of his Department to consult the knackers to ascertain the number of cattle that have been carted off the land of this country since 1st January to the knacker's yard? It is staggering. I saw a man with 22 acres and 12 cattle send six of those cattle to the knackers in one week. That is an exceptional case, but you would be astonished at the number of people——

Mr. Allen

He did not dose them.

Mr. Dillon

Dose them, be damned. He could not feed them because he had no food to give them.

Mr. Fanning

He had 12 cattle on 22 acres.

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. Fanning

And he was not able to keep them?

Mr. Dillon

No.

Mr. Fanning

Did he use any fertilisers or anything like that?

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is as brave as a lion now. All the man had was 12 cattle and they were hungry. As Deputy Allen says, probably some of them had fluke and some stomach worm. But this small farmer was not as sophisticated as Deputy Allen.

Mr. Fanning

The Deputy wants the Minister to feed them for him.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is not responsible for that, but that is the kind of comment that makes men in adversity utterly frantic. How many cows calved this spring and could not even get up after having the calf because of hunger? You would be astonished at the number. That is a desperate position for a small farmer, seeing his cattle carted off to the knacker's yard. But it is not a thing for which I blame the Minister. What I blame him for, what maddens me, is the approach of men like Deputy Fanning. He has no sympathy with the misfortunes of his neighbour.

Mr. Fanning

I have. Why did he not sell one and buy feed for the rest?

Mr. Dillon

Sell to whom?

Mr. Fanning

To anybody. There are plenty to buy them.

Mr. Dillon

I wish the Deputy would come down to the west of Ireland. The problem is not that they have lost their value. It is that there is nobody to buy them because they have no fodder to give them.

Mr. Fanning

They are making £10 a cwt.

Mr. Dillon

In the cattle market.

Mr. Fanning

Yes, and down the country.

Mr. Dillon

I am talking about a man with cattle 18 months old.

Mr. Fanning

He is a damned bad farmer if he could not keep them on 22 acres.

Mr. Dillon

Do not vex me.

Mr. Allen

Report progress.

Mr. Dillon

I gladly move to report progress. I should not like Deputy Fanning to get a stroke of apoplexy.

Mr. Fanning

You would not recognise the dairy farmers at all.

Mr. Reynolds

They are not getting much recognition today.

Mr. L'Estrange

They are getting the Black Marias to Mountjoy.

Mr. Reynolds

We never sent them to jail, anyhow.

Mr. Dillon

This debate is becoming lively.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.