A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, can you not put the Estimate?
Committee on Finance. - Vote 37—Agriculture (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £40,037,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain Subsidies and sundry Grants-in-Aid.
—(Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries).
As the Minister is not available today owing to other engagements, he proposes to reply as soon as possible after next week's Adjournment.
I was told here last night that Agriculture would be continued today and when I was leaving the House here last night I was under that impression. I had some things which were relevant that I hoped to say today to the Minister on this matter and I hoped that I would have an opportunity of putting these things to him. I understood here this morning on the Order of Business that this was so.
Is the Minister not replying?
No, the Minister is not in.
Agriculture was ordered on the Order of Business.
Yes, it was ordered for today.
It was ordered at 10.30 a.m. today by the Minister for Transport and Power acting for the Taoiseach and it is on the Order of Business for today. If the Minister is at Donegal Fair, it is not our responsibility. Surely it is the Government's responsibility to see that when business is ordered, the Minister is here to take it?
The position is that if Deputy Jones offers, the Chair will call on Deputy Jones.
I should explain to Deputy Jones that I thought he was not offering.
I was waiting, in courtesy to the Minister, for the Minister to turn up.
I was waiting, as I said to the Parliamentary Secretary, for the Minister to come in to address my remarks on Agriculture to him. I see the Minister has just come in. It is with some trepidation that I do so considering that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance last week seemed to think that people who are not directly involved in agriculture have very little right to comment on the agricultural situation. Any Deputy who is sent here by his constituents must present the views, as he thinks they are, of the people in the area.
I would suggest to the Minister, and do so most respectfully, that in regard to this question of the Estimates the situation ought to be that the Minister would avail of the opportunity when the Estimate comes before the House not alone to review the situation as it developed in the past year but to give his views as to the prospects of the particular Ministry which he is dealing with, in this case, Agriculture, for the coming year. It certainly is a truism at the present time that there is no section who are more lectured than the farming community. We have lectures from various sources given to them on what to do in various sets of circumstances and often they are being abused as to how they conduct their business.
One of the things everybody must recognise is that farming is what might be called an occupational hazard in this country rather than a way of living. We have the vagaries of weather, the vagaries of markets and the vagaries even of international conditions, all of them interfering with the normal procedures of the farming community. So far as they are concerned, very often there is an unstable income depending on the type of farming and the risks which are involved in it.
As I see farming in this country, it can be divided up into three types: dairy farming and the industry allied to dairying, livestock farming and tillage. The Minister should be able, coming in here to the House, to give his views on what the outlook is in regard to each section of this industry, both short-term and long-term. That would not alone be of benefit to the Members of the House but equally so to the people for whom the Minister speaks. The Minister is in the position of being, to my mind, the advocate in regard to farming interests in the country. The Minister's function in the Cabinet, a most important one, is the presentation of the interests of the farming community to the Government as a whole and the securing for that interest as much and as favourable help and consideration as he can get for them.
Each of the three types of farming I have enumerated needs three things if it is to succeed. First and foremost, there is the absolute necessity for capital to purchase, in whatever type of farming a person may be engaged; secondly, there is the matter of the markets which are so necessary to absorb the produce when it has been produced; and, thirdly, there are the techniques and the know-hows which make each one of those types a profitable occupation for people engaged in it. The Minister's task is to co-ordinate these three so as to get the most desirable result for the people engaged in agriculture. If the Minister is able to do that, he is discharging in a full way the functions of the Department in meeting the kind of problems the community are facing.
In regard to the first question of finance, it is true to say that at the present time and for some years past there is a greater need than ever for adequate finances for farming, and particularly for the livestock industry. We have been engaging in an expensive experiment, which is successful in the main from what the Minister says, in relation to the elimination of tuberculosis in cattle. We have also undertaken a brucellosis eradication scheme and a scheme for the elimination of warbles. All these require capital from the taxpayer but the amount of capital involved for members of the farming community themselves is equally large. In a good many cases the individuals themselves are not able to provide the kind of finance necessary for the restocking of farms, particularly where there has been an elimination of large numbers of cattle from herds because of bovine TB.
This is a twofold need. Not alone is there a need to replace the stock taken out but equally the stock taken out at that stage are those which have been contributing most to the income of the farmer. Therefore the person finds himself with a depleted income and in the replacement of stock, the amount he gets does not suffice to provide the amount of replacement he needs. This was particularly true when the demand was greatest on the resources available.
The State, through the various agencies which provide finance, should be able to help much better in regard to this matter. The provision of capital of this kind involves thinking in terms of repayment and where interest rates are high, as they have been in this country, the burden is all the greater on the people who have to repay.
Secondly, there is the question of market research and development. This has been going on and most profitable use has been made of grants provided for market research. This has been demonstrated by the work of An Bord Bainne who have found markets for dairy produce abroad. Not only have they found markets but they have succeeded by the methods they have been using in getting effective growth in the demand for Irish butter and cream on the English market. This work will need to be extended, and from the report of the Minister, I am glad to learn that such research is going on abroad. It is something that must be done if outside markets are to be availed of. If and when EEC conditions affect us, we shall have to give much more attention to market research if we are to hope to be able to compete with producers in other countries.
Then we come to the question of the application of technical skill through our advisory services. I wonder is the Minister satisfied that our advisory services are all they should be at local level. Does he think the system could be improved on, that there could be a better system of getting knowledge across to the farming community through the agricultural advisers? These advisers should be able to get the knowledge they have to the farmers at local rather than county level.
This brings me back for a moment to financing. When a farmer makes application to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, very often it is to meet an immediate need. If he had the readily available advice of the agricultural instructor, such an applicant would have a more planned approach to the question of financing a scheme of improvement on his farm and this would form the basis of what the Minister referred to at other times as a viable family farm. This must be set on a sure foundation if the homestead, the ancillary buildings and the equipment on the farm are to be capable of producing a living for the people working there, not only the farmer and his family but the workers on the farm. People have been leaving the countryside and it is hard to blame them because there is not an income from the land commensurate with the work they do on it.
In the matter of providing knowledge for farmers, Denmark showed the way a long time ago by their folk schools. In a good many instances, this was copied in this country in British days when night schools were available in the country and the rural community were able to spend a few hours at night availing of the advice and assistance of instructors on matters concerning the land, the nutrition of animals and the culture of crops. I am sorry to hear that the television courses had not the success that was hoped for, that the support given through group listening was not sufficient to make the programmes a live force. Perhaps these things are expensive but they serve the important function of getting the agricultural community together. Lectures, particularly if they are illustrated by instructional films, should be available generally and perhaps the Minister would use his good offices to ensure there is an extension of this form of instruction.
All of these things would be in vain, of course, unless their effect was that the farming community were adequately rewarded for the work they do. At best, this reward would only mean a modest living for them. Involved in this also is the matter of market forecasting. We had recently a recognition by the Minister for Labour of the fact that one of the important things affecting industry in the future will be adequate forecasting, involving the kind of changes that will come about. This is equally true in regard to agriculture if it is to be geared not only for the changes of today but the challenges of tomorrow. This is another important service the Minister and his advisers should be able to provide for the farming community.
The possibility of producing more is one thing but the question of placing the surplus when it is produced is another. Our experience has been that when surpluses have been produced and the producers are not adequately rewarded, grave hardship has ensued for the agricultural community and for the economy as a whole. It is hard to know whether this is what happened in regard to bacon. The Minister will agree that when larger numbers of cattle came on the market at the same time, the glut caused prices to be reduced and people were consequently hurt. The primary producers, the people who place their hopes on higher production, very often bitterly lament having engaged in this type of increased production.
It is a social need that agriculture should be kept in a healthy state. To do this the State will have to provide reasonable subsidies for as long as they are needed and in the future for as long as it will be permissible to provide them because what the change will be in EEC conditions is something we have not yet come up against. The Minister adverted to this when he said that EEC entry would not mean the overnight solution of agricultural problems here. We shall probably learn by trial and error.
These reviews made over past years, so far as agriculture is concerned, can only be of use to the community if they enable us to remedy the mistakes we have made if remedies can be put into effect which will obviate many of those difficulties arising again. What people need to learn at the present time from these things in the past is the more desirable helps which can be got or even the targets to which they ought to aim and more progressive forecasts of trade. One of the things that is apparent in the Minister's statement—there are a few basic facts apparent—in regard to the past year is that the agricultural output was some £5 million lower and that the value of the family income fell by about £6 million.
Those two figures in themselves are unpleasant. They are unpleasant to hear but they are much more unpleasant for the people who are directly concerned. The Minister even had to suggest that this would have been more serious but for the extra 1d a gallon for milk. The livestock returns for January seem to show that the growth movement of stock has lost its momentum. This is also apparent in regard to the returns for the bovine TB scheme and the calf heifer scheme. We have reached this stage at the present time. Whether we will pick up or not is a matter which the Minister would be more in touch with.
The importance of agriculture to the Irish economy cannot be overstated. The Minister stressed it very clearly when he spoke of its representing 55 per cent of our exports and employing 35 per cent of our labour force. It is admitted that indirectly it is not just 55 per cent of exports: if you take indirect industry as well, it will account for approximately 70 per cent of all our exports. Of course, the farming community, in regard to this question of exports, must certainly feel aggrieved that in their case they receive only 17 per cent of the national income. This is something that certainly leaves them with a sense of grievance.
With regard to the EEC conditions which the Minister spoke about, there is the question that we will have to have more progressive farmers and a higher level of efficiency to meet any standards that will be set. In order to get this kind of situation, it needs not alone the best efforts of the Minister or the best efforts of the farming community but the best efforts of the Minister and the farming community working together. I am sure the Minister, for that reason, will recognise that harmony in this industry is most important.
One of the things that strike me in regard to this matter is the question of schemes which have been evolved in other sectors of the economy to help the people involved. For instance, in the Minister's Department, in the Fisheries Branch, there is a scheme whereby young men are trained to take to the sea and all that the sea means for them. They do nautical courses and get specialised training. Then, having proved themselves, they have the opportunity of being provided with a boat to earn a living. We have the same thing, for instance, in regard to various other sectors of the community, such as in regard to people in industry.
The ESB at the present time have an apprenticeship scheme whereby young men serve their time in this industry or in the electrical trade. When they have done this, and having completed the course, they are guaranteed a livelihood. One of the things we seem to have neglected is the devising of a form of apprenticeship scheme which would guarantee young farmers, who had served their time, a living in their own country. This is one of the things the Minister might take time to think about. If he can devise a scheme, it is one of the things which would be well worth thinking about. There is no doubt at the present time if the Minister could persuade his colleague, the Minister for Lands, for instance, to make even one farm available in every estate that is being divided in the country and that this one farm in each estate would go to a young farmer who had served his apprenticeship, we would be doing something to maintain more people on the land and to give them a more healthy interest in a future in agriculture.
In regard to schemes for education run by the Department, we have the various agricultural schools. While those schools are doing very good work by providing a course for students who are young farmers, they spend only approximately a year there. At the end of that time, they come back home or, if there is not an opportunity for employment for them at home, they have to leave the country. We might well extend that scheme and we could also do something more in regard to making our agricultural education more effective from the point of view that having educated them, we could provide them with the opportunity of putting their skill or knowledge to good account. We could give them an opportunity as young farmers in their own right and there would be a greater interest taken in agriculture, particularly by young people. One of the root evils in this country at the present time is that young people find that on their home places they are not able to get remuneration for the time spent there. The family farm is not able to pay them and to keep the family on it.
I would like to hear if the Minister has any information in regard to the outlook for the cattle trade. What is the outlook for the coming year? It would seem from the figures released that there is this extra number of cattle. What does the Minister think will be the situation in the autumn of this year? Does he feel that the extra cattle can be profitably got rid of? That is the important thing.
The Minister mentioned EEC conditions and tariffs which, naturally, are operating against us. Is there any way by which we can by bilateral agreement overcome these difficulties and obtain an outlet in some of the traditional countries with which we used to trade? There was mention of Germany and Italy. Can we do more to extend trade with those countries? We used to have a pretty good lamb trade in France. It would help also if something further could be done in that matter.
The Minister mentioned the overloading of cattle. It is rather complicated. I do not think people overload cattle for the sake of doing so. They do not do it unless they think it profitable to do so. It is the force of economic circumstances that makes them do this. This happened particularly around September and November, as the Minister mentioned. I do not know what the reason for it is. I would ask the Minister if he thinks there is anything in the fact that at that time of the year there are more demands on the farming community than at other times. Generally, the first moiety of the rates has to be collected by the end of September. Then, if they have a family going to boarding school, this also occasions extra cost for these people. In addition, the end of September is the end of the grass season and in the ordinary way the people who have been carrying cattle find they have not the feed to keep them on.
Another factor at the end of September is that in the dairying areas the farmers are coming to the end of the milk season. There will not be the same income from milk from then on. The cheques which have been coming in since May are now coming to an end. Again, those families have to live and the money has to be provided. At that stage of the year the only thing available is the cattle. The Minister might consider any way in which this situation could be improved.
In regard to the calved heifer scheme to which the Minister referred. I wonder what help it has been to the small farmers? In the main, the small farmer was carrying as many cattle as he could on his land at the time the scheme came into operation. There was the inducement to get in one or two more. But that was done at a certain risk inasmuch as, if he was carrying as much as he could carry, he was creating certain difficulties for himself. When the Minister talks about re-activating this scheme and dealing with the problem of the people who came in merely for the sake of coming in, I believe there is need to do something else to help. I do not think anybody can be happy about how the scheme has developed from the point of view of the scrub bulls. This has resulted in a large number of inferior cattle and has caused difficulty in the markets as well. People who have only small holdings are not prepared to take animals of an inferior type on their land.
In regard to the question of creamery milk and the payment of the quality bonus, this, as far as the southern counties are concerned, is a very vital problem. One of the things I have heard from members of the farming community is that they find they do not qualify. They blame it on the fact that they cannot cool their milk as quickly as they should be able to. This happens even in cases where they have water coming from group water schemes, of which the Minister should know something. They tell me that the water coming a distance through these pipes is not as cool as it should be to enable them to qualify. This is one of the things hampering our attaining the level of the quality test. The provision of coolers is important and the grants are welcome. However, I said on a previous occasion, and I would put it to the Minister again, that the provision of grants for coolers without assisting farmers in regard to water supplies is not going to be of much use. I know the Minister will tell me there are grants, and I know there are grants which can be availed of. Both are now administered by the Department of Local Government. On a previous occasion you had the Department of Agriculture operating its own scheme. Under the scheme a good many people put in modern water supplies. But it was a costly business. It is a very costly business in the kind of country in which my constituency lies, where there are rock formations and where pretty deep boring is necessary to get an adequate water supply. The question of a grant is not so much what stops them as the provision of the long-term finance necessary for this kind of project. If the Minister could do something about making money available to the farming community, particularly at lower interest rates, it would help considerably in enabling them to avail of this scheme.
At times I am perturbed in regard to the bovine TB eradication scheme. It is inexplicable how farms which were clear can have a recurrence of the disease. It can prove disastrous for those involved and places the farmer in a very difficult situation. He is then in the position that he cannot sell his cattle in the ordinary way. I would appeal to the Minister that in cases where there is a recurrence—sometimes the same farm may be hit a second and even a third time—the Minister's inspectors and buyers would have regard to the situation and that the prices paid at that stage ought to be the market price that would be obtained if the animals could be sold on the open market. Farmers are not always satisfied that they are getting what they should get. It is one of the things that could help in this matter. Another thing is in regard to animals other than those in the affected herd. If there is a segregation of the herd, it ought to be possible to devise a scheme whereby these animals could come for sale to the ordinary marts or be sold by people other than the Department's buyers. I do not know whether the Minister would consider that feasible but I put it to him as something which could help in this matter.
In the southern counties, which are in the main the dairying areas of the country, this is the great problem and has been from the very beginning—the eradication of this disease, particularly amongst the heavier-yielding herds. It has been expensive so far as the State is concerned, and equally so as far as the farming community themselves are concerned.
The Irish creamery industry is one of our most important industries, not alone because of the range of its products but because more and more farmers are relying on dairying for a steady income. The Minister referred to the question of grouping of co-operative societies in the rationalisation of the industry. This has been happening. Groups have come together of their own accord in recognition of the advantage to be so derived. In time the value of grouping will become more widely accepted.
There are two problems in regard to rationalisation. One of them is the problem created by redundancy. Redundancy is a matter that we have increasingly to take note of in regard to all industries. Heretofore, wherever redundancy has occurred it has been possible to deal with it by retirement pensions, normal retirement or redundancy payments. The question is: are there any opportunities for new employment for those who are made redundant in dairying areas or is there any employment that could be made available? Is there any development within the dairying industry itself which could create the conditions that would deal with this type of redundancy? It must be expected that these problems will arise and that their incidence will increase.
Processing outlets in the dairying industry are many and varied but it must be accepted that we have reached practically saturation point so far as existing markets are concerned and unless we are able to develop new techniques or are able to find further outlets there does not seem to be much sense in extra production of milk or milk products. I recognise that it is a large problem which has to be faced as to when we will say we have reached the optimum in regard to milk production or in regard to any milk product, whether butter, cream, chocolate crumb or milk powder. Milk powder is, perhaps, the product that would afford the greatest opportunity of increased markets in developing countries. I am sure the Minister is aware of the need for the development of new markets in this respect.
I am glad to see that outlets for cheese have improved. If our own community could be encouraged to eat more cheese it would have the effect of helping the industry as well as benefiting the health of the people. We are not renowned for our consumption of cheese. Butter is consumed here in large quantities but the public do not seem to have developed a taste for cheese. Cheese is a very good substitute for meat. If we could send more meat on the hoof or carcase meat for export and eat more cheese ourselves it might be to the benefit of the farming community and the health of the people.
I want to bring a couple of matters to the notice of the Minister in regard to the Land Project to which he has referred. There is a growing problem which would need the co-operation of the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Lands, with regard to grants for cleaning scrubland or furze or scrub. It has come to my notice in a good many cases where land which has been allocated by the Land Commission is overgrown and where the allottees have set out to deal with it and have sought grants for that purpose, grants are refused because of the fact that prior to acquisition the original owner got a grant but did not give two hoots about the condition of the land. The allottees who received six, eight, ten or 14 acres find that it is absolutely useless to them unless it can be grubbed and cleaned. No grants are forthcoming for this work which requires to be done through no fault of the allottees but is due to something which happened before the land came into their possession and, indeed, before it came into the possession of the Land Commission.
I would suggest to the Minister that this is a real and a serious problem. The fact that the allottees were given this land is sufficient proof that their original holdings were uneconomic. If their economy is to be improved by the use of the land which has been allocated to them the Minister must see to it that grants are paid for cleaning the land to these bona fide applicants. It is only a matter of asking the Minister's own inspectors who are administering the land project scheme to obtain confirmation of my statement. It must be within the knowledge of these inspectors. This is an urgent problem and one to which the Minister should find an immediate answer. I do not think it would be a costly business but it is of vital importance to the people concerned.
The second problem to which I wish to refer is, again, a matter of land improvement, particularly where the outfall for drainage is not adequate. This problem arises in some regions where arterial drainage has been carried out but where it has been brought to the notice of those carrying out the arterial drainage that some of the minor systems have not been proceeded with. Inspectors have been telling applicants that they cannot get grants because of the lack of outfall for drainage.
I know that there is a limit being imposed with regard to this matter by the Office of Public Works. I would be glad to know if it is because the cost per acre to be relieved is too great that the job is not being done. By this short-term approach, we are condemning the land in question for all time and the community living on that land will never be able to get the benefit that would be available to them through the improvement of the land by drainage.
These are some of the matters that I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister. I would conclude by saying to the Minister that in the position which he occupies, being responsible for the most important industry in the country, he is the guardian of the interests of the agricultural community and he has to work with the agricultural community and they have to work with him. I would hope that the Minister would find it possible to carry out his role in that respect and would use his best endeavours to ensure harmony in the industry for which he is responsible. He can go a long way towards that. The Department over which he presides is an excellent Department which does a tremendous amount for the country. With the services of his Department, under his direction, he should achieve success for the work he has in hand. If this is done, then not alone will agriculture benefit but the community as a whole must benefit from the activity of the Minister and his Department. I would ask the Minister to see that this spirit of harmony is brought about, and that he will use the talents and the ability which are available to him. I have no doubt he will use them in the kind of spirit necessary to get a harmonious approach to the problems which face agriculture and the country.
Earlier today when this matter came on, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach indicated that I might not be able to reply because of another pressing engagement. It was thought then that the reply would be much later than it is, but, fortunately or unfortunately, I am available to reply.
I should like to take Deputy Jones up on what he said in conclusion. I could not agree more with him in regard to the Minister for Agriculture being the guardian of the farmers' rights and interests. This is the way I have always seen it, and I think it is the way in which all Ministers for Agriculture have recognised their role. It is all the more difficult when circumstances obtain as have obtained for some considerable time where a number of farmers are pushing the Minister for Agriculture over so far that he must appear to be other than the guardian of the interests of the farmers as a whole, and I emphasise whole rather than part. That is the real difficulty I have experienced since I became Minister for Agriculture.
It is true that the Minister must work with the farmers—I am glad to get this realistic approach from Deputy Jones—and that, on the other hand, the farmers must work with the Minister. It is a two-way operation. But if certain people in the farming community purport to represent the whole community and have available to them a great deal of publicity showing the Minister, without even knowing the Minister, as being against the farmers, this is a great obstacle to harmonious relations. This is a difficulty which has obtained and to a little degree still obtains. Even recent indications are that certain elements among the farmers still have no wish to have me act with them or on their behalf or in the interests of the community as a whole.
I appreciate Deputy Jones's approach to the Estimate. Indeed, I would contrast it with the approach of a number of speakers who have gone before. His approach to this Estimate is, as has been his approach to other Departments' Estimates with which I have been concerned over the years, a reasoned and reasonable one. It is a pity that so much of the time of the House earlier on this very important Estimate should have been taken up with provocative and misleading statements, accusations and allegations, most of which have very little bearing on the wellbeing of the farming community and can do little to improve the lot of the farmers.
I do not intend to go into all the various detailed comments that were made in the House. Rather have I thought it necessary to set out my reply under various heads. In the first instance, I want to refer to the allegations made about the Minister's attitude to the NFA. I cannot repeat it too often—possibly this has been a fault over the last nine months that I have not been saying a great deal one way or the other—that the Minister's attitude is not as depicted by Opposition speakers.
I have no vendetta against the NFA, nor have I any wish to have a vendetta against any farmers' organisation or indeed any other organisation. Any organisation that is working in the interests of the community which my Department serves is, in my estimation, a useful adjunct to the community, and in so far as they are prepared to work with the Government and the Department of Agriculture they are more than welcome to do so.
It has already been asserted very strongly by a number of Deputies—I do not want to rehash or go back on all this, but if I do not it will be said that I am running away from these issues—that the treatment of the NFA by Ministers for Agriculture has been provoking that organisation, that the whole trouble arose because my immediate predecessor had broken his promises. Finally, the whole reason was indicated by one Deputy in the Opposition as being that the Minister, Deputy Haughey, would not meet them.
I forget the number of times the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Haughey, did meet them in the short two years he was there, but I think it was in the region of 60-odd times. In addition to that, on roughly 87 occasions they met a full attendance of senior officers of the Department. Apart from these meetings, 87 times with officials and 60 times with the Minister, a whole lot of unofficial meetings took place between the head of the NFA and the Minister, Deputy Haughey. It can only indicate to me that, instead of the cause of the dispute being that the Minister would not meet the NFA, the real cause, if anything, could be said to have been that there were too many meetings between the Minister and the NFA, and that it got to such a point that some of these people must have misled themselves into believing that they were the Government and not the organisation under whose name they are sailing. Having regard to all those meetings, how could the Minister for Agriculture be said to have caused any dispute by his failure to meet the NFA? I think the Minister went completely beyond the limits in his efforts to help and to appease, possibly, the NFA, and that this is where the real mistake was made. With 140 meetings at official level with the Minister and with his top civil servants within a period of two years, it is ludicrous to suggest the Minister caused the dispute by his failure to meet them, and the sooner it is seen in that light, as it will be seen and possibly is now being seen, the better for all concerned.
The broken promises of my predecessor were mentioned. Again I can only say my predecessor was a much, much softer man in his approach than any Minister for Agriculture or any Minister in the Government is entitled to be. Not only was there no question of broken promises in regard to his dealings with this organisation, but this was the position: he, the Minister, is a politician; they, that organisation, were the vocational group with only their own farming interests to serve. What has happened? Do you think the Minister got any credit for what he did during those two years? Not at all. The NFA took the credit where there were credits, and there were many during that period. Where there was anything unpopular, they off-loaded it on to the Minister.
I have already told these people in the two long sessions I had with them that if they would leave politics to those in politics and mind the vocational business in their organisation, and not try to get the political kudos from the politicians and mind their business from the vocational side we would all get on better, and that it is important for a Minister in any Government to dispense the credit no matter for what purpose, justified or otherwise, to a vocational group and stand back and take the kicks, as kicks must be coming to any Minister at any time in any Department. We have to take both and must have one in order to bear the other.
During his two years as Minister for Agriculture Deputy Haughey gave an enormous amount of time to this particular organisation and, in addition, allowed them knowingly and intentionally to take credit for practically everything for which he himself was entitled to take credit and he took the kicks for those people when any kicks were coming.
The next attack made—and apart from Deputy Jones, the whole tenor of the Opposition speeches was attack— came in regard to a circular to local officers of my Department about intimidation of suppliers. Deputies Dillon and Clinton allowed themselves to comment on this matter and were most inaccurate on it as well. I do not blame them because we have the newspapers as well, who should at least when they can check the accuracy of their information, rushing into print to give publicity to this allegation that we were setting our people up as spies and that we were in fact instructing them. But, we are not entitled to instruct the CAOs in the committees of agriculture to instruct the farmers. First of all, we issued no instructions in regard to this matter to CAOs, nor are we entitled to do so.
You sent a circular to them.
The circular we sent was sent to officers of my Department, to our own officers, and the circular was no secret whatever. This circular went out to those people I mention. The circular read:
To each local officer of the Department.
There is no mention of CAOs in it.
Is the Minister denying that it went to CAOs?
I will make my own contribution in my own time and I will not debate what the Deputy is talking about. Does the Deputy assert that they got it?
I am asserting that the CAOs got this press release.
For goodness' sake, what is a press release for but to inform the country; is that not what it is for? I am talking about a circular and do not waffle. I have the circular here in my hand and the press release is a different matter published in every paper. All press releases issued by my Department are as a matter of information furnished to the CAOs office for his information and for his staff and members. There was no secret made of it but the circular did not go out with instructions to CAOs, but to each local officer of the Department. It said:
If you are informed by any milk supplier that he is being intimidated in any way in connection with the supplying of his milk to his creamery, you should obtain full details of the case from him, including details of the alternative transport facilities proposed, and notify the Department immediately by telephone....
We gave the telephone number and said the matter should be reported to the following officers, giving the various officers in the Department.
It continues:
If it is possible to do so without delaying your report you should inform the local Gardaí who may perhaps be able to supply some further information. If that is not possible you should in any event contact the Gardaí after reporting by telephone to the Department.
A written report should also be furnished immediately through your superior officer and this should be sent by him without delay to the Department.
Here is the point. This did not issue to the CAOs. We sent no circulars to them. We have no authority to do so in a matter like this, and it was not even issued to each local officer in question to supply to anybody— farmers or anybody else. This was sent in face of farmers' milk being left on the roadside because of the fact that they did not belong to the NFA. The local roundsman who had been collecting the milk in the area was either in cahoots with the local NFA organisation or was told that the NFA did not wish him to take the milk of so-and-so because he did not belong to their organisation. It was against that fact that this circular was issued, and I announced that there would be support to finance alternative transport for any of those people who were being intimidated or victimised in this way and that, further, the cost of paying for alternative transport would be stopped out of the subsidy being paid to the particular creamery if there was any more nonsense of that kind.
We sent a circular out and you will note in the first paragraph: "If you are informed by any milk supplier". Does this indicate a direction? It says: "If you are informed by any milk supplier that he is being intimidated in any way in connection with the supplying of his milk to his creamery, you should obtain—that is the officer —from such milk supplier who complained full details of the facts including details of the alternative arrangement." I, as Minister, and my Department were prepared to pay, if necessary. It indicated that the officer should notify my Department immediately and, further, that if it was possible to do so without delaying his report to my Department he should inform the local Gardaí who might perhaps be able to supply some further information.
In so far as informing the local Garda was concerned, there were two items of importance. One was we would have to protect ourselves in the Department from getting bogus reports, which it was quite conceivable in the circumstances we might have been getting. Our system of checking back would be a check through the Garda in the local station, therefore speeding things up in order that we could clear alternative transport for any person being intimidated. We asked our officer, having got that information, to give it to the local Garda and they would get some further information as to whether the report was genuine.
The second thing was that the Garda might have been necessary in securing that the alternative transport might not be molested, impeded or stopped from proceeding on its way. In the event, the intentions were released over the press and through the radio and television on that particular night. The release was sufficient and we did not have any milk left on the roadsides on the following or any morning, I am glad to say.
I am sorry to have to bring this up after the event but allegations were made and they had to be refuted and the truth told so that there should be no undermining, as was the intention by those who made the allegation, of the confidence of our farmers in dealing with our officers who are serving in their areas for their benefit and that is something that had to be handled at the earliest opportunity. That is it for anybody who wants to know the truth.
Land Project grants have been talked about here, and talked about in terms as if, in fact, we were almost ceasing to operate this particular scheme. Again, there has been the cry from those people on the opposite benches that we should bring into operation the other part of the Land Project under which the Department did the work and the farmer paid a contribution. We have no intention of going back to that scheme but the fact that we have no such intention does not mean that there is support for the innuendoes and allegations that there is any running down of Land Project operations. Far from it. Last year the grants amounted to £1,776,711; that figure represents the actual grants paid; administration costs and so on are not included in that figure. This year that amount will be increased by almost £200,000 and grant payments straight to the farmer will therefore be £1,939,900. That should answer those who complain about the lack of operations under this scheme. Money talks. The money was paid last year and it will be paid in still greater measure this year. The provision is there for it in the Estimate.
With regard to cattle, if one were to accept the outlook of Deputies on the Opposition Benches, Deputies like Deputy Dillon and Deputy Donegan, we surely would go out of cattle production altogether. Indeed, were we to listen to those banshees over there, we would go out of farming altogether because the whole tone of the speeches by the Opposition speakers has been aimed at undermining the farmers' confidence in the future, knocking anything they are trying to do, writing down what they have succeeded in doing and, by and large, relegating the entire farming community to some Limbo—where, I do not know.
The worst feature of all—it would not be parliamentary to describe it as lacking in truth—is the fact that the approach to this whole matter is anything but aboveboard. Deputies have used the difficulties, as Fine Gael are always prepared to do, of the community last back-end in regard to the cattle trade in order to make their sweeping assertions and statements. Could we just, once more, get on the record the real problems that had to be faced last year in the cattle trade? We had the worst winter in living memory. That was the beginning. We had the credit squeeze, and not just here but also in Britain, and Britain is our main purchaser. We had a shipping strike in Britain which had repercussions on us. We had a bank strike, which did not help us either. All these occurred in the first six months of the year, the time traditionally at which our cattle are best and the period during which we have the greatest movement of cattle out of the country and by way of exchange between farmers within the country.
All these disabilities would undoubtedly have been overcome were it not for the fact that the EEC countries determined, for the first time, as was their right within the context of their Community arrangements, virtually to lock us out where exports into their countries were concerned and, worse still, lock out simultaneously Denmark and Britain. The result of that was that the worst effects fell upon us because we were at the end of the line. As I said, Britain is our biggest customer. One of our main competitors is Denmark. We had a situation in which there was the cumulative effect of loss of exports into the EEC from ourselves, Britain and Denmark. Anything up to 250,000 head of cattle could not be disposed of. That was the situation. Anyone looking at it objectively must appreciate that the accumulation of these adverse circumstances were not within the competence of this or any other Government to control.
It is most unlikely that we shall ever again suffer the same accumulation of adverse circumstances, but Fine Gael insist on preaching the gospel of gloom and despondency, hoping in some obscure way to instil the same gloom and despondency into the farming community so that it may, in some stupid, obscure way, redound to their political benefit at some obscure date in the future. I cannot understand how adults in this House can adopt that attitude. Some of them have been here for quite a number of years and they should now be politically mature. Taking the line they do may do untold damage. Groaning and moaning and banshee wailing help nobody.
If the Minister had small cattle to sell at the moment he would moan and groan.
I know people who have small cattle today who ten, 20 and 30 years ago had no cattle at all to sell. In the days of the Cumann na nGaedheal régime, they would have had nothing to sell at either good or bad prices. If the Deputy asks for it he will get it and, if he wants more, let him keep asking.
I made a sensible comment.
I am not prone to attack unless I am attacked. If the Deputy does not want to be attacked, let him leave me alone. I have to answer for all the gibes and jeers. I have to dissipate the depression and the gloom disseminated by so-called responsible Deputies in Fine Gael, without having to go on suffering smart question, suggestions and allegations this morning.
In so far as the trend in our cattle trade this year is concerned, the situation is that up to the end of May, giving and taking the balance between carcase beef, stores, fats and so on, the British market, American market, or what you will, the net result is that the equivalent of 140,000 head more cattle have gone from this country than during the same period last year. I suppose Fine Gael will say it is of no consequence that that many more went out. What is of consequence is that the 150,000 that have been projected as a guess, which we may have surplus next year, is a colossal figure, a calamitous figure, but the 140,000 additional that have gone out up to the end of May are of no consequence. That would not be put across to the farming community, to give them some hope and balance in the arguments made by the Fine Gael people, not only in this House but at every crossroads for the last three to six months. Why not give the two sides of the story? Why try to kill the farmer and push him into the ground? Fine Gael never did anything otherwise. They never had any love for the farmers. The reason is not hard to find, it is because the farmers in the main never had any love for them. This is what is wrong basically.
We never sent them to jail in the numbers you did.
If you and others had not meddled, they might not have had to go to jail. They might have got an earlier settlement and a better settlement. This is something they will find out in due course and in due course will visit it on the heads of those who did meddle and who are disturbing these dirty waters. Do not let us have any more about this because it brings me to the point where we have Fine Gael getting up and saying that because of the fact that bonds were dispensed with on appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court the previous decisions of the lower courts were all wrong and bonds were never needed. This was intended to be helpful. This was intended to allay fears and suspicions already expressed; this was to bring about peace and harmony between the NFA and the Government.
For people in here, allegedly responsible people, in the Front Benches of Fine Gael to say: "Now that you have been relieved of the responsibility to sign bonds, it is clear these were never needed, that they were an imposition on you," the reflection on the lower courts was that the courts had unnecessarily applied these conditions on finding these people guilty of certain offences. The innuendo was that they were inspired, instructed and directed by the Government to do so. This was the allegation made here and it is a scandal that it should have gone without a retraction or a withdrawal being made in this House. It is a reflection on the courts, lower and higher, that they are there to be directed, to be browbeaten and to be made do what is illegal and unlawful in the carrying out of their duties at the dictates of the Government.
This was what was said here and the sooner Fine Gael get wise to the fact that they cannot undermine everything, not only the farmers but now the courts, the better. In those courts a great number of their members, in fact a preponderance of them, earn a living, but that has nothing to do with it, they will feed from the tables of the courts, as it were, and then brand them here as the puppets of the Government and indicate that the courts of law can be manipulated by governments and that our courts, justices and judges are people who are not to be entrusted with the operation of the laws in a fair, just and equitable way.
That is Fine Gael for you—destroy, destroy, and obstruct and bemoan and wail. That is the hallmark of Fine Gael; it was never otherwise and it is not changing even with the advent of new blood and new faces into the Party. In so far as the cattle trade in this further year is concerned, let there be no doubt that we are still facing a difficult time. However, we are confindent that with the experience we have gained from the unprecedented happenings of last year we will be able to take care of the situation much better, I hope, than was capable of being done last year. With the increased outlets, and the exports that have already taken place, we do not see, and in fact we are not looking forward, as Fine Gael is, and is hoping for, to disaster in the second half of the year. Instead, we are tempering the situation as we see it now with the big addition in exports that have already taken place against the possibilities of depression in the second half of the year. We are trying to weigh the two things to get the reasonable, objective outlook that would leave us, we hope, in the position to get through the remainder of this year without any calamitous fall in the level of any particular type of our stocks.
We have been looking in this direction even in the event of the worst happening, in so far as Fine Gael are concerned, about numbers being surplus and the demand being too little. We are working to try to find a way to meet the worst predictions of Fine Gael and, at the same time, taking a more reasonable, objective and optimistic attitude than Fine Gael in weighing what has gone on, and even against the predictions and the gloom confronting us from Fine Gael. Undoubtedly the numbers of cattle on hands are greater because deliberately we got more stock to meet a situation of freer trade with Britain, with a good trade with the continent, and which I have already explained was put upside down last year.
This is not likely to recur in the same way but we are not looking to Europe to do very much for us in the present year. We want to keep this in mind. I assure the farming community that we are taking steps and we are looking to the worst as well as to the best side of the picture and whether it is the best or the worst that transpires we hope to be able to alleviate any falls that may take place at the back end of the year. More than this no Minister or Government can promise and I am not going to make promises which I know I cannot keep. Let there not be gloom and despair. Let the farmers who have read the rantings of the Fine Gael Party get them out of their minds.
This Government and this Party are behind them and the smaller they are the more behind them we are and the more we will be behind them. There is a future for them and we want them to have a future and the more of them who have a future the better will be the future for this country. Conversely, the reverse is also so. We believe this and we were always convinced of it. We were not convinced yesterday or the day before, but we have always believed it, and anybody who believes differently is misleading himself and the country. Fine Gael have been doing that since Adam was a little fellow and certainly since I was a little one anyway. Now, in so far as some of the other general matters were concerned, we had this attack on the calved heifer scheme and subsidy, call it what you will, and, of course, we had the usual mixture as before. We had Deputies Donegan and Dillon on this matter. The duet again is one of gloom, despair, accusation, innuendo and allegation that this was wrong, that it always was and could not but be wrong and was intentionally brought about by Fianna Fáil because it would be wrong and to the detriment of the farmers. This was the tune of the duet, particularly with those two, with a slight chorus from behind.
The heifer scheme has been ballyragged all over the country, particularly in this House in recent weeks and in the past months of difficulty in the cattle trade. When all else failed and they could not get across one argument or other or reason to blame Fianna Fáil they then used this heifer scheme and, of course, those very same people who do not represent small farmers and, as I said to some of them last night, would not know a small farmer if they saw one, not alone to speak to one, then fall back on this argument that Fianna Fáil, through this heifer scheme, were so wrong that it brought about all our difficulties last year and that, even apart from that, the scheme was never any good to the small farmer.
Let us be quite clear about this. When the heifer scheme was instituted and introduced it was not a question of directing it to any individual group of farmers. Rather was it a deliberate decision on the part of the Government—and welcomed and agreed to by all Members of this House—that we should step up our cattle population. To do this, it would be necessary, by all the laws of nature, to increase our cow herd as a first step. This had to be done, not on the basis of trying to get a small farmer who was already over-stocked—as somebody said here— to do so. It was never intended to put a small man into the position of having more cows than his farm would carry. It was on a national basis. We wanted the national herd increased wherever there was space for the addition. It had to find its own level and there could be no other way.
The heifer scheme started at a time when the national cow herd was approximately 1,300,000 odd. The aim was to reach 1,700,000 and to step up our total cattle availability annually from about 1,000,000 to 1,500,000. This was the aim and very broad principle and very broad terms. The fact is that, regardless of the criticism made with the hindsight for which Fine Gael are absolutely famous, we did succeed in three short years in shoving up the cow herd number in this country from just over 1,300,000 to approximately 1,600,000—in other words, within 100,000 of the target set out in 1963. This would be condemned today but it was not condemned in those terms then. In fact the position was this, now that I recall it. Well do I remember Deputy Dillon laughing to scorn the idea, the suggestion, that we could get to a cow herd of 1,700,000 in this country in a short period of three or four years. He laughed it to scorn in this House and made all sorts and types of cracks: he is well able to make and capable of putting cracks about getting so many calves out of a cow in a year. He had his own statistics and he had it all worked out. Now that I recall it, that was the attack at the time. It was not that we were wrong in trying to put up the herd, not at all. The attack was that we were completely unrealistic in our approach and that, in fact—good old Fine Gael policy— it was something we could not do, it was ludicrous, laughable, unworkable and, in fact, was another mad scheme of Fianna Fáil. This was typical and is typical of Fine Gael outlook.
Fine Gael does not recognise, not even yet in this year of 1967, that the Irish people and the Irish farmer and the Irish worker are capable of progress to a degree equal to that of any counterpart in any part of the world. Fine Gael do not accept that and never have. Hence the gloom. Hence the prognostications. Hence the despair. Hence the forebodings of disaster in the future. But we did. We got to that point in those short three years that Fine Gael, its leading spokesman and an ex-Minister for Agriculture, laughed to scorn as being unattainable and unworkable in the time indicated when it was introduced. It is now, of course, the cause of all our ills. Not only has it brought about the fall in the price of cattle, the back end difficulties of last year, but all the scrub cattle, all the bad cattle in the country are now attributed to that £15 per head calved heifer scheme introduced three years ago—as if there were no scrub cattle in this country before that; as if no scrub bulls were roaming the countryside at that time; as if there were no scrub bulls in the country ten, fifteen and twenty years ago and as if there were no scrub bulls in the country during the two periods of office of the Coaltion Government when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture.
I had my first visit to one of our southern dairying counties during Deputy Dillon's time as Minister for Agriculture. I was absolutely appalled at seeing the first lot of bulls from the locality which were drawn into a little town for licensing purposes. With Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture, they were a type of cattle that, coming from where I do, well, even we would not keep them. We would shoot them before we would keep them. However, they were being licensed at that time in one of our dairy counties. Maybe it did not make any difference in those days. Maybe the mortality rate of calves at that time was such that it did not matter——
Who put an end to the mortality of the calves?
Do not tell me that Deputy Dillon did all things in the short while during which he was ranting and raving throughout the country when he was supposed to be the political head of the Department of Agriculture. That was the situation then. Possibly without this inner knowledge I then got during his time in office, I might have thought that we, up in the north-west, would have the tail-end of whatever was going in cattle breeding but I never saw scrubs until I saw them being licensed at that time while Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture. Then he and those he had brought in behind him in this House in 1967 would now attribute all the scrub cattle in the country to the calved heifer scheme that commenced only in 1963.
We have undoubtedly made great progress as a result of the calved heifer scheme. That it was not a perfect scheme, I am the first to admit but that it attained to a figure and an increase in our total herd that was laughed to scorn by Deputy Dillon and his colleagues in those short few years is possibly the greatest tribute I could pay to the man who, as Minister for Agriculture—Deputy Patrick Smith—introduced it. There is no doubt that even if, with a greater number of cattle, there is a relatively greater number of scrubs these, both in cows and in other cattle but particularly in cows, will be culled out. They are not all scrubs. Not everybody abused their herds in the manner some may have done in order to take advantage of a quick buck under this scheme. Nor is it possible for these bright boys and those in-and-out gentlemen to continue the in-and-out operations that may have been immediately profitable to them a couple of years ago because the scheme—even as I listened to the explanation of it in 1963 and even as applied since then and even as never changed—by its own method is self-reducing and because of that the in-and-out, bright boys have already got what is going out of it and any cry to stop it now is in fact too late. Some people advocated and I myself may have thought about nine months ago without really going into it that the scheme should be wiped out. I found, quite unaided and without any information from anywhere, but merely by going into the matter that I have become completely converted in the other direction and convinced that the scheme should not be cut out but should, in fact, continue. I feel that in the case of the small man or the bigger man who is genuinely and gradually building up his herd with the aid and encouragement of this scheme, his additional heifer, brought in as an additional cow even three years from now, is in my estimation as good value for £15 as any heifer put into our herds in 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967. Since it is a fact that it cannot be abused any further by the bright boys we would be wrong to stop it now unless we are satisfied that we should have less cows than we have. I am not so satisfied despite the gloom and despair of Fine Gael.
Therefore, if we have no reason to amend our hand and pull back from the target for cow herds set in 1963 then, in my estimation subject to some little trimmings that it may be necessary to add to the scheme, the scheme is as good until 1970 or until we reach our target and as valuable for any additional cow it produces as any produced in the past three years. Therefore, I say to the man gradually building up his herd: "Why should we stop it now?" Why should we stop it in the case of genuine people who have been building up their herds and improving their land and their farming generally and making arrangements for a bigger and better way of working by being able to keep more cattle now on the same land? They really need the scheme and to those who say that we should wipe it out because it was abused I would recommend this point of view. I think if they look at it in that way they will change their minds as I have changed mine. Far from wiping it out we should leave it there for the genuine people who are continuing to increase their herds to the advantage of themselves and the country.
We hope to introduce some elements that will be new to the scheme. One of these very near to my heart is that we should, in future, attach a condition that would be to the disadvantage of the scrub bulls and those who wish to have them around. I hope to be able to work into the scheme a provision that where it operates and there is an applicant and a beneficiary for one or more of these grants, we must have, not only in regard to the heifers in respect of which grants are claimed but in respect of all the cows in the herd, the best evidence available that these cows were served by and have progeny to licensed bulls. This is only a gesture. We do not need scrub bulls; there are plenty of good bulls, almost a surplus of them, and I do not know why we should go on using scrub bulls because they are probably the most costly equipment you can have on a farm if you have any number of cows. Nothing could cost more than a bad bull with good or bad cows. I hope that farmers, by means of the various incentives offered and the barriers in various ways which I can provide, will stop this business and that in addition with more of these bulls being picked up and found out we shall once and for all get rid of them in the interests of the farmers and the country as a whole.
We had reference to the meat board by Deputy Donegan and Deputy Dillon followed by Deputy Clinton and others. We were condemned for doing nothing about the meat board and assertions were made by some speakers that I was welching on a promise made by the previous Minister, Deputy Haughey. I have not welched on any promise: there will be proposals for a meat board very soon and probably available for discussion when we come back, as I hope we all do, after the Recess. It is suggested here—and I want to correct this—that Deputy Haughey as Minister for Agriculture made an absolute promise to introduce a meat marketing board. He did not make such a promise but this is being said and lest by having it said very often it should be believed, I want to repeat that he did not promise a meat marketing board. He promised a meat board. I also promise a meat board and when I finally get down to the details of what will emerge I think I shall very likely be able to say that what Deputy Haughey as Minister for Agriculture had in mind and had brought forward to a considerable extent before leaving the Department of Agriculture, will not differ very much from what I shall offer to the farming community in the way of a meat board in the next few months.
On the matter of pig supplies we again had wailers, groaners and banshees screaming their heads off, blaming the Government and Fianna Fáil for the situation as they described it in the pig trade at present. Let us be quite honest about this situation. Is it not the position that we have on offer and being freely paid by more than one factory the highest—I repeat, the highest—price for pork ever offered in this or any other European country?
Because of scarcity.
That is a fact. It is also true that scarcity has brought this about but will somebody try to elucidate, because as yet nobody, not even the best brains and research here and elsewhere in any country dealing in pigs to any great extent as we do, can tell us what brought about the shortfall in pig production. Do not tell me it was because there was no security of markets or outlets because, through the much-maligned Free Trade Area Agreement, Deputies are surely aware that we have a very big quota in relation to what we are able to produce for bacon in Britain. As a result we have been able to continue the floor prices, the minimum prices for various top grades of pigs as produced in our factories.
We have a big trade for pork which on the British market is very highly regarded. We supplied 16,000 tons of this pork to Britain in 1965 and we are very high on their list as far as appreciation of our pork is concerned. We have a bacon quota of over 28,000 tons which, in fact, we did not completely fill in the past year. We have that situation against the background of prices secured as to minimum below which farmers and producers cannot get but despite this pig numbers fell and they fell in every other pig producing country in Europe about the same time. That phenomenon is there. This occurs in cycles down the years not following any pattern of price or demand. For some inexplicable reason farmers go out of pigs and then come back into pigs.
Generally, this happens about every three or four years but it may be a longer or shorter period in between, and it happens in this country, in Britain and on the continent. As I have said, can somebody genuinely tell us— because nobody yet has, with all the research and brains that have gone into it—why this happens, because it is not related to price or market.
Of course it is related to price, Minister. The numbers drop when the price is uneconomic, and when feed prices rise.
At the time the drop started this did not obtain here, unless it was that in relation to other agricultural produce, prices had become so high in some respects that these became less attractive. But this is not the answer. The minimum guaranteed price was 260/-. It is now 266/- and will remain at that in the immediate future. Does the Deputy really tell me that 260/- a cwt a year or so ago was not a price within which a producer could make any profit?
The Minister knows that the price of small pigs dropped like that.
The price of small pigs particularly is related to the uptake by the potential fattener. The potential fattener is the man I am talking about. Why did he stop? Why did he get out of fattening at a time when the price for his product was such as to leave him a fair margin of profit? Why should he have got out when there was no diminution in that margin of profit as against the other years when he was really banging ahead? That is the cyclical part of this movement up and down in this and every other country. The producer, the man with the little pigs, if there is no outlet to the feeder —the inexplicable we just cannot find the answer to—he must get out of the production of the small ones.
You must consider both prices.
We consider everything, as does every other country, and there is no direct relationship between these cycles of up and down in production and price or profitability. If this pattern was very clear, then we would know, but we do not know and we are not alone in our ignorance. Anybody who can clear this up will be doing a great favour for the pig producers of this country; indeed of every other country in Europe and, possibly, in the world, because it has beaten them all up to the moment. I do not expect to be able to wave any magic wand and find the answer. I do know this; that after the delayed bottom, as it were, that we reached in this matter of production our outlet started on the upswing again.
We are fairly confident that the upswing of in-pig gilts and sows throughout the country is now reaching a level that will ensure, in a matter of the next three to six months, a considerable advance on the situation, as we are producing pigs at the moment. But we are not claiming that we did this. We tried to help by the sow scheme and other measures but, no more than we can explain the down trend in the cycle, no more do we claim credit for the upswing, except that we have tried to encourge it a little quicker than it might have come otherwise. It is very difficult to find the clue to bring it up again.
I am really sorry about Deputy Clinton, because he really was going well in this House when he came in and, damn it, I did not think the lawyers had got at him about the pig business as well as everything else. I thought that related only to legalities, constitutionalities and other things, like marts, but I did not think they had confused the Deputy about the pig situation as well, because this really would be a pig in a poke, with the lawyers advising Deputy Clinton on the pig industry!
They were 250,000 down last year.
If the Deputy wants to condemn us for that, would he ever consider looking back on the previous two years' production; the records which are there that had not been obtained before? If we are taking the blame in 1967, surely to heavens we must get some credit for the previous two years' production which were, in their own time, a record?
But, of course——
So, the Deputy would give us credit for 1964 and 1965, so that he can condemn us for 1967! Why not give us some credit for 1968 while he is at it—I think we will be getting pigs again in that year.
Outside of that, I should say I believe there is a big job to be done in regard to pigs. I have no suggestion of a cure for this up and down cycle; I am not proposing that I should have; I just do not know. But in so far as our system of operation is concerned, through our grain policy—we have various grain policies; we have a wheat policy, a barley policy and, possibly, an oats and an importation of cereals policy—I believe we must, even though for different purposes, if it is possible at all, get an overall cereals or grain policy, encompassing all types of grains, whether imported or home grown and that this, in turn, must be related, as nearly as we can, to the estimated needs of our human consumption and our animal consumption for the year ahead or for future years.
There must be a direct relationship established between the cost of import of feeding stuffs for our livestock, including pigs, and that which would be regarded as a fair and reasonable outlet price. Every Deputy who knows anything about it, knows that this is a vast field to try to encompass but I believe we must try to get an overall composite approach to this. Whether or not we can succeed I do not know. It is difficult; it is a huge job but, if we can find the overall answer to it, it would be a great help and certainly a great stabiliser, not only from the point of view of profitability and the outlet for our numbers of livestock, but indeed from our own cost of living point of view, even in the production of bread and so on, because this thing is all interwoven——whether we use grain for animal or human consumption, if we are to have stability of pricing and of food costs related to the prices that we may determine in various ways for the produce that we produce with the help or aid of this particular feeding.
In addition to that, I do feel that in so far as the bacon industry is concerned, there is no doubt about it that the capacity in factories for handling and curing of bacon is, as is accepted factually, far greater than we need here; that the numbers should not be allowed to proliferate further until we see where we are going, that licences for pig curing establishments should not be available merely for the asking to any section, including the co-ops, who have had this exemption up to now. It is only prudent that we must stop at this particular point until we see where we are going. It is ludicrous to be inserting further capacity which can only have the effect of putting somebody already in business out of business, or making it impossible for them to carry on, or merely to establish a new business, with somebody else's money.
In this regard, I am sure the co-operative people would be the first to agree that it is not in anybody's interest to have further capacity added to an already over-capacity for the production, handling and curing of our pigs and bacon. They would be the first to agree that we should stop at this stage and not have licences merely available to people simply because they have put up a suitable building. This is not prudent. It is my intention to change the legislation here in this House, as soon as possible. But I should like to say it here so that those who might be contemplating establishing a new factory would be warned in advance that they should in fact consult my Department before they commit themselves to any degree. Otherwise, they may find trouble in the future for themselves and for those with whom they are associated.
Another thing that I feel we must think very seriously on is the central buying of pigs, something I do not like. I do not like the idea of central purchasing at all but the situation has become so bedevilled by the internal competition as between factory and factory, which is, no doubt, related to quite a degree to the over-capacity of our factories, that there has been and there must be a lot of wasteful operation. When you have people living in the west of Ireland buying pigs in the east, people doing the reverse, coming from the east to the west, people living in the north and going down to buy pigs in the south and buyers coming up north and crossing each other on the road in their own transport, duplicating each other, buying pigs across each other and competing with each other to a degree that really is of no value to them because they are, in fact, killing themselves as processors in paying more for the pigs as a result of these wasteful trippings about and this anxiety to get more pigs.
Competition is the main incentive in this which enables some of them to pay more than others and of course the others are left out in the cold because they just cannot afford to pay some of the prices. Therefore though I do not like central purchasing—I do not like the concept or the thought of it at all— I do feel that it is something that we have been driven to consider because of the situation in regard to the overall position of handling our pigs and our pork and our killings and curings throughout the country. If there is another way I certainly do not want to embark on central purchasing but at the moment it looks as if it must be seriously considered.
It must be considered not only for that purpose but for another purpose.
As these cyclical trends take place and scarcity pushes up demand as well as price we have—and this is even more serious from the point of view of our good name that we are trying to build up abroad—we have people buying lame pigs and blackened ones and hurt ones and all sorts without question in these short times. This is not conducive to good grading. It is not conducive to a good product. When this shortage comes and the price trend goes up unnaturally and the cut throat competition begins there is little regard to the type of pig, the grade of the pig or indeed even the price of the pig within limits so long as factories can get more of them to keep their average per pig down by keeping up their overall output. This, from a grading point of view is bad. If one buyer will not take a pig with a broken leg or a cracked shin some other fellow will. This is the way at the moment. If there was a central purchasing agency in scarce or plentiful times there would be no two or three buyers. The pig would be bought and he would be bought for his worth, bought for its grade and bought accordingly fairly and equitably no matter where, without any running about.
The Minister is not thinking of setting up pig marts, is he?
God knows, you would never know what I might do. I would license them as well naturally, even though I was running them myself so that they would be run properly.
This would do away with a lot of this cross-tripping and cross-country running which, in the last analysis, is either putting bacon companies bankrupt and out of business or else must be coming off the farmers' back in some shape or form but is in no way conducive to a healthy trade either from the factory or the producer's point of view.
Perhaps I have over-elaborated this, but however the grain policy and possibly central buying of pigs is something that may have to come. As I said we are examining it. We have been driven to do this even though I do not like the concept but it has certain advantages and would cut out a lot of the difficulty that has arisen at the moment for the producer and the factory. However, more about that later because those are things that naturally will not be done without opportunities to hear the views of all and discuss them in due course.
The Free Trade Area Agreement was knocked here by Deputies Clinton and Dillon, the same pair again with a new duet, or not so new, depending on what way you look at it. I think we should attempt to remember even in our enthusiasm to criticise first that this Free Trade Area Agreement really came into operation less than 12 months ago; that adverse circumstances arose which are not necessarily part and parcel of the Free Trade Area Agreement; that the credit squeeze conditions under which it was ushered in were certainly not any great help, whatever hindrance; that conditions in the new settlement between countries on as broad a scale as this were bound to have, even in the best of circumstances certain growing pains. This was to be expected. Therefore, these things together should be thought of when you begin to criticise that which, as I say, is not yet a year old. God knows, we do not always expect the greatest and most responsible return from year olds in any category and I do not know why we should be so critical and so ready to condemn and so ready to trot out all the things we find wrong with this without once adverting to any of the things that are in fact advantageous in it and there are quite a number.
There is this question which I have mentioned of the 28,000 tons quota of bacon to the British market. This is secure. We are entitled to put that in there. Before the Free Trade Area Agreement, this time last year, we were not so entitled. The 1948 Agreement or any other Agreement did not entitle us to access for specific amounts not to mention free access for all our produce. This is something we should remember and that the Agreement existing and under which we operated before the Free Trade Area Agreement did not in the case of bacon give us this absolute right to put in so much. It could have been stopped at any time. We could have been shut out and they could have said: "We do not want a lb of your bacon or a ton of your pork". This could have happened and indeed so far as butter was concerned we had a sad experience in recent years where it did happen and we were restricted in the sale of butter to the British market. If that had continued and had there been no Free Trade Area Agreement the plaudits which An Bord Bainne have been earning here from the Opposition speakers about their success in the sale of butter and the Kerrygold campaign in particular could never have arisen—were it not for the Free Trade Area Agreement because of the restricted quota basis that we were arbitrarily put back to three or fours years ago in advance of this Free Trade Area Agreement. We now have a quota away up to 26,000 tons— there would not be any Kerrygold in Britain nor any need for Bord Bainne to promote Kerrygold in Britain because there would be no entry for us.
Surely Deputies should realise this and not go flat-footedly criticising the Agreement because of certain difficulties in one particular respect last year brought about by things which they or we had no control over whatsoever. We should also remember that in so far as our store trade is concerned and our fat cattle and our carcase beef that these three categories have participated in the British deficiency payments system. That is something gained. This is something gained by the Free Trade Area Agreement that we should not lightly brush aside as of no consequence because it is and of very significant consequence even in the light of our difficulties during the past six or 12 months. We should keep this in mind and realise that from the point of view of agriculture, horticulture and fisheries output and production that we have had under this Free Trade Area Agreement an access and a freedom of access to the British market that we never had before under any previous Agreement.
If they want store cattle, they will take them.
In the past whether they wanted them or not, whether we were prepared to put them in at a price or not, if they wanted to and if they found their supplies elsewhere, from home or elsewhere, they were quite entitled to tell us they did not want them at all.
But they never did.
They did once, for all sorts of cattle. The Deputy was not around then. He was too young.
Leave him alone. He is very young. He will learn in time.
He is nice but he has been spoiled by his associates. I assure Deputy Dunne I will not be hard on his Dublin colleague. However, the Free Trade Area Agreement should not be knocked off so lightly as being of little importance.
You were lucky I was not here last night.
The Deputy is always where he is needed and sometimes where he is not needed.
I would not say the Minister represents the views of the voters of my constituency.
If the Deputy had got the significance of what I have been saying, he would appreciate that his voters' and my sentiments are the same.
That is very subtle. I shall analyse it later when I get the Official Report. Is it meant to be an insult?
No.
It is a compliment, then?
A pleasant compliment.
We are getting very touchy around here.
I have noticed that. In the enthusiasm of pre-local election time, I ask Deputies not to condemn the Free Trade Agreement roundly. I ask them to have a thought about it, to look at it again and to consider its advantages and to realise it is not, as they have alleged, a matter of oneway traffic and of no consequence. It is of significant consequence that we did not get all we wanted or asked for. It is also of significant consequence that Britain, on the other side, did not get all they asked for. If either side got all they wanted in a new Agreement they would have pulled the wool across the eyes of the other side and the Agreement would not be worth the paper it was written on. Britain has given and taken in this Agreement and time alone will show us—and time is passing—even in changing circumstances some of the flaws and we may then be able to say: "We should have seen this before".
Certain things may show up from our point of view and from the point of view of the British and I am sure the same spirit that brought the Agreement into being will bring about any amendment to it that may be regarded as fair to both sides. In the meantime I suggest that Deputies do not throw it out with the dishwater. It is not to be relegated in that manner. It is of great importance and time will prove its importance to us is of no less significance than its importance to Britain.
It has been alleged in relation to small farmers that the Departmental schemes, roundly and badly, are of little use to small farmers. It is amazing the concern Fine Gael work up and generate for the small farmers when it suits them, and how little care, either in Opposition or when they controlled two Coalition Governments, they displayed for the same small farmers for whom they weep such bitter tears while we are in Government. I shall now give an extensive list of what we have done for the small farmers, directed specifically at small farmers, in order to allay the fears of any and to correct the views of others. Here are some of the things we did in a special way for the small farmers.
As is well known, in addition to the benefits in the Budget recently passed, we have had derating of land of up to £20 valuation, completely and for all time. With that went the provisions in relation to farm buildings, past, present and yet to be, and the changes in the law in relation to unemployment assistance by computation of means. That was a year ago. In the last Budget we wiped out the Employment Period Orders. These are very new and I can assure Deputy Clinton and all his Fine Gael colleagues that they are very much appreciated by the small farmers whom I live among and whom I have been meeting a great deal during the past weeks and months, as I usually do. Very markedly they appreciate these two things done for them in a way they seldom did before. They are coming forward at meetings and those people are not very inclined to come forward. I have had them coming forward at meeting after meeting in an unprecedented way to say that these two things are really worthwhile and that they appreciate Fianna Fáil for doing them. That is just to keep Fine Gael right.
And to keep the cumainn going.
Do not be too hard on them.
I will not. They are the things we have done recently.
That happened where the Minister lives.
I am surrounded by these small farmers and I am proud of them. I prefer being surrounded by those than by larger farmers.
They are pretty substantial around Raheny.
Yes, but I do not spend my time in Raheny.
I thought the Minister said he lives among them.
I am in two places each week.
Like Boyle Roche's bird.
So long as it is not the other bird. To get back to the immediate things we have done for the small farmers, in case it might be said that we did these things because the local elections were coming——
That was only one of the reasons.
——we did some other things directed to the small farmers and I shall give a number of measures specially designed to help the small farmers. These measures are already in existence. There is the Farm Buildings Scheme which provides a higher rate for smaller-sized units and scaleddown rates as the units increase. Deputy Clinton knows very well this is so.
Except in the case of poultry-houses.
We wanted to leave a crib for the Deputy in case he became frustrated. Poultry-houses are an exception but the poultry-houses around Raheny are not of the nature, size or cost which the small farmers I know would be able to put up in any event. However, that may serve to relieve the Deputy's frustration.
There is a fine poultry-farm in that area. I heard all the chickens had drowned.
Chickens have a habit of growing into hens——
And they come home to roost.
Even if they do, new ones come along and they are not so prone to roost. The Farm Buildings Scheme was directed also at small farmers, giving a higher rate of grant to small farmers and scaling down as the size increased. We also provided special grants for piggeries confined to farmers with less than 50 acres or £25 valuation. They would be farmers which in the opinion of certain people listening to me are small farmers but which to me are not so small.
However, they are within the category of small farmers as accepted by most people. Then we have the scheme of grants for milk coolers, recently announced, which are no doubt of great use not only to cool milk but to get the extra 2d for that cooler milk in the creameries which small farmers have not been able to avail of because of their inability to provide cool milk.
Then we have the higher land grants in the West which for the western areas is £50 an acre as against £45 in any other part of the country. Then we have the matter I mentioned that was in the Budget, the abolition of Employment Period Orders, which is without doubt appreciated by many of the people involved. We have the derating of £20 valuation and the scaling of it between that figure and £33. This also is appreciated by our small farmers. In fact 77 per cent of them will get full derating under £20 and a further percentage of them will benefit to some degree up to the level of £33.
Then we have the incentive bonus scheme for small farmers for which an additional sum of £250,000 has been provided in this Budget. The reason it is not more is that it is obvious whatever form this scheme finally takes in detail cannot really be worked out effectively to the point of those incentive grants being paid to any degree greater than to have a provision this year of £250,000 and need not be taken at all as any indication of what the final level of this scheme will be. This incentive will help the small farmer to live reasonably comfortably in his little holding.
Has the Minister in mind to increase the rate per yard for concrete?
Actually, I would like to but I am not answering that I am going to and there I must leave it at the moment. The establishment of the pilot areas is clearly directed to small farming areas and is showing its paces even in the short time it has been in existence. It is showing to us in the Department the benefits of the various schemes and the method of application of any combination of those schemes. Those things are being studied and will be of great help to us. The overall picture emerging from our experience in the pilot areas up to the moment is that there is potential for improvement in this type of scheme with concentrated efforts made, as are being made in the pilot areas at present. As a result of that, those pilot areas are being extensively extended this year. They will be doubled and trebled in some cases so far as the size we are operating at the moment is concerned. This will prove some of the theories emerging from our experience and will help us, we hope, to design still further our schemes and tailor them in such a way as to give the greatest benefit to the people in those parts of the country so that we can really say eventually that they have proved their point and the application of them will be widespread over the 12 countries of the West and other parts of the country where they will be needed and be directed to the small farmer.
The farrowed sow schemes and the sheep schemes last year are continuing this year and they are also aimed, by and large, if not to help the small farmers, certainly the poor farmers, by any standard, including poor law valuation. We then have the increased subsidy for advisory services in the West where my Department pay 75 per cent as against 50 per cent in the rest of the country. Again, this is directed to the small farmers to give them better services in some of the poorer counties. Then we have encouragement to dairying, particularly through the provision of grants for new creameries in the West. This is fairly new but again it is something really significant and has made some impact in many of the areas in the West.
We then have the new powers given to the Land Commission to facilitate land resettlement. Whether it is in the West or in places outside the West, those greater facilities are directed in a very particular way to the very small congests in the western areas. Then, as you know, in the Budget of this year—we do not want to be bragging about it again—we included new incentives for industry, tourism and angling in the west. Anybody who knows the western counties will realise that those three things have a great deal to contribute to the West and the economy of the West in the future. Tourism and the development of angling are already playing a vital role in the West, and can play a greater role in the future. Therefore, in this year's Budget the Government have been biased in favour of the western countries and the small farmers as a category. This bias is well justified. I know everybody agrees with that. This is something we have in common, that we are right in leaning towards the West and in helping those small farmers.
I should say again, lest it might be forgotten, as I have already announced quite a few months ago, there is an overall examination of all our schemes administered by and through my Department going on at the present time. Submissions are being examined not only to see how we may more usefully use them but indeed with special emphasis they are directed towards finding how we can bend more towards the small farmers and the farming community in particular, even if it should be in some cases at the expense of the larger farms.
We then come to this matter of credit about which we had a lot of talk. There were a few rather startling things said which are not appreciated by a great number of people particularly those who talk in terms of our denigrating the farming community. It has been suggested that it should be cheaper. This is always a good one. Who would not wish that if they could get it but when they go further and start quoting other countries having cheaper credit, it is time we looked at the situation and found out what the actual percentage is at the present time. In Britain, it is 7½ per cent. Up to a few months ago it was 8½ per cent. Denmark has been quoted as a model. Perhaps it is in many ways, but what I say is that the total amount of subsidy to the agricultural community paid by way of subsidy is £18 million in Denmark. The subsidies, as far as milk alone is concerned in this country are approximately £18 million this year. So, when you talk about Denmark, it is not a good comparison because we are doing more than they are so far as supporting our farmers and the total subsidies paid to the farming community is concerned. As I said we are paying £18 million this year for milk and milk products alone.
Is the Minister aware of the racket going on at the present time where new dairies who are amalgamating here in Dublin are returning milk to practically every farmer? Of course, there is a surplus of milk at this time of the year and they are getting plenty of milk.
Is it not the situation in the liquid milk trade that it is a coveted position to be a supplier? In addition to the advantages there are, of course, certain obligations. One of these is that, in order to be retained as a supplier during the flush period, one must contract for a minimum supply during the scarce period. If during the flush period they produce more than committed to under contract, they cannot but expect difficulty about the disposal of that, particularly liquid milk.
But that is not what is happening. They are taking it in and returning it.
That is a different matter—that it is being returned merely on pretext. If the Deputy has anything to say about that, I would be glad to hear about it.
I would be glad to give it to the Minister, because I think it is just too bad.
I shall look into it immediately I get the details. As far as ACC lending is concerned, lending to the farming community in 1956 stood at £2.7 million, but by 1966 this had moved up to £16.6 million. In the same decade bank credit to farmers increased from £21.2 million to £62.6 million. Those figures scarcely support the contention that credit is not available or has been restricted in some way so far as the agricultural community are concerned. These figures disprove that in no uncertain way.
The suggestion that interest rates have been too high is also not in accordance with the facts. No country with the same rates of subsidy as we have for farmers' loans have given anything like the same range of non-contributory grants as we do through the Department and various institutions. This is part of the cost of most of these capital developments. If we are to bring in money by way of non-repayable grant, it is unfair to take countries that do not do that, or do not do it to the same extent as we do, and compare them with us and to say that, because the lending rate is lower than ours, our farmers are being treated badly. We must look at the cash content input of capital by way of free non-repayable grants and relate that to the interest rate on loan capital required in order to make a fair comparison. If the Deputies who make the unfair comparison were to look at the situation in this light, they will find that, overall, our system stands up to favourable comparison with most, if not all, of the countries mentioned here.
The NAC—well, it is a miracle indeed that we should have the NAC at all. First, no doubt it was brought into existence at a time when its birth was anything but easy. In fact, it could not have been much more difficult.
A kind of breach birth.
More or less, but a live one despite all the difficulties. We are told now by some Deputies that the very people who were making it somewhat difficult for this birth to take place were the first to ask for it. Far be it from me to cause any dissension in regard to who called for it first or last, but my own belief was that the nearest thing to a call for such a Council came not from the NFA but from the ICMSA. I may be wrong in that. Whoever called for it at whatever time, the fact is it has been brought into existence and is operating. I have found it extremely useful in the short time it is in existence. Six of the nine members already acting on it are not chosen by me, nor will they be in the future. These six have been chosen and sent to me by way of direct nomination by various bodies.
All this criticism of myself and all that sort of thing is not of any great consequence. What I am concerned about is that the NAC should work, and it is working. I feel I will be the best judge of whether it is working or not. The whole purpose of it is to help the Minister to help the farming community. As I am the person looking for the help, I will know when I have that help. I hope the result of that help will be for the benefit of the farming community. There are plenty around who want to knock it, perhaps because it was created by a Fianna Fáil Minister, even though it was called for by the ICMSA and despite the fact we are now told it was the NFA who first called for it. However, the fact is that it is in existence to help and advise the Minister of the day. It is doing this and I believe it will do an excellent job in the future for the benefit of the farmers.
What Fine Gael think about me as chairman and why I am chairman does not concern me one bit. I am chairman for the reason that the members—of whom six are not there on my nomination—decided unanimously for the second time, having postponed it at my request from earlier in the day to reconsider the matter, that I should be their chairman. They did so for the very good reason that they do not see the NAC as a pressure group, nor do they want to have it as such. They do not see it as an negotiating body, as some other organisations would like to play that role. They see themselves as advisers, people who will help the Minister and his Department, people who will bring with them this knowledge from a wide range of farming activities that we in the Department and the Government could not possibly have access to from day to day. They felt that, if this was to be realised, the Minister should be present at these meetings as often as possible and participate as a member of the whole group; in other words, that they should know my problems, as I know them departmentally and otherwise, and that I should hear their views and problems as they project them on behalf of the various elements of the farming community.
As a result of that exchange of views, concerning the advantages or disadvantages of any policy, I will be enabled from this first-hand discussion to get the proper feel of the various sections of the community and of the farming groups. I can go away from that meeting armed with this knowledge coming from people who are prepared to give it in the best of good faith, with all the openness desirable if we are to reach proper conclusions, rather than pressure groups and negotiating bodies, as they would like to see themselves, coming in, putting the Minister on one side of the table while they range around the other, giving nothing at no stage, all the time asking, fighting, conceding nothing, with the Minister naturally trying to defend his position against this sort of pressure, knowing that the story he is told is liable to be exaggerated and not completely true. The difficulty always in these things is to know how untrue any assertions are, how exaggerated, and so forth. Is it not far better that we should get such a group as these people on the National Agricultural Council who are prepared, but only on the basis that I am prepared also, to sit in with them as a member of their council, to talk openly our minds between ourselves as to the problems, and the solutions to them, of the farming community and the agricultural industry as a whole?
Having conceded, if one does concede, the idea of the Minister being at as many meetings as possible and participating as just another member, then the ordinary routine of things is such that in this grouping of people, it is only appropriate that, being the Minister, if he is to be present and is to participate, he should be in the Chair. It is as simple as that, as I see it. I did not seek it. In fact, I fought against it because I knew what the knockers would say and I knew I was endangering the future of the NAC, because of the knockers, in accepting the Chair. But I also did that deliberately because I was as convinced as the other nine members were that it was the right thing to do in the interests of the farming community and the agricultural industry. I believe that it will work, and this is what really counts.
If I had the slightest reason in the morning to get out of that or if I find and if my colleagues on the Council find that this was wrong, no matter how well meant it was, I can get out in the morning. There is nothing to stop me. I would go straightaway if I thought it was better that I should, that it was the wish of any of the members of this nine that I should. This I would do gladly. But, I do agree with them. This is the unfortunate thing—that this was their view as to my role and I had to agree because this was my own belief as to how best to do the job. So, although I argued against them and held out for the first half of that day and asked them to adjourn and to reconsider they still came back with the conviction that it had to be that way or not at all. I thought long and hard on this matter before that meeting and I had come to the same conclusion, independent of them, that this was the way it should work, unorthodox though it might appear; but what the hell about orthodoxy if we get from this council that which we have failed to get from any other sort of council in regard to the farming community in the past?
This is how I approached it and I hope the Members of the House and the community will at least give it a possibility of succeeding. It is a try and if it works and is in the right direction, is there anybody going to lose by it? I do not think so. We have a lot to gain by it. Do not try to kill that which had a difficult birth before it becomes at least adolescent.
The NIEC is closely associated or, naturally, should be in the minds of our people with the NAC. As Deputies are aware, the NIEC stands for the National Industrial Economic Council. Deliberately, there is no mention of agriculture. Had there been an "A" in that NIEC, additional to it or within it, we would be happy enough. Agriculture was not included in the representation at the outset so far as this Council is concerned. At the same time, it is not true to say that Fianna Fáil would not allow it to be so. This is merely another effort to confuse the issue and is not really a true reading of the situation. When the NIEC was being set up, at the inaugural meeting on 9/10/1963, the then Taoiseach explained that the council would not deal with agricultural matters because agricultural policy is determined to a large extent by—I quote—"external conditions which we cannot hope to alter by decisions taken here". That was the feeling at that time expressed by the then Taoiseach but there was no absolute throwing out of the idea. It was rather with regret that this was expressed as the situation.
Later, in December, 1965, the Taoiseach indicated to the Dáil that he recognised the arguments in favour of agricultural representation on the NIEC and that the way had been left open for it from the beginning and that if farming interests were prepared to accept membership the Government would be prepared to arrange for appropriate changes in the constitution of the council. In reply to a similar question the present Taoiseach, on 24th November last, referred to that previous answer given by the former Taoiseach a year before and gave the same reply, to all intents and purposes. Since then—and I have already indicated this, with the Government's approval—agriculture is to be accommodated and will participate in the NIEC and, further, the NAC will, in fact, have direct representation on the NIEC and I think we will get away from the "NAC" and the "NIEC" and probably come up with a new one shorter than the present title, probably "NEC". This will cover "National Economic Council"—both agriculture and industry—as I believe it is appropriate that it should.
Steps are being taken and arrangements are being made for the representation of agriculture on this council which will be wider and will embrace agriculture in future in addition to all the other aspects of our economy. That the National Agricultural Council will have a nominee on this new body, I have not any doubt. In fact, the Government have agreed that it should be so represented on that council but the representation on the enlarged NIEC will not be confined to the NAC. The arrangements for its enlargement will come later. I cannot give the details. It is not my prerogative to make these arrangements. They are being made at this moment and we will hear more about them in the future.
I should like to announce the new grants for the making of silage. I know Deputy Clinton will be disappointed, maybe I am too, but rather than hold it up for any further instruction, I should like to announce that grants will be made for a concrete area in relation to the silage-making that we call bun silage. That is about the only sensible thing that Deputy Dillon did raise. He suggested that there should be some money for concreting areas for bun silage. In response to this repeated request, particularly from Deputy Dillon, we do want to give this money for this purpose. Unfortunately, as the Deputy may anticipate, the rate will be the same rate per yard as existing at the moment for concrete, about which he has already asked me a question, and the maximum amount to be drawn in any single grant will be £40. So, you can work that out for yourself. Half-a-crown a square yard and £40 is the maximum anybody can get. It is for making the bases for that bun type of silage without walls, overhead roofs or anything else and will be operative straightaway.
This is not a new grant? Is this new?
Yes.
Has there not been for quite a considerable time half-a-crown a yard for concrete?
Not for this purpose.
For anything you like to use it—a concrete yard.
We are innocent in the Department. We know that when you lay down concrete as a yard you only use it for certain purposes and would not dream of using it for any other purpose.
This is a hoax.
This is to relieve the Deputy of in any way confusing himself as to what the various areas are for. It means that you can get £40 worth more of concrete area laid for whatever purpose you ultimately use it for.
The same 40, just not telling a lie about it.
It is different. These are the little grants being given in response to pressing requests from your past Leader and past Minister for Agriculture. He wanted this. We are giving it to you. Now, would you not have the good grace to accept it on his behalf and thank us for it? It is not often that so quickly and so soon we can get around to meeting points of view in this way. It is in response to his request that we are giving it and his front bench colleague does not want it.
Is the Minister finishing?
Yes, because of Questions.
Will the Minister explain the difference of something like £5 million in the figure given last year and the figure given this year?
In what respect?
I refer to the figures given in the notes circulated. There is a difference as between the figure given last year and the figure given this year—£115 million in one case and £120 million in the other case.
These are the estimated figures as against the actual figures.
A difference of £5 million is a very big difference.
We do not compute them. We have to rely on others to do that. If they make an estimate which proves £5 million or £100 million wrong, do not blame me.
It is very misleading.
The overall situation is that farming is not in the deplorable, depressed, despondent position painted by Fine Gael. The farmers are not that sort of people. They are as good as the best anywhere else, and with our help, they will not only continue in that role to their own advantage but they will even improve in the future, despite Fine Gael banshee wails of gloom and despair.
Vote put and agreed to.