asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he is aware of the very serious unrest in the farming industry; and if he will take all possible steps to resolve farmers' difficulties which are mainly in the nature of rising costs and falling farm incomes.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Farmers' Costs.
30.
I do not accept the Deputy's contention about unrest in the farming industry, which has had two of the best years ever in 1967 and 1968.
While it is true that, as in other industries, production costs in agriculture have increased appreciably, these increases have been more than offset by the very substantial rise in the value of agricultural output, and, even allowing for higher costs, family farm income in 1968 will be considerably above the 1967 level.
How can the Parliamentary Secretary forecast this? The Minister for Transport and Power was not able to forecast the income from tourism in the present year. He said it is far too early. Now the Parliamentary Secretary says he can say this will be an extraordinary year for agriculture.
I am very happy to be able to supply the Deputy with some of the background details. In 1963, the family farm income was £120 million. I am giving round figures. In 1964, it was £142 million; in 1965, it was £141 million; in 1966, it was £133 million; in 1967 it was £145.9 million; and for 1968 the projection is £161 million.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us the other side of the balance-sheet—the costs of production?
We have given that.
You have not.
How then can the Parliamentary Secretary explain why, during the past three months, the farmers have been picketing Leinster House and Government Buildings?
If Deputy O'Donnell would apply that in the national interest and ask all concerned to come in and consult with the Minister for Agriculture——
The Minister will not see anybody.
The Minister is interested only in having a body of "yes" men.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary remember that the farmers were on the steps of Government Buildings and that the Taoiseach and the Minister passed them by, refusing to consult with them?
That is a separate question. Question No. 31.
The invitation is still open. Deputy L'Estrange is trying to make a political thing out of this. Will he, in the national interest, ask the people concerned to come in and discuss a national problem?