Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Dec 1968

Vol. 237 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Vote 37—Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following Motion: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."
—(Deputy Clinton.)

When I reported progress an hour ago, I was endeavouring to put the dairying industry in its proper perspective. I pointed out that the fact has been established that our dairy farmers are getting the lowest prices of any dairy farmers in Western Europe for their milk. We are getting the lowest prices of all milk producers in Western Europe.

Our dairy produce is commanding premium prices on the export market. I have given the figures in relation to butter prices on the British market. The price that is being commanded now for "Kerrygold" butter is second only to Denmark. There is the same story in relation to cheddar cheese. According to the latest figures, that I have been able to obtain, British home produced cheese is making £270 a ton; Irish cheese is making £245 a ton; New Zealand cheese is making £240 a ton; Australian cheese is making £225 a ton and imports into Britain from other countries are making about £200 a ton.

While this situation exists, I believe that we have a tremendous commercial advantage in so far as the marketing of our dairy products going on the export market. I believe that there is no need, as I have already said, for any panic measures to curtail milk production. When an industry with a record of performance like the dairying industry can command these prices on the export market, we should continue to encourage our dairy farmers to improve their farms and to improve their herds thereby getting a maximum output from their farms.

Since the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries recently announced the new increase of 1d a gallon on the first 7,000 gallons and since he announced the new beef subsidy, the impression has been created abroad that it is important for many purposes that an effort should be made to curtail milk production, and that the idea of 1d on the first 7,000 gallons has been done with a view to encouraging larger milk producers from further expanding.

I wish to present the facts in relation to the dairy industry as I obtained them from the official statistics and from the various researches that have been carried out. I have advised dairy farmers in my constituency to continue in milk production and not to be misled by cries of over-production or the fact that the export markets are collapsing. I do not believe there is any need for fear at the present time. As I have already pointed out, the increase in milk output in the last two years, which has been described as dramatic, was envisaged in 1964 when the Second Programme for Economic Expansion was being formulated.

If the Government were doing their job and if the Minister and his Department were doing their job, they would have taken steps long ago to ensure that the capacity of our milk processing plants was adequate to cater for the increased milk output. If this had been done, the appalling and completely indefensible situation that arose last May and June need never have arisen. I am referring to the fact that millions of gallons of skimmed milk had to be poured down the drain because of the fact that the capacity of the processing plants was not adequate and that there had been difficulty in marketing skimmed milk powders. Admittedly, there was difficulty but those difficulties would not have arisen if a proper and flexible policy had been introduced to divert that milk into other products and despite the fact that last May or June, the market for skimmed milk powder had more or less collapsed and the price fell from over £100 a ton to as low as £40 a ton. A few months later, skimmed milk powder is commanding from £80 to £90 a ton.

It is now extremely doubtful if we shall have adequate supplies of skimmed milk powder to meet our export market commitments. That is particularly so in relation to the Mexican order negotiated by An Bord Bainne for in the region of £62, £63 or £64 a ton. I am informed that An Bord Bainne are seriously worried about the adequacy of the available supply of milk powder to meet this order. If this is so, it is a scandalous state of affairs. It indicates no planning and no initiative. It indicates very bad management if we allow this situation to develop.

The reason for the recovery in price for skimmed milk powder is that, in the dairying countries, there was stock-piling of skimmed milk powder and, when the price drops below a certain figure—I understand the figure is around £40 per ton—skimmed milk powder then becomes the most economic source of protein for animal food. As soon as the prices dropped on the Continent, the animal food compounders bought up all available supplies and incorporated it in the animal food ration with the result that stocks in Western Europe, particularly in the dairying areas, became eroded. The price therefore recovered.

Our situation is that we may not be able to fulfil our market commitments for skimmed milk powder. Surely this indicates that something is wrong here? Skimmed milk powder is dealt with at length in the recently-published report of a survey conducted by Messrs. Cooke and Sprague, two American consultants engaged by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to examine the question of the rationalisation of the creamery milk industry. This report should have been issued to all Members of this House. At Question Time a few weeks ago, the Minister said a copy of it is available in the Dáil Library. As far as I know, every Deputy receives copies of the reports on all types of surveys. The Cooke-Sprague Report has been eagerly awaited. It is a very important document. It is deplorable that Deputies should have to queue up in the Library for it. As a result of all that, I have had to depend on the study by the Irish Agriculture Organisation Society of the main recommendations of the Cooke-Sprague Report.

Let me come back to the problem product, as it is now known in the dairying industry—the problem of skimmed milk powder. Prices are now recovering. I have not access to Departmental information on this subject, but I want to go on record as saying that the outlook is excellent provided certain steps are taken to expand the capacity of the milk processing plants to convert the skimmed milk into powder during the 1969 season. The prices for skimmed milk powder in the past few years have been very good but they dropped this year due to exceptional circumstances. I gather that this is a cyclical event and that it will not recur for three or four years. Recommendation No. 6 of the Cooke-Sprague Report, which I find here on page five of the Memorandum on that Report by the Irish Agriculture Organisation Society, says that in view of the strategic importance of dried skimmed milk powder in the evolution of the dairying industry it is recommended that the Government establish and maintain a price floor under skimmed milk powder at a stock-loss level of around £65 per ton.

I understand that discussions have taken place between the Department and those engaged in milk processing and that agreement is about to be reached whereby this minimum floor price, this break-even price, this stock-loss price level of around £65 per ton will be guaranteed. I understand a certain sum of money will be made available — whether by way of grant or loan I do not know—so that, when a situation occurs again such as that which occurred last May or June when the price dropped, there will be this fund which will be utilised to maintain the price of skimmed milk powder at this minimum level of £65 per ton. On the other hand, when the price would go beyond a certain level, the milk processing company would repay the amount drawn from the fund when the price was low. This is a very good idea. It was discussed as long ago as two years and I am pleased the American consultants have brought it forward again. I am also pleased that, in reply to a question I asked him a couple of weeks ago, the Minister announced that discussions had taken place and that a formula was being worked out.

Some Deputies referred to our external trading relations, particularly those with Britain, and certain suggestions were made in relation to the EEC. I have often heard it said, and we are led to believe, and the general opinion certainly seems to be that our farmers lag behind the Danes and the Dutch and other farmers in Western Europe. It is interesting to note, however, that butter production costs here in 1967 ran at £470 per ton whereas in the EEC countries butter production costs ran at £800 per ton and the butter which cost £800 to produce in these countries is being sold at £100 per ton on the export market. I challenge anyone to forecast how long any country or how long the EEC can continue selling at £100 per ton butter that costs £800 per ton to produce. By an extraordinary coincidence in yesterday's newspayers we read that a meeting of the Agricultural Ministers of the EEC had decided to take steps in regard to butter production in the Community countries. This, of course, is yet another argument in favour of our continuing to produce milk and continuing to encourage and assist our dairy farmers to produce milk as efficiently as possible. We are the lowest cost milk producer in Western Europe and we can continue in production when others go out. Another way of saying that is, of course, that our dairy farmers are getting the lowest price in Western Europe for milk produced for manufacturing purposes.

The Minister, speaking recently in the mini-Budget debate — he spoke for a couple of hours; it was the usual tirade and the usual crossfire and, as usual, it was highly publicised — tried to defend the penny per gallon increase granted in the Budget. He tried to argue that the income of the dairy farmer had increased this year; although yesterday, speaking on this very same subject of farmers' incomes and particularly those of dairy farmers, he admitted that costs had increased in the past 12 months. When I spoke on the mini-Budget some weeks ago I spelled out these increased costs in detail in the same way as I tried to put the dairying industry in its proper perspective. Certain newspapers — one in particular; it was not the Irish Press— did not consider the speech I made worthy of even one line. One of the ironies of debate here is that, if one starts to hurl abuse at a Minister, that will get the headlines in the morning papers.

And the Minister gets them as well.

I am wholly serious and wholly in earnest in what I am saying. I undertook a great deal of research in preparation for that debate. I do not mind; I refrain from the temptation to seek headlines in this debate by abusing the Minister. I make no apologies for what I say. If my speech is as dry as dust and if anyone is bored he need not listen to it.

Deputy Eugene Gilhawley brought in here the books the dairy farmers present to the creamery manager every morning and in those books the daily supply is recorded. Deputy Gilhawley proved from the returns of several farmers that the average price of milk received by the dairy farmer in 1968 is down by one penny per gallon in his area. I go even further. My investigations in Limerick — I defy contradiction on this — indicate that the average price per gallon in Limerick from 1st May — the time the skim was washed down the Maigue, the Mulcaire and the other rivers — until October was back 2d per gallon on 1967 prices. When one analyses the position it is easy to see how this occurred. Due to the skim milk débâcle many creameries were accepting only half the skim and therefore 50 per cent of the skim was no price at all. In the case of the 50 per cent accepted by the creamery the price offered was down by one penny per gallon in practically every case and, in some cases, by as much as 2d per gallon. I put the minimum loss on skim milk at one penny per gallon. In addition, on 1st July we had the increased Bord Bainne levy adding another five-eighths of a penny and the balance of the 2d is made up by increased costs of many kinds which dairy farmers and creameries have had to meet. The Minister comes along then and tries to prove that the penny per gallon on the first 7,000 gallons which he awarded in the supplementary Budget will compensate the dairy farmers for the losses they have sustained in 1968.

This, of course, is ridiculous. One penny per gallon on the first 7,000 gallons is only £29 and some shillings. Many of them will have to wait 12 months before they will receive the full £29. Strangely enough, the very small milk producers on whose behalf this penny on the gallon was supposed to be introduced will have to wait a full 12 months before they get the benefit of it and the very large milk producers who between 1st September and now will have supplied 7,000 gallons will get the full £29 3s. One penny a gallon on the first 7,000 gallons which was supposed to offset the losses sustained by the dairy farmers this year, is absolutely out of all reality and bears no relationship to it at all.

That does not mean that I disagree with the principle of a two-tier price system. I have spoken about this on a number of occasions here. The first time, I remember, the farmers, my friends and my neighbours, were picketing the gate of this House. The principle of the two-tier price system is a good one. I have already said that one penny per gallon is totally unrealistic and totally inadequate to help the small producers, those producing 7,000 gallons or under. It will not prevent the very large-scale milk producers from increasing their production. I do not agree that production should be limited. If the two-tier price system is to have any meaning at all, the maximum increase which should have been given on the first 7,000 gallons is 4d. That would have meant something to the small farmers. In view of the fact that the limit was being put at 7,000 gallons it should have been possible.

The two-tier price system calls to mind the late Mr. John Feely, God rest him. The Minister and my colleague Deputy Clinton paid tribute to the late Mr. Feely. I should like to endorse everything said in this House about him. I knew him very well for a long number of years. He sincerely believed in the small farmers, and in the preservation of family holdings, and his aim was to ensure the viability of the small dairy farms. The two-tier price system is his brain child.

It is not. It is not his brain child. That statement is incorrect

The two-tier price system was first put forward as far back as 1962 or 1963 by the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association.

I put it forward in this House in the early 50s, for the Deputy's information.

So far as I am concerned — and I am prepared to stand over it — it was the brain child of the late Mr. John Feely. I have made a note of a question trying to summarise what I have been saying in relation to the whole question of milk output. Can the Minister, the Department, the Government and we in Dáil Éireann agree with a policy to curtail milk production? Is there any justification for panic? I think there is not. There are a number of reasons for this. I believe we must continue to expand our dairying industry because a viable dairying industry is an absolutely necessary prerequisite for expanding our agricultural economy. The second reason why we should not attempt to curtail milk production is that our dairy farmers and our manufacturing units have proved by their performance over the past four or five years to be among the most efficient producers in Western Europe.

Furthermore, in relation to the question of the larger milk producers, slighting remarks have been passed from time to time. Is the large milk producer, who five or ten years ago had 15 cows and who now carries 40 or 50 cows on the same amount of land, because he has made the best use of the advisory services and the various other schemes available, and who through his own enterprise and ability is now able to carry double or treble the number of cows he normally carried, to be penalised now for his business enterprise and initiative? I do not think he should be. Of course, a colossal capital investment has been incurred by many dairy farmers in recent years in reorganising their milk production methods, in installing the most modern milking equipment, in erecting new-style cow sheds, and so forth. We should hear no more this cry of over-production and surplus milk.

While the performance of An Bord Bainne in our export markets has been outstanding since its foundation, I still believe, and all the information available indicates, that there is still considerable scope for increasing the export of dairy products. It has also been pointed out in this report of the survey carried out by two American consultants that there seems to be scope for greater efficiency in the processing of milk. This question of amalgamation and rationalisation as such is a broad one. It would be utterly impossible to go into all the details even if I had three hours to deal with it here. It has been generally recognised by all who studied the dairying industry, and particularly the creamery industry, that there is need for rationalisation and amalgamation. We have had five or six different surveys and studies of this very question.

I remember the first survey by the Department of Agriculture way back in 1962 or 1963. We then had Dr. Knapp. Then we had reports produced by the IAOS, by the ICMSA, by the NFA and by the Irish Creamery Managers Association. Then the IAOS took the matter a step further. They attempted to put this thing into practice and a considerable number of snags were encountered. The IAOS suggested 19 groupings. There were meetings held in various parts of the country and there was considerable opposition and a good deal of controversy. I am told that the Department of Agriculture and the IAOS did not see eye-to-eye at any stage in relation to this question of rationalisation and amalgamation of the creamery industry.

It would appear then that despite the fact that we had so many surveys carried out the Department decided to bring in Messrs. Cooke and Sprague, two eminent American consultants, and we find that the main recommendations made by those gentlemen merely confirm and are in fact broadly the same as the recommendation in the other reports which I have mentioned. They point out the urgency of proceeding with amalgamation; but I want to warn the Minister, as I presume he and his officials are now studying this Cooke-Sprague report and the whole question of amalgamation with a view to formulating new proposals, that it is vitally essential—I have not had an opportunity of studying the report except in a very condensed form and, therefore, I am not expressing a considered opinion on the views expressed by Messrs. Cooke and Sprague except in so far as they made recommendations which coincide with those of the other surveys—that when the new plans for amalgamation are being formulated, or more important still when they are being presented to the country, the pros and cons should be spelt out and the advantages and the disadvantages should be spelt out as clearly as possible and in language as simple as possible so that every dairy farmer will understand the implications.

I believe that one of the reasons why the IAOS ran into difficulty with their proposal for the 19 groupings was the fact that no dairy farmer was able to say what it meant to him, nor could he find the information despite all the documents that have been produced. I do not know the answer to the question which every dairy farmer asks when the subject of amalgamation or rationalisation comes up for discussion: "What is this going to mean to me? Does it mean that I will get a penny or twopence a gallon more for my milk?" It must be spelt out in money terms. Phrases like "break-even prices" and "loss profit ratios" mean nothing.

I understand that certain costings have been produced. It has been shown that with the larger unit a considerable saving can be effected, up to twopence a gallon in the case of butter production; but we must not lose sight of, and the Minister certainly must not lose sight of, the social implications of amalgamation. This is a very important factor. There is no use presenting a completed and finalised proposal and hoping that this will be rammed down the farmers' throats. It must be spelt out clearly. There must be due cognisance taken of the social implications. There are quite a number of social implications in relation to amalgamation and rationalisation. What provision is going to be made in the case of Section D of this Cooke-Sprague report, where it is pointed out that 53.7 per cent of the cows in this country are in herds of nine or less? How will we operate bulk milk collection by tanker from these dairy units? Does it mean that there will be further displacement of people from agriculture and redundancy in the existing creameries?

While it would appear that the question of the implementation of a programme of rationalisation is a matter of extreme urgency in so far as the future of the dairying industry is concerned, I want to say that I personally am not fully and absolutely convinced as yet and I certainly am not convinced of the urgency of a drastic programme of rationalisation. I know of numerous examples throughout the country where rationalisation is necessary and obvious but we must proceed carefully. We must spell out the advantages in simple language, in language the dairy farmer understands, what is going to be the increased profit to the dairy farmer, what increase in price will he get for his milk as a result of amalgamation.

Assuming then that it has been proved beyond all doubt that our dairy farmers can produce milk as efficiently as any other farmers in Western Europe and admitting that there is scope for improvement, for greater efficiency in the processing and finishing of our milk products, there is another factor that is vitally important. With an increased milk output, no matter how efficiently it is produced or at how low a cost, even in the case of first-class quality products, which I have already proved our dairying industry is producing, unless we have adequate markets and increased outlets for those products we will be up against serious trouble.

First of all, I believe, and I have stated this again and again in debates in this House, that there is room for a lot of improvement in so far as the home market for milk products is concerned. While within their terms of reference and with all the various limitations they have, the National Dairy Publicity Council have done as good a job as they could, I am convinced that the Council is just not good enough for the job it has to do. There is room for a good deal of imaginative thinking and of proper planning, room for a dynamic campaign to increase the consumption of milk and milk products here in Ireland.

In the Cooke-Sprague Report this question is gone into at length. These consultants confirm and state quite clearly that in their opinion the consumption of milk and milk products on the Irish market could be considerably increased. I do not agree with their recommendations as to how it should be done. In fact, they contradict themselves. It may be due to a certain amount of confusion, but in one section they would seem to recommend that the job of increasing consumption of dairy products on the home market should be given to An Bord Bainne and in another section they seem to suggest that this job should be given to the Dairy Disposal Company.

I do not mind who undertakes the task but, in the light of the successful experience that Bord Bainne have had in market promotion in Britain and in 54 other countries to which dairy products are being exported, in my view An Bord Bainne is a proper organisation to launch and to direct an intensive, dynamic sales promotion campaign in this country. The per capita consumption of butter in Ireland is among the highest in Western Europe but the per capita consumption of cheese here is one of the lowest, if not the lowest. There is room for imaginative thinking and for research into presenting milk for consumption in a more attractive form by means of various types of drink. There would seem to be considerable room for improvement here. I am not being destructive but I believe that, as constituted, the National Dairy Publicity Council is not geared to undertake this type of campaign.

Difficulties seem to be arising in the British market and I believe we are fast approaching the time when we will have to adopt a "get tough" policy with Britain. I have here figures given to me by the Minister last Tuesday week in the Dáil. It is interesting to note that for the latest year for which figures are available in relation to total imports of dairy products from different countries into the United Kingdom, while the sales of "Kerry-gold" butter have increased considerably and while our butter is commanding the second highest price in the British market, our total exports of butter to Great Britain in 1967 represented only 6.1 per cent of the total amount of butter imported into Great Britain; our cheese exports for the same period into Great Britain represented only 9.4 per cent of the total cheese imports into Great Britain. Now, the British Government, under pressure obviously from the National Farmers Union, are attempting to apply quota restrictions to cheese. Under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement of 1965, provision was made for increasing our exports of cheese to Britain. The extraordinary situation is, as I pointed out earlier, that our cheese is commanding in the British market a premium price second only to British home-produced cheese and there is increasing and growing demand for Irish cheddar cheese on the British market. Under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement of 1965 we could still, in 1969, increase our cheese exports to Great Britain by a couple of thousand tons without infringing the terms or conditions of that Agreement in any way. I hope the Government and the Minister will strenuously reject any attempt to restrict or to reduce our cheese exports or to prevent the British Government from giving us a small quota for cheese.

If necessary, we will have to adopt a policy of getting tough in the sense that, per head of the population, we are Britain's best customer for industrial products. On a comparison of the balance of trade between Britain and this country with that between Britain and other dairy exporting nations, there is no justification whatsoever for an attempt to reduce our small share of the British market for butter or cheese.

In regard to skim milk powder, we had 24.6 per cent of the British market; for whole milk powder, 15.5 per cent; for chocolate crumb, 99.9 per cent; for fresh cream, 95 per cent; for condensed milk, 15.1 per cent and for other products 7.2 per cent. There are certain products there for which there would appear to be little scope on the British market but in regard to butter and cheese, even under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, there is no justification for reducing our present exports to Britain; in fact, there is every argument for forcing the British Government to allow us an increased quota.

In so far as export markets other than Great Britain are concerned, the best hope would seem to be in the Bord Bainne proposal for the establishment of special processing plants in the Far East where milk and milk products would be reconstituted. I understand that this applies particularly to butter oil and milk powder. I understand there are technical difficulties in the way of direct exports, particularly of milk powder, to this region where, because of the climate and humidity, the products tend to deteriorate very rapidly but by having reconstitution plants at strategic points in these markets it would be possible to reconstitute the products and to prolong their life.

The Minister was asked for details of this plan. I want to be fair about this. I am not asking him, when replying to the debate, to give any information on these developments because, for obvious reasons of international marketing, we do not want to give any information to our competitors. I hope that Bord Bainne and the Minister and his Department will expedite this project.

Unfortunately, in relation to markets for other milk products we are running into difficulty, and this applies to the American market for chocolate crumb. I understand that there is a Government inquiry going on into chocolate crumb prices. The problem seems to have arisen because a considerable amount of inferior chocolate crumb was being dumped on the American market. This has been hitting our exports to the US as well as hitting other dairying countries. I hope when the inquiry has been held the matter will right itself. I believe also that there is a need to pay greater attention to research into the development of new products. There are two products in particular which seem to offer great possibilities, one is casein and the other is butter oil. One particular type of casein, acid casein, obviously has very great possibilities because the market is there and also because the processing plant is not very costly and relatively simple machinery is adequate. I understand that investigations are going on and that plans are being formulated with a view to developing this product for export. I have the greatest confidence in the ability of Bord Bainne to find outlets for all the milk and milk products we produce.

I should like to stress to the Minister the importance of ensuring that in 1969 there will not be a repetition of the deplorable situation in May and June last when millions of gallons of milk had to be poured down the drain. As Deputy Dillon observed last week at Question Time, in the underdeveloped nations millions of people are living at near starvation level, or many of them dying of starvation, because there is a serious shortage of protein foods. Surely with all the international exchange of ideas and all the international organisations, it should be possible to devise ways and means of ensuring that countries like ours, with the soil, climate and natural conditions and the ability to produce products like skim milk powder in abundance, could channel these products to these countries?

There is quite a lot that could be said about the dairying industry but because of the limitation on this debate I will leave it at that. However, I want to reiterate that my advice to dairy farmers is to take no notice of any alarms in regard to the over-production of milk. The best advice to give them is to continue to produce milk and to make their holdings and their methods of production as efficient as possible because the markets are there. The markets are adequate and can be developed to cope with any foreseeable increase in milk output. In view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Gibbons, is present I want to refer to something in which I know he is keenly interested, the question of co-operation. Today Deputy Murphy quoted the President of the NFA, Mr. T.J. Maher, in the address he delivered on 21st November, in which he advocated the idea of group farming. The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that group farming is the application of the basic principles of co-operation. Deputy Murphy indicated that he and the Labour Party are keenly interested in group farming. Normally, I do not make a habit of being egotistic but I am happy to say that I pioneered group farming in this country because in 1960 I helped to organise a group of farmers in my own parish. Unfortunately, that parish is in the constituency of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Deputy Gerry Collins.

After all your trouble.

There were no political implications there.

It was worth doing all the same.

This idea seems to be gaining momentum because the President of the NFA referred to it on television. In previous debates over recent years the Parliamentary Secretary has been speaking along much the same lines as I have been on this idea of co-operation.

That is right. I would love to join in again but I do not think I can.

Group farming involves an important principle nowadays. We hear a lot of talk about the small farmer, a lot of baloney and a lot of hypocrisy but——

Hear, hear.

——they are leaving the land at the rate of 10,000 per annum. When a practical attempt is made to help the farmers, either large or small, we rarely hear about it. Group farming is one method of doing this. It is a system which has many types of application. The group with which I have been associated for the last eight years comprises nine farmers. On previous occasions when this Estimate was being debated I have gone into detail about the performance and the achievement of this particular group, which has been featured on television and written up in farming journals not merely in Ireland but abroad. However, let us face it, with every day that passes the problem of preserving the small farmers' holdings is becoming greater and greater. I have always held, and I still hold, that the small farmers can be kept on the land in Ireland. The way to achieve this is by co-operation, or, as it is now being called, group farming.

I was interested to hear that the Irish Land Commission has recently initiated an experiment whereby instead of giving four distinct holdings to four migrants, they have given them a 200-acre farm which is being run on a partnership basis. The farm is being worked as one unit. I believe the answer to the problem, and the only hope for the preservation of the small family holdings in this country, is organisation. On a 200-acre holding it is possible to employ mechanisation and various other efficiency measures which it is not possible to employ on a small independent unit. I am keenly interested in the idea of group farming. I believe it has exciting possibilities. I hope the experiment which was initiated by the Land Commission will prove successful. I trust the Department which should, of course, be initiating these schemes, and which should be giving active encouragement to the promotion of this type of experiment, will take the necessary steps in this direction.

Last year I deplored the fact that the Minister did not make any reference to the role of co-operation in Irish agriculture in the future, and even in this 30-page script nothing is said about the possibility of the co-operation of five, six or 10 smallholders— maybe they are neighbours—who farm as a unit, and yet retain their independence and their individual ownership.

Deputy Corry stated today that there is vast scope for the application of this scheme. There was quite a lot of sense in certain things Deputy Corry said. He seems to have vast practical experience of the actual organisation of small processing industries in rural areas. I am taking what he said today to be true. I do not know the ramifications of the whole thing, but if his facts are correct, then there is hope for the survival of the small family farm. If a smallholder with five acres in some part of West Cork is able to return a gross of £1,200—I did not quite catch what line of production he was in—I believe that with the application of co-operative principles the small family holding can be made viable and can be preserved.

Hear, hear.

This should be a major aim in agricultural policy. Let me say that the only serious attempt ever made to tackle this serious social problem in rural Ireland was made by Deputy James Dillon, when he was Minister for Agriculture, with the introduction of the parish plan for agriculture. The parish plan for agriculture was the outstanding social concept of modern times. I said this before, that the more I study this whole question of rural life and the various psychological and social problems involved, the more I realise the application of the principles of the parish plan was the correct answer. Unfortunately, that opportunity was missed.

The modern idea is group farming, which is an extension of the general idea of the parish plan in agriculture. Without a proper specialist advisory service, it is impossible to have intensive agriculture or to have proper methods of co-operation. I had experience over eight years of contact with group farming, and one of the biggest difficulties we found was getting proper specialist advice. I remember the night a few years ago when a number of farmers decided to go into silage production. Seven had tractors, and two had not, and others had different types of machinery. The problem was how to work out an equitable costing arrangement whereby I would use my tractor and the Parliamentary Secretary would use his harvester and somebody else would use some other machinery and so on. We could not find a way of apportioning the costs equitably until a certain university professor spent two days with the group and finally arrived at an acceptable costing.

Could we get his name?

Unfortunately, he has left this country. He was Professor of Agricultural Engineering at University College, Dublin. I am not saying this in any derogatory fashion in relation to the competence or expertise of the existing advisory service, but I believe we look upon the agricultural instructors as being somewhat the same as GPs in the medical line. They need specialist advice.

In this context may I say we recently obtained an excellent publication from the Agricultural Institute, "The First Ten Years." The big objection I have to it is that the man who was deeply involved in the initial stage of it, Deputy James Dillon, is omitted from the personalities on the front page; otherwise, this is an excellent production. It contains a considerable amount of information.

Deputy Foley said here earlier that today people do not realise the amount of valuable research work the Agricultural Institute have undertaken, and that people are being critical. I have been critical of the Agricultural Institute, and I am critical of them today for one glaring omission. The Agricultural Institute, despite the fact that it has a Rural Economy Division, has economic test farms and has undertaken research into various economic problems and rural sociological problems, has done no research whatsoever into the application of co-operative principles to practical farming. In other words, no research of any description has been undertaken into the possibilities of group farming. Something should be done about it before all the small farmers have left the land. There is so much to talk about in this Estimate that it is difficult to be brief, but I shall try.

You are only three and a half hours at it now.

I have just realised that. I want to be put on record as saying that I deplore the fact that the Estimate for the most important Department in this State should be sandwiched into the last couple of hours of this session.

(Cavan): The Government wasted all the time on election ballyhoo and the referendum. We spent four or five months of 1968 trying to prevent the Government from rigging the electoral system and we now have to curtail this debate which is so important.

The Deputy should not spoil a very good contribution.

I deplore the fact that there should be a limitation on this debate. In view of Deputy Allen's intervention I cannot but place on record my strong feelings in regard to this. We have an Estimate here for our most important industry.

The Deputy said he would not be long.

It is vitally important that every Deputy should have an opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. It will be 12 months before we will have an opportunity of discussing agriculture again and it has been 14 months since the last debate on agriculture took place.

(Cavan): It suits the Minister to have a short debate.

I think it would be very beneficial to the Minister and to everybody else as well.

To make the story complete, I wish to point out that the Minister himself is not here. He challenged us here very aggressively a couple of weeks ago when speaking on the mini-Budget to come in here and fight it out. I have been here since 10.55 a.m. this morning and the Minister has only been here for ten minutes during that time.

The Deputy is better on farming than on politics. He should stick to agriculture.

The next matter to which I wish to refer apart from the dairying industry is——

There is nothing else in Limerick.

——the bacon industry which is one of the most important industries in the country, particularly in County Limerick. Deputy M. P. Murphy dealt at length with this industry this morning. He condemned the modern ideas and developments of pig fattening stations. I do not agree with Deputy Murphy on this. While I realise that difficulties have been encountered in a number of cases where co-operative pig production units have been established, there are other examples of where these have been very efficient and one of the most outstanding ones which comes to mind is the Glen of Aherlow Pig Producing Co-operative which was pioneered by local initiative and by local community effort.

This has been an outstanding success and I had an opportunity recently of studying the figures for that particular enterprise as well as the returns from other co-operative pig stations. The basic problem seems to be one of management. It would appear that where a co-operative pig fattening station is successful, there is always good management.

And good hygiene.

Certainly, one will go hand in hand with the other. In cases where problems have arisen and where the returns have not been good, there has been high incidence of disease. I believe that this basic idea of co-operative pig fattening stations is the best method of ensuring adequate pig production in this country and I sincerely hope that strenuous efforts will be made to tackle this problem of increased pig production. This is necessary if we are to maintain the existing bacon factories in production and to ensure employment.

There are many other factors about which I should like to speak but I shall conclude now and give someone else the opportunity of speaking.

Deputy O'Donnell must be out of ammunition by now. One would think there was nobody in the country but him. The most striking factor of this speech of the Minister's is where he states:

In my speech on the Estimate for Agriculture in May last year I referred to the setting up of a group to examine the various forms of State expenditure on agriculture with the object of ensuring that we are getting the best value for the money spent and that, in particular, an equitable proportion goes to the smaller farmer. The report of the group engaged in this review is now almost completed and I expect it to be in my hands within a few months.

This is something that Irish agriculture has been crying out for for some considerable time and I am glad to see, at long last, that the Minister is having some success and I hope that he will give relief when it is possible.

We have got to the stage in agriculture where farmers in general are studying agriculture and they realise that the amount of money — £79,329,000—that is being spent on agriculture this year, is sufficient but there is the feeling in the country that farmers, and especially small farmers, are not getting the return for the money and one must always remember that two-thirds of the farmers of this country have valuations of less than £30.

I wish to refer this evening to some matters affecting my own constituency but, first of all, I should like to say that, from listening to Deputy Murphy, one got the impression that the Minister had advocated wheat growing last year, more so than in any other year, for which moneys for the surpluses were not readily available. These surpluses occurred on account of the extraordinary harvest we had this year and to the fine weather in general. From listening to speakers of both Opposition Parties, one would think that they predicted the good summer before it came at all.

About two months ago, Deputy Murphy was invited to Wexford by Macra na Feirme to speak on behalf of the Labour Party but he did not turn up. The reason was that he had no policy to talk about.

Deputy Allen's contribution on that night was a sham. Mishaps like the one that happened that night are taking place on the roads every day.

This debate has been going on since last night and the only two people who contributed to it from the Labour Party were Deputies Tully and Murphy. Granted, there is another one coming in now.

And an intelligent one, too, bear in mind.

Anyway, they had no policy, and this morning the Deputy produced a white document which, as far as I could see, was the speech of the President of the NFA to the annual general meeting.

Perhaps, it was Gerry Fitt's speech.

Either that or the NFA speech: one or the other. I think we are getting away from the basic principles. The drainage of agricultural land is the first basic principle of agriculture. It would be most interesting to know the average output per acre of our land. There are quite a substantial number of productive farmers in this country at the moment but a lot remains to be done. Even in my constituency, where we have an excellent band of men working in the Land Project office, there was a back-log of work up to this year. I think they got some help in order to get it completed. Nevertheless, the amount of land they survey every year and the amount of land they drain every year shows a wide gap and something must be done to narrow it.

Farmers in Wexford who, up to a few years ago, had been in tillage production swung into milk. I am not blaming the price of wheat but I think the comparative price of barley and wheat is completely wrong. There has been quite a substantial swing back to wheat but something will have to be done about congestion at points of intake. We have seen farmers waiting outside mills for three and four days with their wheat. If farmers could have their own dryers, with the assistance of a better type of grant, or some other system, it would alleviate the congestion at intake points. The mills certainly will not be in a position to take in wheat and store it or to put up dryers capable of taking it in large enough quantities. The only solution is for the farmer to dry it and he would need an incentive grant for that purpose.

I have had numerous complaints from a number of constituents about the price of oats. A number of farmers informed me that merchants will not offer even 1/- a bushel for oats.

Can the Deputy get me a few bushels at that rate?

I can get the Parliamentary Secretary 100 bushelling 43 and they are not offered even 1/- a bushel for it.

I shall talk to the Deputy later.

That is the position in South Wexford. Something must be done to alleviate the position.

When the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Haughey, advised farmers 18 months ago to hold on to their cattle until the following spring, the Opposition at that time asked where would the farmers get the money to feed them over the winter period and raised all kind of objections to Deputy Haughey's advice. Time proved that that advice was sound. Prices improved very considerably the following spring and have held their level ever since. This year, cattle exports have been quite substantial.

I come now to the beef subsidy. Consider the farmer who is getting approximately 1/- per gallon for his milk and maybe £25 subsidy per cow. The farmer is now asked to produce beef at a subsidy of £8 per cow. Thousands of small farmers have not more than two cows. The Minister could put a ceiling at the other end and take the money from the upper bracket and possibly bring in the first two cows. That would encourage the smaller farmer to go into beef production. What is the position of the farmer who has 20 cows and is supplying milk to the creamery or is wholesaling milk and who wishes to rear calves and to produce beef with ten of those cows? Is it possible for him to get subsidy on the ten cows and still produce milk for the creamery with the other ten cows? A great many farmers have been inquiring about this and I would be grateful to the Minister if he could give us that small detail when he replies.

There was reference by the Minister to the setting up of a board for the promotion of cattle exports. That is something we have been seeking for some considerable time. There has been a feeling that enough was not being done abroad to encourage exports to countries other than Great Britain. I certainly welcome this new board and I hope it will get moving as quickly as possible.

I have been asked to raise here the problem of sheep scab in North Wexford. It is particularly prevalent in that area and I believe the Department are not doing enough to tackle the problem. It is a difficult problem. There are farmers who have dipped their ewes 11 times this year and they have not yet been cured. It would be out of the question to dip ewes at the moment when they are heavy in lamb and the weather is turning frosty. The scab has been spreading rapidly. I have been told that dipping is not sufficient; it can cure the disease but, because it has been spreading so rapidly in North Wexford, dipping does not seem to be the solution to the problem. Thousands of sheep are affected. I believe it originated in the mountain areas; the farmers did not get all their sheep down at dipping time and I believe that is the reason why the disease is now so prevalent. It is a very serious problem and I appeal to the Minister to give it all the attention he can command. One farmer has 450 ewes. He brought in 50 recently out of which four or five were affected and now the whole flock are affected. It is a terrible scourge.

The Minister referred to vegetable production. This year the farmers in Kilmore who produced onions found themselves in the unhappy position that they could get only £32 a ton for their produce on the Dublin market. The reason for the low price was because the Department had allowed onions to be imported and stockpiled. Last year these farmers in Kilmore got anything from £70 to £90 a ton. I believe our own producers are entitled to protection. Some 500 tons of onions were produced in the area this year and I am informed that a considerable quantity of these onions was dumped because of the stockpiling of imported onions in Dublin. Home producers could not sell their produce because those who sell them for them would not deal with them until they had disposed of the imported onions. These farmers cannot sell anywhere else except through the Dublin market. I understand the Department has now given a guarantee and I hope a similar situation will not occur next year.

Over the last few years a great number of small farmers who used to produce blackcurrants have had to go out of production because there was no market available. The price had fallen by two-thirds and it was no longer economic to produce blackcurrants. Lately the price has increased a little but the problem now is that, if blackcurrants are to be produced economically, irrigation is vitally important and irrigation can cost anything up to £500 an acre. No small farmer could undertake such an outlay and I suggest some kind of grant in the region of, say, £150 an acre would help these farmers to undertake production again. I hope the Minister will consider the matter sympathetically.

Deputy O'Donnell spoke about group farming. Those who should implement group farming are the county committees of agriculture. Of course, some of these committees are an irresponsible lot, to be quite honest, and some of the members are not practical farmers at all. Some have no knowledge whatsoever of farming. Responsibility for forming group schemes should, I think, be given to the instructors. Such schemes would be well worthwhile. Such schemes will have to be implemented if the small farmer is to survive.

I referred earlier to the Land Project and I want to go back to it for a moment. In relation to the grants paid at present one must certainly take into consideration that they were increased two years ago from £30 to £45 per acre but, immediately that happened, the contractors put up their prices, and now we are back in the same position as we were when the grant was £30 per acre, as drainage is costing anything in the region of £25 to £30 per acre along with the grant.

If the Agricultural Credit Corporation would make moneys available for this purpose at a reduced rate, we would have more land drained, and more work done by the Land Project, and we would not be wasting time because I know that some farmers— and I suppose it was the same down through the years although the percentage is not too big—will not go ahead with the work unless they get money out of the grant. Considering the amount of land to be drained, and the rate at which it is being drained at the moment, it will take 100 years to do it all.

(Cavan): It will take another few by-elections.

We do not make any false promises.

(Cavan): Not half.

I am glad to see that at long last we are having a reappraisal of how the money is being spent. I hope it will be published soon because, generally speaking, farmers are getting to the stage where they would like to know before they produce an article what they will get for the end product. Cattle possibly are the greatest example of this. If the farmers are to produce store cattle or fat cattle in the future, and if the Minister's scheme is to be a success, they want to know what the price per cwt will be for the animal when they come to sell it.

I can quite understand that to implement such a scheme the money may have to be taken out of the £80 million and some other scheme may have to be knocked on the head but, if the farmers knew what price they would get for the end product, they would have no hesitation in going into the production of the article.

I am very glad to hear that Deputy T. O'Donnell feels very happy about the milk situation in the future, so Deputy Coughlan can rest easy in Limerick where they are milk producers. Deputy O'Donnell assured the milk producers of Limerick that there is no fear for the future. One must not be too sure of oneself. I have an article here in the European Community Bulletin of April, 1968, which deals with the butter situation in the EEC at the moment. It says:

The common market organisation for milk was introduced in November, 1964. Last July the Council fixed the common prices, which were scheduled to come into effect on April 1. Stocks of butter were estimated at 150,000 tons on April 1 this year. The surplus for the 1968-69 season is expected to reach 900,000 tons, that for 1969-70 130,000 tons, and it would be likely to continue to grow by 40,000 tons each year. The decision to sell cut-price butter to hospitals and barracks, and the related measures, should decrease the surplus by 140,000 tons this season. The subsidies involved will cost the Farm Fund $250 million in 1968-69, rising to an estimated $350 million a year for the period 1969 to 1972.

So, in my opinion, the situation within the Common Market does not look too rosy. The Minister said the position in Great Britain is not too healthy.

In connection with cheese, the sooner some satisfactory solution can be found to the problem in the export of cheddar cheese the sooner the milk producing farmers in Wexford who supply milk to the cheese factory, which exports quite a considerable amount of cheddar cheese, would be in a position to know where they are going.

I welcome the increase in the twotier price system because although one penny does not seem to be a lot, the total amount of money involved is quite substantial. If the small farmers are to be encouraged to stay on the land milk is one of the many items they can produce readily at a low cost. Milk farmers in general, especially in the south of Ireland are, in my estimation, damn lazy. Possibly some people may not agree with me about this but the counties Limerick, Kerry, Cork and Clare are supposed to be creamery areas——

What about Dublin?

——and they work for four or five months of the year.

The Deputy had a bad guide in these locations.

This is a Leinster tillage man now.

(Cavan): You drove them all mad down there. They did not know what they were doing when you were down.

I think everyone, on all sides of the House, agrees that there is no hard and fast solution to the flight from the land. The man who will come up with that solution will be very welcome.

There is little else to say except to compliment the Minister. In so far as the farming dispute is concerned, we would all welcome a solution to the problem and the solution rests with the farmers at the moment. I am glad to see that Deputy Clinton at long last agrees, according to today's Irish Times anyway—they never misquote anybody of course, least of all Deputy Clinton I am sure—that until the farming organisations get together there can never be a solution to this problem. It is not so long ago since I heard him saying different.

(Cavan): There are a number of interesting items on today's papers.

That is one interesting one from my point of view anyway because he changes his mind so often.

(Cavan): Poor old Taca is gone. Somebody told me that is where the Minister is, away at the wake of Taca.

Deputy Allen; Deputy Fitzpatrick will get an opportunity to contribute.

(Cavan): I might.

I certainly welcome the situation in which at last Fine Gael have seen the light and have said to the farmers to get together because they have been the leading light in the effort to try to divide the farming community for some considerable time. I hope to see in the near future, especially in the season of goodwill, farming organisations getting together and solving their differences. I am quite sure that the Minister and the Taoiseach and their colleagues in the Cabinet will have no hesitation in meeting the farming community when the farming organisations have put their own house in order.

I want to say a final word in connection with the Agricultural Institute. We have two branches of that dynamic institute in my constituency. One of them is in Johnstown Castle and the other is in Clonroche. In so far as Johnstown Castle is concerned many things are being done there. Deputy Gibbons would agree with me in this. It is Government money they are spending and they are supposed to be in the limelight in so far as the agricultural community is concerned but I never heard of farmers skulling bullocks in the middle of winter. Thirty cattle were skulled down there last winter or the winter before and they lost 14 of them. Fourteen of them died because the cattle were skulled at the wrong time of the year.

That is a good advertisement for the institute.

The Deputy wants corrective action taken.

Yes, I want corrective action taken.

(Cavan): The Deputy is so critical he is nearly a mini-Craig.

I have some practical knowledge of farming which I am sure the Deputy has not.

(Cavan): I am not being critical of Deputy Allen. I admire him more than he thinks.

We have all the practical farmers on this side of the House and Deputy Allen is one of them.

And some from Ballyfermot, I see.

There are no farmers on the other side. We have 25 or 30 in our Party.

We will let Deputy Allen continue.

I am quite sure Deputy Dowling represents the housewives of Ballyfermot. Before I sit down I want to explain something to Deputy Dowling before he gets up. It is in connection with the wheat situation. It concerns the amount of homegrown wheat which the millers are putting in the bread. As I understand it, legislation does not allow any more than 75 per cent of homegrown wheat to be put in bread at the moment. Legislation should certainly be introduced in this House—and I think it would be welcomed on all sides—to ensure that at least 80 to 85 per cent of homegrown wheat would be put in bread. I suppose the problem would then arise that the loaf would be smaller and Deputy Dowling's housewives would be complaining. The loaf would be smaller in size but it would be the same weight. I want to explain this to the city Deputies.

(Cavan): Deputy Dowling told me he is only concerned with budgies.

I hope the Minister will introduce legislation in the near future to solve this problem. If the levy had been collected from the farmers this year it would have been 10/- a barrel. Remember that everybody is a taxpayer and this is a thing that the Opposition seemingly do not remember. They voted against the taxes being implemented so that surplus wheat could be subsidised and sold back to the farmers at the same price as feeding barley. If they come into my constituency during the by-election I will tell the farmers of County Wexford that the Opposition voted against taxes, against the mini-Budget provisions, that would allow the Government to sell back over-produced wheat to the farmers at feeding barley price, and also the penny for the milk.

(Cavan): You will not let us into the constituency.

We will let you in after Christmas.

(Cavan): You are keeping us out.

You people have so many candidates down there now that my colleague on your side of the House does not know where he is.

(Cavan): Move the writ and we will show you where you are.

And they are not all under fifty.

Not by any means.

Seeing that our time is limited to approximately twelve hours for this debate on our greatest industry and seeing that one individual saw fit to occupy one-quarter of that time in devoting himself to the industry generally, failing to consider that other people had a contribution to make, I have to be as brief as possible in order to stay within the realms of charity. On such an Estimate as this we should speak of the foundation on which the industry should have been erected rather than indulge in the diversions to which we had to listen—I had not because I would not—for the last three and a half hours. In my charity, I have to be as brief as possible and, therefore, will confine myself to those matters that most affect the constituents I represent.

The Minister, in his whole approach to our greatest industry, has set about creating a great deal of trouble for himself. He set about the division of the farming community, in which he failed hopelessly, and he then set about courting their patronage by word rather than deed. While he spoke in one manner he acted in the opposite manner. If the Minister were sincerely anxious to solve the problems which beset the agricultural industry he would gather around him in a friendly atmosphere the people directly concerned in that industry instead of antagonising them and trying to separate them and to set one against the other. He has failed completely in this attempt.

Now it is clear that he treats this House with the same contempt as he has treated the farming community. He came in here for ten or 12 minutes to deliver 30 pages of a Civil Service speech, gave us a whole harangue of figures which meant absolutely nothing and ignored the House from that minute to this. Whether he is at a funeral or a wake, I do not know. This is the place where he should be. He has the impertinence to send in junior Ministers to take advice.

The shadow Minister for Agriculture.

Deputy Allen is not a shadow Minister for anything because there is not enough of his political carcase there to cast a shadow.

(Cavan): Is he a shadow or a contender?

Am I not good enough for the Deputy?

I have not reflected on the Parliamentary Secretary's presence.

I am taking the Deputy up on it, all the same.

I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is always open and amenable to suggestions——

Flattery will get you nowhere.

——and most cooperative, not like some of the members on the Front Bench.

Who shall be nameless.

Indeed, their names are all over the 26 Counties and they were well named on 16th October, and branded. However, this all goes to show the farming community what the Minister thinks is good for the industry—the runaway tactics, sticking his head in the sand, the effort to divide and conquer. As I have said, I want to address myself to the industry which concerns my constituency. Forgetting the benefits derived from surplus milk whether in the form of whole milk, skim milk or powdered milk and the 3½ hours spent in talking about things that could never happen, I want to apply myself to a matter that can be of benefit not alone to the small farmer but to the industrialist and to the skilled and unskilled industrial worker. I have in mind the greatest facet of agriculture, namely, the bacon industry. This industry is of the greatest importance because of the employment it provides and its above-average export market. I want the Minister to take notice of the importance of this industry. He told us in his introductory speech that the pig population is increasing, that prices have increased and that everything is going as it should and better than was expected. He told us exactly the same last year and his predecessor, the year before, told us exactly the same thing.

I want to remind him that his figures, which were obtained, I am sure, through the Civil Service—the Merrion Square approach—it may be the Ballyfermot approach next year— are not in complete agreement with the figures given by people who are most closely connected with the industry. We must take into consideration that daily there is very large scale smuggling of pigs into the country. Anybody who has any connection with the trade has no doubts about that.

You mean with the smuggling trade or with the bacon trade?

My esteemed friend, we in this Party have always been associated with everything that is clean, pure and handsome.

That about takes in everything.

Like the handsome bit of bacon that you will be delving into on December 25th. The same cannot be said for some of the people on those benches, and some of the front liners into the bargain. Their hands have not been too clean.

I am losing the trend. Why will they not get a Christmas dinner like me?

I am talking about smuggling and the things associated therewith.

(Interruptions.)

I want now to quote from a person of repute, the chairman of the Pigs and Bacon Commission. In his report he suggested that by providing a more reliable system of pricing related to feeding stuffs costs, and removing the fear that increasing production would depress prices, conditions could be created which would enable producers to expand their output in confidence. He put his finger on the problem which faces the bacon industry and that is the costs and costings generally of bacon production. The Minister should apply himself to costings in the bacon industry. He has allowed the prices for feeding stuffs to be "gangsterised" by certain people in that line because the Department's figures show the differing prices of those pig feeding stuffs and that there is a wide variation in different parts of the country. Farmers in Dungarvan pay £34 10. a ton for pig fattening meal while the same meal is sold in Castlebar and Athlone for £40 a ton, in Wexford for £38 and in Kilkenny for £35 10. In Dungarvan sow and weaner meal costs £37 a ton but in the two western towns already mentioned, where the Department have been making a big drive to increase pig production, the same meal varies from over £40 a ton to £44; it is £44 in Castlebar and £42 per ton in Athlone. In an article in the Irish Times the writer stated:

Until some rational price structure for pig feed is introduced the schemes which have recently been introduced by the Department to increase pig production will have very little effect; despite the grant for sows and fattening units being doubled in the west, the farmers there still hold memories of 1965 as long as there is a £7 (19 per cent) difference in the price of feed between two areas of the country, to their disadvantage.

How in the name of goodness can we have anything like an equity of price for pig production when a situation like this is allowed, with such a differential in prices between one producer and another? It cannot be done and until the Minister stabilises the prices of feed stuffs, it will be very difficult if not impossible, to encourage pig rearing and bacon production. That is fundamental. You can talk about piggery grants, sow farrowing grants, bacon factory improvement grants and so on, but until you go from the bonham up to the day it is turned out— the boy from Ballyfermot would know nothing about bonhams, he might know something about crubeens on a Saturday night and he is showing the jowls of it——

A political warble fly.

You are a bit of a bloodsucker yourself but soon you will get your answer in Ballyfermot. However, this is fundamental and the advisers who have been telling the Minister how to handle the bacon trade should find out what exactly is wrong with the industry. The figures for killings have been falling, despite what the Minister said. He has never yet mentioned that 2,000 pigs came over the Border every week. Were it not for those 2,000 pigs you would have at least one or two factories closing down. For the Minister's information I want to quote again the chairman of the Pigs and Bacon Commission where he says in reference to the year 1967:

The year had been difficult and unsatisfactory. Killings at 1,445,590 head were 12 per cent below the figure for the previous year, and were the lowest since 1960.

That is despite the fact that the Minister and his advisers have been telling us there is no need to worry about the the bacon industry. Further on in the chairman's report it is stated that:

The total number of pigs of all classes purchased for slaughter by licensed curers in 1967 was 1,445,590 or 12 per cent below the figure of 1,637,134 in 1966. The amount paid for the pigs purchased by licensed curers in 1967 was £25,623,320 compared with £27,307,660 in 1966. In addition to pigs purchased on their own account licensed curers killed during the year 7,970 pigs for farmers and others. In 1966 these killings amounted to 7,718 head. In 1967 authorised pork exporters purchased 9,100 pigs approximately, mainly for export in carcase form. After reaching a record level of 1.8 million head in 1965, killings declined in 1966 to 1.6 million and the contraction continued into 1967. The total kill in that year of 1.4 million was the lowest recorded since 1960.

Dissertation on roast pig.

These are the figures and the statements of the chairman of the Pigs and Bacon Commission, which cannot be disputed, despite the evasive and misleading answers that have been given here by the Minister and his predecessor to questions which we have put down with regard to this industry.

Without holding up the time of this House, as some Deputies have set out to do, I should like to impress on the Minister one or two matters of importance about this trade. We must guarantee, in advance, to the farmer a price for the finishing of his pig. This guarantee should not be like the one given in regard to food prices, where the difference between Dungarvan, Castlebar and Athlone is £7 and £8 a ton in the cost of feeding stuffs. I do not know how the Minister or his officials can tolerate this situation for one moment because if they had the industry at heart the first thing they would do would be to make the production of bacon attractive to the farmer. The only way to make it attractive is to make it pay. How it can pay with these variations in the prices of foodstuffs is beyond me, but the Minister has closed his eyes to the situation. I do not know who is getting what out of the price differences between Athlone, Castlebar and Dungarvan; but somebody is, and it is not the farmer who is producing the pig for the factory. If the Minister wants to put this industry into a viable position, which it is not now, he should rectify that anomaly, because the longer it goes on the worse it becomes.

On top of that the Minister must guarantee the price. There is a variation in price every day of the week. The prices at the different bacon factories are published in the daily press three days a week, and seldom if ever do the prices of all the bacon factories coincide. The reason, of course, is that there is such a scarcity and there is so much smuggling over the Border every week that they are all trying to grab what they can in order to keep their factory open. This is a problem the Minister has to tackle.

The Minister must also go further afield to seek outlets for the finished article. We in the Labour Party were laughed to scorn when we parsed and analysed the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement and forecast the repercussions it would have. We saw the foundation on which it was laid, that it was absolutely fluid, and that it would end as it has ended now—and it did not take a Cassandra to forecast this. We were the only people to point out to the Government and to the then Minister the faults and the defects in this Agreement. Unfortunately, we were proved right. Mr. Wilson, at one whim, cast the whole thing to the four winds of Heaven. The result was that the Taoiseach had to go cap in hand to London. Indeed, there was no necessity for him to go because we all knew in advance what the result would be. Like the drowning man, they will grasp at anything that passes their way.

I shall try to curtail what I have to say although I could spend five or six hours on the various facets of this industry. There is an enormous demand for carcase beef not alone on the British market but on the American market. We are exporting from Limerick in a big way; we could do it in a bigger way, but I believe the incentives are not there which should be there for the export of dressed beef. We all know the futility of tieing ourselves to the British market. We have pointed that out time and time again. There was a time when we used to hear from those benches: "Blow up their ships". "Burn everything but their coal". All that ballyhoo has been silenced, and now we are putting our hands in our pockets and giving Britain a free loan of £25 million, no interest charge. We will pass on that interest charge to the taxpayers of our own land. The ordinary worker, through his cigarettes or his stout, will pay this interest. Instead of putting our heel on John Bull, we are now taking him by the hand and pulling him out of the mess he is in. It is a great change from the days of "Wrap the Green Flag Round Me".

I want to impress on the Minister the importance of these two sectors of agriculture. I could go on and cover the whole agricultural field but, as I have said, in charity I must leave a bit for somebody else. I do not want to be like the boy and the nuts. It is a very bad philosophy. For that reason, I hope the Minister will be located between now and Christmas time, that the postman will find him somewhere around Donegal. Maybe he will be in Bundoran taking some sea breezes and fresh air in an effort to clear his befogged outlook on the Department he controls. Wherever he is I hope the views on his Department will reach him and that he will consider what has been said. I hope he will remember one thing and one thing only: despite the figures and despite all he has said in these 31 pages, the fact remains that the people who get a living out of agriculture are dissatisfied and "dissatisfied' is a very mild word but I suppose we have to be mild when facing the festive season. Despite all the nonsense read here last night by the Minister, he should bear in mind the fact that the people whom he has tried to divide and the people whom he scorned not so very long ago and whose patronage he is now trying to succour verbally, but not by action, have won and beaten him and I hope this has taught him a lesson.

Bearing these things in mind, I shall conclude my contribution and I hope that I have not held up the intellectual from the Ballyfermot region who is coming after me. That will be something worth listening to.

Coming from a constituency, which is mainly an agricultural one, I wish to say a few words on this Estimate. It is well known that this country above all others has to depend mainly on agriculture and it has been felt down through the years that, since Fianna Fáil came to power, they did not give enough consideration to and concentrate upon the agricultural industry.

Quite a lot was said about what had to be done to start industry in the towns and about the tourist build-up and so on but I am convinced that there should have been far more emphasis on agriculture. If this had been done we would not have the flight from the land that is now taking place, even from good counties. Since 1956, 109,000 people have left the land. That should not happen in a country with a climate such as ours and with the success of our crops, where they are properly handled. Certainly, there should not be the disregard for work on the land that has crept in among the agricultural community. Naturally, we will have some poor seasons but nobody will put the blame for these on the Government. At the same time, we believe that the things which really mattered were neglected. The poultry industry, for instance, is at a very low ebb today and we have great difficulty in persuading people to go into the pig industry.

There is great difficulty, too, in many parts of the country in getting people to grow any farm produce except the basic minimum that is needed to keep the home going and some of them are not even doing that because they can often buy the produce cheaper. The real kernel of the problem is that we have no proper marketing facilities for our produce. If there are surpluses in certain crops, there is no way of absorbing them. That, in my experience, is one of the reasons that prevents people from going into agriculture. I know this from experience because I work on the land myself. Not so very long ago the people marched from every part of the country to Dublin and we witnessed one of the biggest parades that we had in Dublin for a long time. It was fortunate that everything went off so quietly on that particular occasion.

That parade was due to the fact that the then Minister did not meet the farmers as he should have done. Since then, we have had a change in the ministry but we are convinced that the rift still exists and many hard working people are asking themselves what is wrong when the able representatives of the farming community cannot reach agreement with the Minister.

There should be an open door to these people and the Minister should be able to say to them that they should come in and discuss the matter from A to Z. If it was not finished in one day it would be finished in two or three days. We know from experience and from meetings that have taken place that these people are sincere and dedicated, that they are doing a job not for what they can get out of it but for what they can do for the farmers. I appeal to the Minister, seeing that this debate is going on in the closing stages of this year, to get this matter settled once and for all.

There was almost a rift in the Government recently when the Taoiseach made one statement and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries made another relating to the North but I believe that no matter what differences the Taoiseach and the Minister may have in that way they should come together and decide on getting this matter concerning the farmers settled.

Farming is an occupation that the people of this country love but they need encouragement to follow it up. The Government should decide on giving guaranteed prices to the people who produce crops on their farms. Without this, the people will not work as they would like to work. In good counties, of course, there will be guaranteed prices. That does not arise in the west of Ireland and it is in those types of counties that every encouragement should be given because of the emigration drain. If something is not done immediately to arrest the flow of people from those areas it will be too late.

There was a time when the farmer's wife in this country was able to run the home on the price she got for eggs, fowl and pigs. That day is gone. Eggs can now be marketed at 1/- a dozen. Considering the high cost of feedingstuffs and the time and labour involved then, even if she received 2/- a dozen for the eggs, it would not pay her.

Recently I asked about the subsidy on the beef cow or on the cow that is going to calve. It is applicable only to the farmer who is not selling milk to the creamery. That is a problem which we shall always have until this or some other Government decide to do what they should do and what is right and proper in this case. I found that the one thing that encouraged people on bad farms was the subsidy on the calf and, also on the mountain farm, the milk subsidy which they would get out of the cow. They were sure from the word "go" that the cow would yield some money.

The position now is that a person with a small farm and four or five cows will get an increase of one penny on the gallon of milk which he sends to the creamery while his neighbour, who may not be free to milk the cows and to send it to the creamery, and who decides to keep eight cows with sucking calves will receive a cheque for £48 in respect of six of those eight cows. He is still better off than the small farmer who sends his milk to the creamery. I always say that every smallholder should be given a subsidy on the calf. If it is confined to the first five cows on every farm it would mean that some money would go into every man's home and that every man would have a chance of an equal share of it. The danger in the heifer scheme is that the man who can well do without the money will come off best because he can afford to put in extra heifers and to let them calve and then he has good young cows for fattening up again.

The Minister said more money is being spent on the land reclamation scheme. That is good. It is a very important scheme, especially in SligoLeitrim where there is a good deal of low-lying, sodden and heavy land.

The smallholders scheme, introduced not so very long ago, is cutting across this other scheme now. The £8 a cow is more or less cutting across it for the reason that a farmer has to make up to £700 to qualify under this scheme. He can now go back to the dry cow instead of producing a greater amount of milk.

A strong deterrent in relation to the land reclamation scheme is that many people have difficulty in getting their grant paid to them and have to go to the county council about it and then maybe to their Teachta Dála and the Department and they decide that it is the last time they will have anything to do with it. If an inspector discovers that a farmer has done a reasonably good job he should not be tied to a few inches in depth or in width. The work is hard. I should not like to see people held too rigidly to the rules provided a good effort is made to do the job.

I must thank the Minister and the Department for a substantial local improvements grant to County Leitrim. It will bring about quite an amount of drainage work. Some good plots of land will be drained which otherwise would not be dealt with.

Considering how badly land is needed for the extension of existing holdings we should be careful to ensure that useful land will not be taken over for afforestation purposes. If a small farm is being taken over by, say, the Forestry Division or the Land Commission we should always ask ourselves if the land could usefully be added to that of some local farmer to enlarge his holding. Recently, I met two hard-working farmers who had rented a farm for 40 years and had it in good condition. They went out one morning to discover a notice posted up outside by the Forestry Division to the effect that it was due for planting.

In an area in which farms are so small and at a time when so much emphasis is laid on protecting the small farmer in the West the Government should, I think, move in and say that this land must be given to the small farmers in the area who are in need of it. Imagine how these farmers must feel when they see ten acres of land being taken away from each of them for forestry, acres they have husbanded for 40 years and more with good results. It is difficult to imagine what they must think of our administration. I intend to raise this at the meeting of the local county committee of agriculture because it has been brought to our notice on a few occasions that, if there is a reasonable case made on behalf of such people, the Department will consider it sympathetically. I intend to pursue this to the bitter end to see if the Department will consider it. If proper action is taken in such cases that will help to keep the people on the land; but if we allow the land to be taken away from them and planted then they will just pack up and go.

We hear a good deal about the millions channelled into agriculture. A substantial amount of money does go into agriculture but we must never forget that a large percentage of that money goes into salaries and wages. In my area we have to pay 20 agricultural officers and, when they are paid and when other expenses are met, there is damn all left for agriculture proper. This is something that should be examined very closely to see if more could be channelled into agriculture direct.

I should like the Minister to have a very close look at the number of farms taken over by the Land Commission. He could play a big part in speeding up the taking over of farms and the subsequent division of the land. People have been waiting 20 years for a few more acres on which to grow crops and some of these people have become old men waiting for land to be allotted. Unproductive farms should be taken over and given to those who will work the land. No one should expect people to work hard on an uneconomic holding. On the other hand, the man who is given an extra ten or 20 acres is also given encouragement; he will have something to reap as a result of his labours. Nothing annoys people more than to see land for which they are hungry taken over by the forestry people and planted with trees right up to their very doors. That is one of the reasons why so many have packed it in and gone elsewhere in search of a livelihood.

Feeding stuffs should be made available at a lower price. When the farmer starts feeding around Christmas time he finds himself very short of cash indeed. The ground wheat should be put on the market at a lower price than 37/- a cwt.

Representing the consumers of the produce of our farms, it is only fitting that a Dublin city Deputy should say a few words on this very important Estimate. The debate has been an interesting one. I have taken a number of notes and I hope to be able to make a few points. The Minister referred to the setting up of a group to examine the various forms of State expenditure on agriculture with the object of ensuring that we are getting the best possible value for the money spent. This is very desirable. I hope the group will be truly representative. Such a group should be representative of all sections of the community and I ask the Minister to ensure that all sections, including housewives, are represented so that we may have the views of all.

With regard to the problems of the housewife, it seems to me that from the time the produce leaves the farm to the time it reaches the housewife it increases substantially in price. In fact, the increase is very often out of all proportion when one considers the effort put in by the farmer at the initial stage and his profit and the price of the produce when it reaches the housewife. It goes through the middleman —and in some cases he is called the fiddleman—who by many devices dictates the price structure in very many ways of farm produced foodstuffs.

Obviously, the marketing of foodstuffs is something that must get prior consideration not only from the farming community but also from the Minister and the Department. I believe the farmer should get a fair return for his labour, and a fair income for the amount of effort involved and the amount of capital invested in his farm. The housewife in the city feels the same way, as would any reasonable person. The unfortunate situation in relation to the housewife is that she has to pay the highest possible price for the foodstuffs that are produced, and which she cannot do without for the everyday requirements of the family.

This woman is being robbed. That is the proper word because no other word seems to fit the situation. As we have been told earlier, when eggs are produced or sold for 1/- or 1/6d a dozen the housewife has to pay 5/-, 6/- or 7/- a dozen for them. When I was a little boy I was often told the story about the goose which laid the golden eggs. Judging by the price which the housewife has to pay for eggs, some of the hens are now in the same business, because eggs are very dear on this section of the community which is so dependent on eggs, potatoes and other produce.

I often wondered why potatoes had such names as Golden Wonders but I do not wonder now because it seems that someone is on the gold standard so far as potatoes are concerned. Judging by the price some Deputies who represent the farming community say they are paying, and what the housewife pays, there is something wrong somewhere along the line. It would seem that if a sack of potatoes travels 100 yards its price increases by about 100 or 200 per cent. To me that is wrong, and it is a problem which needs examination by the farming community to help themselves, and also by the Department to ensure that the housewife is not robbed in the future.

It was interesting to hear the various Deputies representing the farming community demanding increases in the whole range of subsidies. I should like to deal with a few little items. The housewife in the city pays approximately 11/- for a lb. of decent fillet steak. Not only does she pay 11/- for the steak, but she has also paid the farmer through taxation in one form or another for the purpose of producing this lb. of steak. She pays taxes which go to offset his rates, to pay for his fertiliser, to assist in the reclamation of his land, to assist him with his silage pits, and his calf and heifer subsidy schemes. I would think that the housewife almost owns the heifer. It would seem that as she pays so much she has a fair share in the heifer on the farm through her efforts and the efforts of her family.

A single person pays income tax if he earns over £6 5s, and a married man pays income tax over £394, but the farmer who produces beef, and who has already got a wide range of subsidies to assist him to produce it, does not pay income tax, and his rates are rebated to some degree. Then the housewife is asked to pay 11/- or 11/6d for a pound of fillet steak. I have made this out in my own way and, taking everything into consideration, in my reckoning this pound of steak costs about a guinea to the housewife because she has already made other payments by way of taxation. She pays 11/- over the counter, and she has already paid taxation in various forms so she is paying about a guinea for the steak. It must be borne in mind that this woman's purse has a bottom and she is scraping the bottom of the purse at the moment. If further subsidies are to be applied, we must give consideration to the housewife in the Ballyfermot and Crumlin areas, which I represent.

The Deputy did not have Ballyfermot before.

I have had complaints from Ballyfermot about the price of those commodities.

The Deputy got Ballyfermot in well.

When I get in there I will look after their interests, and I will look after them here. Of course, that is not the only problem. There are also mutton cutlets, bacon, cabbage, turnips and other items produced by farmers. The housewife has to buy them at very high prices after paying subsidies by way of taxation. Special consideration should be given to that whole problem.

I agree with the Minister that this committee should examine in great detail the expenditure on the subsidies given to farmers. This year an estimated £80 million is given by way of reliefs to the farming community. I hope that this committee can be used for the benefit of the farmers and the housewives, and that it will be able to assist in making some reduction in prices, so that the housewife may be able to obtain commodities at reasonable prices to which she will not object. I trust the Minister will speed up this aspect of marketing and do what he can to ensure that justice is done in regard to this problem.

Deputy O'Donnell said some imaginative thinking should be done. I agree. He thought more money should be piled in, but I could not agree with that until such time as I was satisfied that the money was being expended in the best possible way. I have had some doubts about this, and I think the Department will have to spell out in great detail to the housewives of this city the details of the whole subsidy system, and indicate where the money is going, and how it is being used in order to relieve this tension which sometimes annoys and irritates the housewives. Maybe I do not understand the problem, but I know that £80 million is an awful lot of money to be pumped into a system. I would like to know at this stage, when it takes all this money to subsidise the agricultural industry, is there no such thing as an economic cow and, if there is, what would be the cost of an economic cow. From my reckoning of it, taking into consideration all aspects, it must be very substantial indeed. It would seem that there is no such thing. If this cannot be produced without the subsidy, we want to see where the subsidy we are paying by way of taxation goes to meet each individual case.

I do not blame the farmer for looking for the best price possible I agree that the farmer should get a reasonable return for his money and for his effort. The man who ploughs the field in all types of weather, who puts in the fertiliser, puts in the seed, looks after and cultivates the crop gets a very small price in comparison with the middleman or the "fiddleman," or the gangster in some cases, who upsets the price structure for the housewives of this country. On that basis perhaps the farmer is not getting what he is entitled to. But it is not the housewives' fault; it is the fault of the individuals in between the housewife and the farmer. I would say it is up to the farmer himself to ensure that the produce reaches the housewife in a more direct way. Then the housewife would be only too happy to give him a reasonable price; the produce would be much fresher and the farmer could expect a better price than he is getting from this faceless man or men who are accumulating a vast amount of money by sitting at home or in a cosy office somewhere in this city or in other towns just raking in at the expense of the unfortunate farmer and the unfortunate housewife.

I agree with the imaginative thinking which Deputy O'Donnell mentioned, but it must be directed the other way, too. He must look outward as well as inward on this particular problem. Deputy O'Donnell also mentioned the production of cheese. I agree that this is a problem and it is a matter that causes me great concern not alone outside this House but also in this House. It amazes me that the hotels and restaurants in this city and indeed the restaurant in this House have on their menu cards cheese at 2/- a portion. One pays 2/- for a 6d. or 9d. portion of cheese. This is no way to advertise this very delicious product that we have in abundance here. Some research should be done into our city hotels, particularly during the tourist season, and indeed into the restaurant here and other restaurants, to see that cheese is sold to the consumer at an economic and reasonable price and to see that he is not presented with a cheese board and presented with 6d. or a shilling's worth of cheese costing in some hotels 3/- a portion. Two shillings is bad enough in our own restaurant. You do not get value for the money spent. That is not because our product is not the best. It is the best. It is because of the price structure and because somebody is trying to force this commodity off the menu because it may cause them some little problem of storage or presentation.

The presentation indeed is not always the best in the hotels and restaurants. It is something we should give an amount of thought to. The packaging and presentation is certainly very excellent when it comes from the factory. I would say that the Minister should stimulate the consumption of this very important commodity by having a look into its presentation by the hotels and restaurants and the price structure. Much could be done to encourage the consumption of this very acceptable product produced in an excellent way by our creameries in the various parts of the country.

I trust that the Minister will let us and the housewives know in some detail why groups of milk distributors in our cities, who I am told purchase milk at an average of 3/- a gallon, can sell it to the housewife at approximately 5/4d a gallon. The housewives of this city are called on to pay an excessive amount for this commodity. If my figures are correct, it seems an extraordinary amount of profit on a gallon of milk for the small amount of work that has been done. I do not want anyone to think that I do not want the workers in this particular trade to be well paid. I feel they should be well paid and that a reasonable return should be given, but not an excessive return for the smaller portion of the service because the main service there is given by the farmer who has to house and feed and milk cows and store the milk until it is collected by the distributors. I feel that this is another thing that should get priority in the Minister's examination of the subsidies and of the end product of the subsidies. In that way he might relieve the burden on the housewives of this country.

Earlier today we heard Deputy Coughlan, who thought it was very funny that a Dublin Deputy or a city Deputy should speak on this Estimate. I feel it is absolutely necessary that the Minister should know the views and the feelings not alone of Dublin city Deputies but also of the housewives of Ballyfermot, Crumlin, Drimnagh and all the other areas I represent. I am presenting their views and their problems and I do not think there is anything to laugh at in a city Deputy coming along to speak on this Estimate.

I feel it is essential that more city Deputies should come in here and make their voices heard in relation to matters which affect their constituents in a very real way. The more the housewife is soaked by the middlemen or by individuals somewhere between the producer and the consumer the less will be on her table and in her purse at the end of the week. We should be ruthless where necessary with people who are accumulating fortunes within a short space of time when we find that they are controlling rings which tend to force up the price of certain commodities.

On a previous occasion I mentioned that the housewife was paying 2/- for 5 lbs of potatoes because she got them in a cellophane bag rather than loose. This cellophane bag costs 9d or in some cases 1/-. This is robbery of of another type. It is desirable that goods should be packaged and presented properly but the question of presentation and of the various places to which goods are diverted on the way to the consumer would bear examination. In many cases goods are deliberately diverted in order to be packaged in a way that will add to the finances of this group or gang.

I listened with great interest to the discussion of the 1d per gallon by people who had not the courage of their convictions, who now say it is too little but who did not think it worth their while to support the necessary Financial Resolutions to pay this 1d a gallon. We must make it clear that their failure to support the necessary Financial Resolutions to provide the money could only mean that they did not agree that the producer should get this addition which the Minister saw fit to grant quite recently. Whether it was enough or too much is a matter upon which I do not feel competent to adjudicate but must be guided by our very competent Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. That Minister had the courage to come in here and ask for the imposition of additional taxation for the purpose of giving the farmers this addition and the Opposition Parties, both Labour and Fine Gael, failed completely in their responsibility. On that occasion they felt no responsibility to anyone, either to themselves or the farmers. It is a clear indication that they do not represent the farming community. Otherwise, they would have supported this provision in the Division Lobbies. Whom do they represent? This was an opportunity to show that they represented the farmers and were prepared to make the sacrifice—if they thought that was the term—of going into the Division Lobby to support the Financial Resolutions. Must they sit on the fence at all times? Must they always oppose the resolutions whereby money is made available?

Of course, the 1d on the gallon was not the only feature of the Budget. There were also increases for workers which both Labour and Fine Gael failed to support. When we hear them speaking today about the increases for farm workers and the farmers as a whole, one must ask where the money is to come from and, if it is to be made available by the State, who is to make it available. Have they any responsibility? They seem to me to have no responsibility at all for anything constructive. They come into this House and try to give the impression that they were the groups who were in some way responsible but at the last moment they shirked their responsibility. It took the courageous men of this Party to follow up that decision and to vote the money, whether it be unpopular or not. Sometimes it is unpopular for a Government to impose taxation. I am positive that the community as a whole are conscious of their responsibility to workers and to the farming community. There has been no great outcry against the last Budget other than by a few crocodile tear-shedding politicians of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties. The public as a whole are an intelligent public and they have accepted the impositions in the Budget and have shown clearly their acceptance of the Government policy and Government action.

If our members were to desert the farming community in the way in which they were deserted on a recent occasion in this House, we would never hear the end of it. When the Opposition run out of constructive criticism they rely on character assassination and other low forms of political manoeuvres that have been so frequent in this House in recent times.

Notably by Deputy L'Estrange.

You were caught canvassing for Colley and Lynch.

You had not the guts to go outside the House and repeat the allegations.

You came up to join Fine Gael at the time of the election and would not be taken into it and I met you outside the door with Dinny O'Sullivan.

These are more of your character assassinations.

Will Deputies desist from interrupting? Deputy Dowling is in possession, on agriculture.

He is looking for the job of Parliamentary Secretary.

Deputy L'Estrange is put in here to mouth these obscenities and there is no better man.

You were suckled on them. That is why you are so stout.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Thanks be to God, everything I say is the truth. The Government that stoops to it should be ashamed of itself. They should allow it to be investigated.

Repeat the allegations outside the House.

Like many other Deputies I feel it is time that this row, as it has been called, between the NFA and others should come to an end and that the farming community should come together and, in the interests of the housewives, present a comprehensive and balanced policy to the Government so that it can be examined in great detail. It is regrettable that the farming organisations have not met the situation up to now by presenting a unified approach to this problem. As a housewives' representative in the city and as a workers' representative, I would urge them to see that the interests of the farming communities and of the nation, which includes the housewives of the country, receive the consideration to which they are entitled. In this may well lie the key to the prosperity both of the housewives and of the farming community. It is regrettable that the dispute has been so prolonged. Again, it is outside my scope but, nevertheless, I feel that the fault does not lie with the Minister, the Government or the Taoiseach. A unity of purpose is required such as we feel is required in everyday life in relation to long-term planning. In any sphere it is necessary that a comprehensive picture be presented so that one can see into the future in depth and in that way meet many of the problems and examine them on a long-term basis rather than a very short-term basis just to satisfy some particular groups.

Unification at this stage is absolutely essential. The longer the rift continues the more difficult it will be to reach a solution and the more people will be disappointed and hurt in the process. It is in the interests of the nation that there should be fresh thinking on the part of the farming organisations and when they do submit a comprehensive scheme no doubt it will receive the consideration of our very worthy and courageous Minister. Some of the accusations that have been hurled across the floor from time to time by Front Bench members of the Fine Gael Party at very competent and capable Ministers, especially at the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, are very regrettable and hurtful. This, of course, is not a new tactic; it is one of the tactics employed by character assassins in order to discredit honourable men and to colour the picture which they want to present to their flagging organisation in an effort to stimulate interest. It is well known that when there is a collapse within the Fine Gael Party they are pushed into this type of disruptive action which has recently been a feature of this House.

Will the Deputy come back to the Estimate?

I am just defending the Minister because it grieves me to see an honourable man treated in the manner in which he has been treated on this Estimate and on other occasions.

The Deputy is not outside Lecken Church now.

I dealt with the situation there and I will be outside many another church gate. The Deputy knows I was very effective on that occasion.

No doubt.

I should like now to deal with the question of exports. We are aware of the wonderful efforts being made to export many of our commodities in recent times and the attention that has been given to the export of agricultural produce by the Minister and by the Government. Deputy Foley mentioned that the export of live animals and of carcase beef was very satisfactory in 1967. In that year 620,000 stores were exported to Britain and the Six Counties. This shows the efforts made to increase exports and to ensure that cattle and beef, whether in dressed or in carcase form, will be exported in greater quantities to Britain or to the United States.

I hope that this very valuable market in the United States will be further explored as well as markets elsewhere in order to ensure that exports in the years to come will be increased and that we will have the necessary return to ensure the nation's progress. It is interesting to note the development that has taken place in regard to the US market to which exports of boneless beef were valued at £12 million. This is a market which should receive additional consideration on a sort of crash programme basis so that we can be well prepared for a long term market for whatever we have available.

I think the Deputy is only talking this out until the Minister can get in. It is a wanton waste of the time of the House.

It is important that the people should know what is being done and not be misled by the misrepresentations which we have heard in this House over the last few months. We are aware of the confusion which exists in the minds of Fine Gael Deputies and, indeed, Labour Deputies. We heard Deputy Coughlan lecturing us tonight in great detail. Indeed, it would be interesting to know when he is lecturing again because I should like to hear his intelligent approach to agricultural problems, an approach worthy of consideration even by Dublin Opinion. He dealt with the pig industry and bacon production and this is an item about which I should like to say a few words. It is like the production of the cutlets and steaks about which I have spoken and which cost the housewife so much. We should look at the route that these commodities take in going from the producer to the consumer, so that the situation which has developed over the years can be corrected, the situation which has caused the housewife of this city to pay so much for her rashers and bacon and even her Christmas ham. The housewife and the worker of the city who pays income tax on earnings over £6 5s or, if he is married, on earnings over £294, should get consideration. These are the people who pay for the fertilisers that are used.

Do they use them in Dublin?

We do. We pay through the nose for anything we get in Dublin. It is easy for the country Deputy to sit back and laugh, but it is no laughing matter to the housewife in the city.

If the farmers down the country heard the Deputy talking about agriculture they would laugh.

The ground limestone, the fertilisers, land reclamation, byre grants, all these are paid for out of taxation by the woman who has to buy the end product at a very high cost.

Has anybody a brief for the Deputy?

I have enough material to go on for a month, but as my time is limited I want to give the Minister the benefit of my assessment of the situation in great detail and great depth. I shall not deal with it in the depth with which Deputy O'Donnell dealt with it earlier on today, but there are important aspects of agriculture on which the people's views must be conveyed to the Minister.

He would not know much about it himself. I know what the Deputy means.

I am sure the Minister, when he is replying, will deal with some of the problems which affect housewives and disturb city dwellers who feel they are being fleeced and that the subsidies are paid at random without any great consideration just because of pressure by particular groups or individuals. I am not greatly concerned about subsidies, because I know that if the middleman, or, as I said, the fiddleman was eliminated the housewife would have the benefit of lower prices for these essential commodities. While she has to pay high prices, the children or other members of the family will have to do with smaller portions than they would otherwise get.

Coming back to Deputy McLaughlin and his bob a dozen eggs, I should like to have the name and address of the producer, so that we can arrange to have him called upon and in that way assist some of our housewives. As I said earlier on, when I was a little boy I always understood it was only the goose that laid the golden egg; now I am sure it is the hens because, judging by the price, the hens are on the gold standard along with the middlemen.

They used to throw eggs that time, now it is tomatoes.

This is Fianna Fáil agriculture we are having.

Tomato growing is a very important section of the horticultural industry. Irish tomatoes are probably the best tomatoes in the world. I prefer them to imported tomatoes and use them whenever it is possible to get them. They are better value, and we should impress upon our people the necessity of producing more of them. Like the cheese, if they are presented properly and at a reasonable price there will be a better do both for the producer and the consumer. I was down in Galway last August on my holidays and I noted the glasshouse scheme there. I realised that, while this is a great scheme, there were a number of problems. I saw some idle glasshouses, and since the State invested some money in them, I thought the problem was worthy of examination.

The Deputy ought to hurry up or he will not have an opportunity of going into it in detail.

I am not going into it in detail. I made some inquiries on my tour of the West on that occasion, and on my return I conveyed the problems to the proper authorities. I felt that in some way I had probably assisted in bringing to light some of the difficulties which affected production and caused these enterprises to go into decay. I know now there is no necessity for this. I know the problems and the defects in part of the system, and I am quite sure these will be rectified in due course.

First of all, I should like to let the House know that their criticism of my absence from the House today was totally misplaced, in that my absence was due to prior commitments to do with matters which appertained to the agricultural community and could not be put off. While I should like to have been here for the entire debate, I think the work I was doing this evening, that is, meeting the committee of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture prior to their annual meeting tomorrow, was important. I met their executives this afternoon. I spent more than three hours with them and I am sure Deputies will agree that this was time well spent, even though it did mean that I was not able to be here for a considerable portion of this debate. Earlier today, too, we had a Government meeting and there was a responsibility on me as a member of the Government to attend that meeting. I wish to apologise to the House for my absence but, at the same time, I wish to point out that my absence in no way reflected on the House. I hope Deputies will understand that this was not of my making and that I regret more than they do that I could not be here.

Why could the debate not have been held over until tomorrow?

The Deputy had a right to be here yesterday.

If the Deputy had been attending the House in the way that every conscientious Deputy should, he would know that it was agreed by all Parties to finish tonight. I have no control over the regulations of the House. As I indicated three or four weeks ago, it was my wish to have been present for this debate but various other business has seen to it that this did not happen and, therefore, I had no choice in the matter. As I have said, the timing of the Dáil arrangements and my prior commitments in relation to agricultural matters in meeting representatives of the farming community of the entire country forced me to be absent during the debate.

The contributions I have heard from the chief spokesmen of the Opposition Parties were anything but critical of the Department, the Government, the Minister or of agricultural policy and out-turn. My sympathy is with these men because of the fact that agricultural policy is going extremely well at the moment. My sympathy is with those on the front bench of the Opposition Party, particularly the chief spokesman for the Fine Gael Party who had to refer back this Estimate and to try in some way to justify his Party's original dissatisfaction with the Estimate and all that goes with it.

Having listened to all of that Deputy's contribution, which was of some length, I came away with the feeling that he had little real criticism to offer. The putting down of a motion to refer back this Estimate is a most perplexing sort of situation for the main Opposition Party to find themselves in and I have sympathy for the man in trying to make a case where he knew there was no case to be made.

In the following contributions, of which I had quite a considerable note taken, I can see little of any worth to comment on so far as criticism is concerned. Therefore, for the next hour or so, the proceedings may tend to be more boring than would be my natural bent. This is not of my making but rather of the Opposition's making in not contributing anything worth while to talk about.

The Minister should have listened to what has been said.

What is the Deputy talking about? He should not be getting upset, but he should go home to where he was yesterday and have a rest.

The Minister was not here to know what was said this morning.

We cannot have this debate across the House at this stage. The Minister is concluding.

Deputy Murphy, I believe, had little to say, took a long time to say it and made a hell of a noise.

He did not take as long as Deputy Dowling.

He had not much to criticise, so he made the best of a bad job. As I said, I have nothing of real interest to comment on because there was nothing of any interest contributed to the debate. Deputy Murphy and others would, I am sure, like to have made some big case about agriculture; but he is at a loss because of the really satisfactory situation in which agriculture now is and due to the two very good years that agriculture has had, which, by some strange coincidence, came about with my advent to agriculture. Of course, that is supposed to have nothing to do with agriculture's well-being, but would have had all to do with it if it was not going well.

It is unfortunate for the Opposition that they have no case to make. However, I shall have to take all the little points that were raised and try to make the best of them. Deputy O'Donnell spoke about panic concerning surplus milk and said that our dairy products are at premium prices on the export market. I say to Deputy O'Donnell and to the House that we are not panicking but, having said that, I depart from the Deputy thereafter in so far as marketing is concerned. This situation in marketing has been brought about through no fault of our own but has been brought about entirely through the dumping of dairy products by much better off countries and by more highly industrialised countries than our own, in particular by some of the Common Market countries who are practically giving dairy produce away at present. We have to compete in this sort of situation. As I have said, there is no cause for panic but we would be less than realistic if we did not take recognisance of the realities of life. We must realise that butter is being offered and sold at prices in the region of £100 a ton— butter that is perhaps costing £700 or £750 a ton to produce. That sort of situation exists and it will not disappear overnight. Regardless of what steps may be taken, a surplus of milk may build up. There is an over-supply at the moment.

Stocks of milk powder in Europe have already disappeared and the price has recovered.

The Deputy should remember that I did not say there were any signs of panic with regard to milk powder. But I suppose it would have been only natural if I had been inclined to panic when I was told that milk producers in some parts of the country were pouring skim milk down the drain. It is a shameful situation if a product as valuable as skim milk, which can, if fed to pigs in the right proportions, mean sixpence or 6½d a gallon to the farmer concerned, can be poured down a drain. Apart from the damage that this would do to the fish, any farmer who can afford to do this should take a good look at himself and begin to ask himself if this is what the taxpayers of the country are paying for.

The farmers had no way of anticipating this situation.

The fact remains that there are people in this country who are prepared to pour skim milk down a drain. It seems very strange that something was not done with this buildup of skim milk other than pouring it down a drain. If people take this madness into their heads it is a strange comment and a poor recompense to the taxpayer who is willingly contributing towards the support of this very important industry. Whatever little experience there may have been last year of difficult conditions in the disposal of skimmed milk, I would hope it will have taught some farmers that they have in their own farmyards a more remunerative market than any at their disposal in recent years and one that cannot be taken from them overnight. I hope there will be a real effort by farmers' co-operatives and others to avail of the exceedingly attractive pigfattening grants scheme which I announced a considerable time ago and which, so far, has evoked about only seven genuine applications. We badly need that attractive scheme in order to produce more pigs for an industry that can use them and that has a market for more than we are now producing and that, in turn, can utilise the skimmed milk in conjunction with one of their milk-processing plants. The difficulty at this stage in regard to the disposal of these particular dairy products, and the ups and downs of the international market to which we are very much exposed, should ensure that, to the highest degree possible, we make use of native outlets for the by-products of the dairying industry.

Pig-fattening is an outlet that should commend itself in this case not only to the co-operative enterprise but to the smaller farmers and the smaller farm members around that co-op. to go into the breeding of pigs to supply the central stations, to their own profit and to the general profit of all the people in that area. I hope the lessons are being taken and that the new attractive grants scheme, together with a guaranteed loan available from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, will be followed up and that a real effort will be made to get more pigs reared, fattened or turned into bacon or exported for pork, for which there is also an additional market, rather than screaming our heads off about "giveaway prices" which we were doing some months ago. Then, when the scare got really going, we found that the skimmed milk powder was not as plentiful as appeared for the reason that many farmers in milk-processing countries had found another way of converting their skimmed milk rather than, as heretofore, dumping it without thought into powder plants which had resulted in overflooding the markets to the detriment of all. Deputy O'Donnell also said that the price of creamery milk was down because of the increased cost of the levy——

I said it was one of three reasons for the reduction in price the creamery milk suppliers received this year as compared with last year. The other two reasons are that the creameries were unable to take all the skimmed milk and thus the price of skimmed milk was down and, thirdly, increased costs.

That does not take in the slightest from what I was about to say. There are so many variations for various causes from one year to another as between herd owner and herd owner and herd and herd that this can happen regardless of price levels and price fluctuations. There was clear agreement that, in the disposal of our dairy products, any loss accruing in foreign markets would be made up as to onethird by way of levy paid by the milk producers themselves which would be matched as to two-thirds of the loss by the Exchequer. For every £1 that comes by way of levy, the Government contribute £2 to help Bord Bainne to dispose of these various products.

In fairness, that cost should not be used to justify an increase unless the farmers no longer want that sort of operation and no longer want Bord Bainne because, without the function of raising the levy—which the Board does, not the Government—there is little point in Bord Bainne's existence. The board would really be superfluous if this vital job of calculating the levy and asking for it from the producers and the Government were taken from them. Producers should realise that, if there are bad years and good years on the selling market, then there does arise a cost factor by way of a loss which implies a levy. They should take into account that, already, other people are committed to two-thirds of that loss in addition to all the millions already put into the creamery business in order to support the price being paid to the producers.

Let us examine the fluctuations in the price of milk. There are always exceptions which will prove the rule or disprove the rule. This year, our dairy people produced 520 million gallons of milk as against 470 million gallons last year which, itself, was a record. On the best calculations I can find, only 26,000 additional cows went into the herds during the past year and contributed to the total of 520 million gallons of milk this year. If we take the national average yield, it will clearly be seen that the output from the same number of herds in 1968, which produced 470 million gallons in 1967, produced an increase of well over 30,000,000 gallons this year. In other words, the same number of cows, possibly owned by the same herd owners, gave 30,000,000 gallons more of milk this year as compared with last year. I am setting aside the 15,000,000 gallons the 26,000 additional cows would have produced. Surely a Deputy who understands milk, and all that goes with it, must appreciate that 30,000,000 gallons additional milk multiplied by the price people would have got for it represents, in fact, a very substantial increase in the incomes of these farmers this year as against last year? Even if there is set against it some of the costs that have begun to arise this year, remember these costs are not all applicable over the entire area of milk production because some of them did not come in until well through the season. The levy did not come in until the month of July and this, in addition to the penny on the first 7,000 gallons from 1st September directed in a special way towards the smaller producers, and the increased yield of well over 30,000,000 gallons, has done fairly by these people in the dairying industry and there is no depth of propaganda that can get away from these facts, facts staring everybody in the face. The sooner people give up this propaganda, which cannot be sustained by facts and figures, the sooner we will get some sanity into all walks of life where people are seeking more money for whatever their particular line of production may be. The total out-turn was a record in itself.

I do not agree at all that this forms a basis to justify the argument that creamery milk prices are down. This kind of thing cannot stand up for one moment. The argument has no legs— good, bad or indifferent—and the sooner the people over there get wise to themselves the better it will be. The sooner they deal with the factual situation the more appreciated they will become. Let us look for a moment at the penny increase, the penny which has been sneered at, and realise that this penny is costing the taxpayers approximately £1.7 million in a full 12 months. Mark you, the day we reach the point at which the dairy industry, or any other arm of our agricultural economy, can sneer at a £1.7 million increase in agricultural income we will certainly be going places because £1.7 million is a fair few quid. Even if you subdivide it and say it represents only £3, £4, £5, £6 or even £29 or £30, remembering that the yield has gone up from the same number of cows, due to the good weather and due, undoubtedly, to the influence of a good Fianna Fáil Government, it still represents good money and no one can laugh it away. No one can make it disappear by false propaganda, propaganda of the type indulged in since the cows began to milk last spring.

Would the Minister mention the £1½ million he is saving on the heifer subsidy scheme?

The Fine Gael Party are like the fairies or, as we call them, "the wee folk"; they are trying to milk the cows before ever they get into the byres at all, but they will not succeed because these cows gave well over an additional 30,000,000 gallons this year and that is a big increase. Added to that is the fact that in the 12 months starting last September there will be £1.7 million more given by the Government from the Exchequer in particular recognition of the needs of the smaller milk producer. This incidentally establishes for the first time a true differential in price support. This is a policy decision by the Government. It is an indication to the bigger producers that this is the pattern that will be followed in the future. We will no longer have the basis of support fought for on the costs of the small producer and then given without question to every producer, regardless of size, efficiency or profitability. The sooner the big producers realise this is the pattern, the sooner they will get wise to the fact that going into milk on a huge scale is not our policy. We will not continue to pour money into the production of milk on a large scale to the detriment of the taxpayers or to the detriment of the small producer. Four-fifths of all milk producers are small. Four out of every five are under 7,000 gallons. It is to these we are now determined to provide in an increasing way the assistance which has been given over the years, assistance to the tune of £26 million this year. It is to these small producers we are now committed. We are not penalising the big milk producers. We are merely warning them in a very definite way and, at the same time, saying to them that they should get into beef. They can make it profitable. Instead of giving them 1/- a gallon, as we are doing at the moment, for sending their milk to the creamery we will give them £8 for every cow and calf; that is the equivalent of giving them 4d a gallon to keep their milk at home. We want to reserve in a very special way the milk market that is there for the four-fifths of the milk producers whose livelihood is derived entirely from the production of milk. Many of these have been producing milk for generations. We want to reserve that market to them and we are going to concentrate the taxpayers' support more and more in their favour because they cannot go into beef and make a living out of it, whereas the big man can. This is the trend and I hope it will be recognised and understood by those who can profitably engage on a large scale in beef production. Perhaps, they will take warning and leave the restricted market to the smaller producer for whom this is the only worthwhile farming enterprise in which he can profitably engage.

Will the Minister say what he will do with the liquid milk producer?

I will. As I said in reply to a question a week or so ago, I have the matter under examination and, in my examination, I am taking into account a full review of the situation as it now is in regard to liquid milk production in the two broad areas. I am examining very seriously the possibility of discontinuing the entire milk price allowance now paid on surplus derived from that area. This surplus should carry itself within the trade in the liquid milk areas, and not be a burden on the taxpayer as it is now. Likewise it should not be an encouragement to the over-production of milk in those areas to the detriment of the ordinary creamery milk suppliers to whose problems it has added. It costs about £700,000 to the Exchequer and is a levy of approximately £200,000 on the creamery milk producers.

As I say, we are examining this whole problem at the moment, and wondering whether this business of supplying the needs of the cities in question, Cork and Dublin, should not revert to its original position wherein the liquid trade catered for itself and was not supported out of public funds. As I say, it is costing £700,000 in subsidies, and it is costing the creamery milk producers almost £200,000. This matter is being considered and we must seriously consider unloading this burden which is now being carried by the creamery milk producers and the taxpayers. It should be capable of being carried by the trade itself. They should regulate their supplies to their needs rather than allowing their production to reach the point where six million gallons more are being produced than are needed in the Dublin area. This could in the normal way be manufactured by our processors in other parts of the country. All these matters are being taken into consideration and whether there will be a complete change I cannot say at the moment.

The Minister's approach indicates a reduction in price.

Not necessarily. This extra six million gallons could be absorbed in so far as disposal was concerned by the milk boards in question. If there were a little surplus it should be capable of being covered and carried within the liquid milk trade instead of by the taxpayers and the creamery milk suppliers in increased levies. That is now being done and it may amount to £200,000 this year.

It is a reduction to the producer.

I cannot see where else it will be carried.

If the Deputy cannot see I will not tell him. It does not mean a reduction to the producer. It would be a reduction to the taxpayer and would probably be an increase of £200,000 to the overall creamery milk suppliers who would have to pay that much less by the off-levy.

We also have the question of wheat. I believe Deputy Murphy was very good on wheat. At an earlier stage this evening he was very critical of the outcome of the wheat harvest.

I am not sure whether he was critical because there was a good harvest or because the yield was too big, or whether it was because there was no real row about the handling of the enormous crop of wheat this year. I do not know why he is displeased. No one is displeased this year.

They are displeased about next year and the Minister's arrangement for next year.

There is one thing which farmers really appreciate and that is that you do not worry about next year because it may never happen.

Some things are inevitable.

Perhaps he is hoping it will happen in a disastrous way which is what the Deputy implies so I will say again: "Do not worry; it may never happen". This is purely the Fine Gael pessimistic outlook which they display in the best of times. If things are not good they are crying that they will be worse, and if things are good they are crying that they cannot last. They should not overworry because it may never happen. We are not worried about next year's wheat. I am looking forward to next year's wheat being a good crop again.

Ten shillings a barrel down.

This year on a crop of approximately 220,000 acres we got a return for the farmers of over £12 million——

He got it for himself.

——in that he got away with £1½ million which, according to his own representatives back in 1958, he should have paid by way of levy rather than the taxpayers carrying that along with the rest. This year the levy was not capable of being operated but the principle was there that it should be paid. The system proposed was not capable of being calculated until too late. Next year if there is a good crop and a big return of millable wheat there will be a levy. I will ask Deputy Clinton a question. Which would he rather have—a year in which he gets no millable wheat through and pays no levy, or a year in which he has a phenomenal yield of millable wheat and takes a cut of 10/- in order to spread the loss incurred by overproduction? Which of the two is better?

There never would be a year in which there was no millable wheat. That is an imaginary year.

Listen to the figures. Last year we grew almost 220,000 acres and we produced 385,000 tons of wheat, paid for at millable prices. Some years ago we grew 420,000 acres and got 25,000 tons of millable wheat. Which of the two years would the Deputy choose if he had the choice of paying the levy this year or having no levy to pay three years ago when he got 25,000 tons only out of 420,000 acres?

The Minister has a great imagination.

It is clear that a good year even with the levy would be far more profitable and attractive to the farmer than the disastrous year such as I have indicated and which happened not so long ago. There is no comparison between the profitability of the two. In fact, there was no profit in the year when 420,000 acres produced only 25,000 tons of millable wheat, but there would have been a huge profit this year even if there had been a deduction of 10/-.

Would it not take one to balance the other?

Will anyone say that £10½ million for 220,000 acres of wheat grown this year does not show a good return and a handsome profit. Some of the people who talk for farmers and would like to tell you about the small farmers and how badly off they are this year have themselves drawn over £30,000 under this very good guarantee system that we have. Do you think those people would not have gladly paid a levy rather than have unmillable prices paid for that if it was a bad year? There just is not any comparison and Deputy Clinton well knows it. We are not putting this levy into operation until after the event and only if there is a surplus of millable wheat produced. Then, and only then, will one penny be supplied and if none is needed the entire residue, the entire balance, goes back and the farmers will not have lost one halfpenny on the transaction.

How long will you hold their money free of interest?

I remember a time, Deputy, when there was no money of theirs to hold and if Fine Gael had their way there would still be none to hold because they would have none and the question of tests, acreages, millability, potential or otherwise, would not arise. This is the simplified policy of Fine Gael in regard to this and many other matters. If it causes any sort of bother at all, do not have it. This is the way Fine Gael think, but it is not our way of doing business. We are merely applying the levy as agreed by the farmers' representatives, in fact proposed by the farmers' representatives, back in 1958, incorporated in the 1958 Cereal Act and now, for the first time, being capable of being applied if it is necessary in a sane, sensible, logical, statistical manner. I take some credit for the fact that we have at last found a way of doing this. The farmers who are growing wheat will be delighted to know that we are not restricting their input of wheat, as some people would suggest; we are not putting them on contracts, as some of them feared; but if it comes to the point that we have to choose between the fellow with 800 acres or 900 acres and the fellow with five or ten acres, then I can assure you that, for the first time, we have devised some method of helping the fellow with the smaller acreage. Again, it is not done to the detriment of the taxpayers.

Will the Minister say a word about the effects of the change in the falling number?

So far as the falling number is concerned, this means that in the case of potentially millable wheat—should we have any worthwhile quantity offered next year or any other year—there is a greater likelihood that it can be used for milling rather than when the falling number was at 130 or 120. It is a well-established fact, I understand, that where you have the lower falling number wheat even mixed in a small quantity among the wheat of the higher falling number, that is up to 150 and under 160, it can spoil the whole lot. Therefore, it is not sensible, and indeed it is really foolish, to mix very low quality wheat in with this potentially millable quality and also some reasonably high quality wheat because, when you do, you will use neither.

The Minister would talk himself out of any situation.

It is not a question of talking myself out of it. It is a question of being realistic to the point of accepting what is factual, what has been shown to be the case and what in the ultimate analysis is in the overall national interest. There is no national interest being served by making three heaps of wheat—one unmillable, one potentially millable and one that is millable—and finding that the potentially millable is just a joke because of the fact that the unmillable has been put through it to such an extent that whatever might have been used of the potentially millable is now gone as well. There is no point in that sort of caper and I do not think we should continue to do it. We should move up the quality in order to be able to utilise to a greater degree potentially millable wheat. That is why this has been done. Again, with the excessive increase in yields from 31 cwts per statute acre to the new all-time record of 36 cwts per acre, there is no grower who would give a hoot about the changes the Deputy would make much of at this time, coming on the heels of the greatest bonanza that has ever come out of wheat in this or any other country. That is what the farmers reaped during 1968—including the £1,500,000 that should have been collected. Because of the system that was imposed, however, it could not be collected last year but it will be collected next year, only if there is a surplus. Only if the harvest is good, only if the farmers have got the money, will they be expected to carry some of the load of the loss incurred in making feeding stuffs out of millable wheat. It can be bought back at feed prices and it can be utilised for feeding profitably. This is why this is being done. I think it is a very sensible arrangement and one at which the farmers, the wheat growers and all others in the business, cannot and do not take umbrage, provided they can be assured of getting anything like as good a return in the years ahead as they got this year.

The Minister said they got £1,000,000 too much this year.

They got £1,500,000 more than they needed in the sense that this should have been paid by way of levy, according to the arrangement made by the farmers' representatives who in 1958 proposed the levy principle, proposed a system that was then found to be unworkable, and which we have now made workable. I did not impose the levy. A levy was imposed under the Act of 1958 which was prompted by the proposals of the farmers' representatives in that year.

It is not often the Minister shelters behind the farmers.

You never find the Minister sheltering behind anybody because he has no need to.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

In so far as the wheat element is concerned, I am looking forward to improvements. We hear this year again more money for the farmers, more satisfied farmers and no credit to the Fine Gael people.

We have this matter of the reorganisation of the creamery industry. All I will say there is that a considerable amount of work has already taken place in the midst of the hubbub about how it should be done. There are sensible, logical steps being taken by a number of our creamery producers in the country. Quietly and without any fuss they are moving towards true rationalisation to the benefit of all. All I can say there is we will do everything possible to try to help the acceleration of this where it is now being done. From an examination of the further report we have recently received from the Cooke-Sprague people, together with what we have garnered from all the various reports of surveys and the work study done by my Department seven years ago, we would hope with the co-operation of the dairying people and the creamery groups throughout the country to make real progress in the coming year in regard to finding a fairly sensible overall pattern of rationalisation in this very important industry.

There has been mention here of the gaps between farm prices and consumer prices. While it is quite true that one can quote all sorts of differences between the price paid to the farmer and the price paid by the consumer in a city like Dublin, we ought to remember that, perhaps because of good advertising and publicity, our people have come into an age where they want everything packed. They want it made up and looking nice; and, if you want that, you must pay for it. You are going to pay an additional profit margin to whoever is putting on the wrapping, whoever printed the pack, whoever put the colour on and so on. We must remember that when we start comparing prices. At the same time, there are undoubtedly margins that cannot be justified and should not exist, but they do. However, side by side with that, I deplore the people who get up and talk with some air of authority and quote, for instance, the price of a stone of potatoes in Donegal and then they will quote the price of a pound of potatoes here. Who is codding whom? It is a great disservice to the farming community of my county or any other, that this should be put across as being authoritative in the sense that they quote dissimilar figures.

Is the Minister referring to Deputy Dowling's contribution to the debate?

I am not and well the Deputy knows I am not. In fact, there are a few over there who know very well what I am referring to.

Deputy Dowling is the only one that we heard using these figures.

Do not mind what you heard. I said what I read and heard over these recent weeks, that is, that it is entirely wrong and does no service to the farming community to create in the minds of producers of potatoes that the per stone price of a 14-ton lot ex-farm should be compared with the price of 3 lbs or 5 lbs wrapped in cellophane in Dublin and then they say: "Look at that. Where is the difference going?" This is doing nobody any service but, in fact, is doing harm because it is creating doubts in the minds of the farmers who are selling and in the minds of the Dublin residents who are buying, and creating dissatisfaction at both ends in regard to a matter that is not as profitable as would be shown by the unfair, misleading comparisons that had been made and published with the intention, no doubt, of making somebody squeal somewhere and kick up a row about it, and all that based on wrong information, misleading comparisons which are a very dangerous thing to indulge in.

In so far as the mountain lamb subsidy is concerned, Deputy Meaney suggested that lambs should be inspected for subsidy at the time of dipping. There are about six good reasons why we should not do this and one of the most important is that as soon as lambs are punched in the ears, they qualify. If done at dipping time, when dipped and wet, they are open to the danger of infection of one kind or another, not to mention the fact that to handle a lamb, particularly a mountain lamb, is some job but to handle wet lambs at the dipping tank is more than one could expect our fellows to cater for in any numbers on any given day. Apart from that, I would say to the Deputy that if there are any ways by which we can improve the facilities that we have given this year and that have been generally satisfactory in so far as the administration of this scheme is concerned, we would certainly be open to consider suggestions but to do it at every public dipping tank on dipping day is not "on". It is true that we do a good deal of this at public dipping centres, even as of now, but cannot do it at every public dipping centre for various reasons of staff availability, uniformity of application of our inspection code. These and other things preclude us from doing it in as many places as there would be public dipping centres but where we find that undue inconvenience is being caused, even under our system as operating during the past season, we will do our best to try to rectify that during the coming season if we get details about it.

Deputy Murphy mentioned our adverse balance of trade with the EEC and particularly with the Federal Republic of Germany. It is true that our balances of trade, particularly as published recently, giving the bald statistics, in national newspapers, are anything but healthy in so far as the Six are concerned and this is particularly noticeable in so far as West Germany is concerned but while one would be inclined to say to these people that if they do not buy more from us we will not buy anything from them, if we all did this all the time with everybody, we would very soon reach the stage where trade would become well-nigh impossible, that is, trade either on a continental or a world basis, and you would be certainly back to the old barter system with all the curtailment of freedom of trading that that would imply. This is not to say that some effort in the direction of bringing to the notice of these people who are doing poor trade with us at the moment that we are not at all happy with the position but, far from it, are most unhappy with the situation as it has developed, is not well worthy of consideration and well worth making. Indeed, outside the EEC countries we have made this effort, saying to one country: "If you do not buy some of our produce, we will not buy some of yours." As yet, this has not had much effect in any build-up of mutual trade but there is no doubt that it did make the bees move, as it were, in the hive and there have been certain flutterings around as a result since then which I hope and expect may generate some new additional trading with this particular country. As I say, we have done it only in one case so far but it has been worth doing. To apply it generally would freeze trading to such a degree that probably nobody would benefit in the long run and it would tie world trade to such a degree that we would have gone back a century in time by that exercise and would have lost rather than gained as a result.

Then there is, of course, the fact that if we were completely free to go into these markets and if there were no supports either from here or there for our agricultural produce, in particular, it is not clear that in all cases we would be just up to competing and might not have it all our own way if the gates were fully opened both ways. This must be kept in mind also when we talk about gaining access and forcing our way on the basis that we buy from them and they do not buy from us. I deplore the situation where that arises, particularly in relation to the Six Common Market countries, because our trading has been going down and down. In so far as the balance of trade is concerned we have been on the losing end, progressively, during these recent years and, short of gaining membership of the Common Market, it does not look as if there will be any great change, although we are hoping for some improvement, but I do not think there will be any really outstanding change short of our entry to that market as full members in due course.

Deputy Clinton raised the question of brucellosis eradication and said that there should be some facilities for farmers who want to proceed on their own. We have a number of things that I am sure Deputy Clinton is aware of. The brucellosis certified herds scheme has been available in all counties since June, 1965. Under this scheme a farmer who clears his herd of the disease at his own expense and who satisfies the Department as to his management of his herd and premises, can have further tests arranged free by the Department and any reactors to those tests taken up at market value.

But he gets nothing until he has the job done.

This new scheme has not met with a great deal of success. In fact, there has been very little response. Only a very few herd owners have, in fact, availed of this scheme. However, we are considering a further scheme for herd owners outside the area where full-scale eradication is in progress. Under this scheme a herd owner who discovers infection in his herd and who sends the animals for slaughter would get a grant payable when the herd is eventually certified to be clear of the disease.

What percentage grant is that?

I do not know what the actual percentage would be but it is intended to be an assistance for those people who are not yet within the overall scheme. It is to help them to some considerable degree to get clear of infected animals where they are anxious to do it, to clear their herds.

As a further aid for farmers in the main dairying and breeding areas, we have also the milk ring test. I should say that one round was completed in the autumn and a further round will be completed in 1969. Herds found to be clear in each test will give very little risk. It is hoped in the third round to organise special sales from these herds. It is also hoped that further efforts in these areas will be of some considerable assistance in the eradication of brucellosis by these progressive herd owners even before the overall clearance scheme would have got to their areas.

We also heard much about farmers' organisations and we have had rather woolly talking, not only from the Opposition benches, I might say, confusing the situation as to farming organisation relations with the Government and with me, whereas the only difficulty in this realm relates to one farming organisation and to no other. There is no problem about communication, discussion or dialogue with all organised farmer groups bar the NFA. This should be kept clearly in mind and no confusion should be allowed to exist that there is any overall breakdown in communications between the Department, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and farming organisations, bar one. In regard to that one, the situation has been and still is and will undoubtedly continue to be that the Department and the Minister are available to them in the same manner as they have been available to all other organisations over the years. This is on the basis that if they have a problem and want to discuss it they come along to make their case and put their points and listen to the Minister's difficulties in the situation. Then, having heard the case and discussed it, the Minister goes from that discussion— which in all probability will entail expenditure—and processes what he heard from the group and since, as I said, it will invariably involve policy or money he must go to the Government and there fight the case that he believes in or has come to believe in. He utilises the case that has been made to him by the various interests and tries to convince the Government to introduce something new or to increase something. He may succeed wholly or he may succeed partially or he may not succeed at all, but having reached a conclusion whatever it may be, that is then conveyed back to the organisation or organisations and to the general body of farmers, informing them what has happened. This is the situation and this is the system of our Government and of our democracy. It is collective Government responsibility and neither I nor any other occupier of this Ministry has had or will have, unless we change the system radically, the power to sit down with any group and make decisions involving policy or spending. He must go back to his Government to get their consent. This is available to the NFA.

It has not been available to them for the past two years.

It has been available to them and available in a particular way through the National Agricultural Council.

On the Minister's terms.

They were the only organisation of any size which did not welcome it despite the fact that they had said that they would like a council of this type. As I said then and as I have said many times since, if they or anybody else did not like the manner in which it was set up there was nothing inflexible about it, that it could be changed and that time might show that it should be changed, that we were always open to suggestions and proposals from within the NAC to change its nature. That has been the case and nobody can deny that that was not known. I want to say again that the facilities that I have mentioned are available to this organisation to come to the Minister——

Through an imaginary NAC.

——wait now——to discuss these matters but they chose another way. They chose to show that, in fact, they would have to have it their way. Although I have had four, five or six invitations in the last two or three months, and these invitations were in the final analysis invitations without any preconditions, I have had the sort of reply that I got to the last of these which I made last September. Some of the reply which I got to my invitation of the 20th September asking without conditions that I might meet the NFA and the ICMSA leaders together, has been published. It contained seven conditions under which normality would be regarded as having been restored and which provided that there should be a categorical assurance from me on behalf of the Government that the seven conditions were being granted as a prerequisite to meeting. Obviously, there could not and would not be a meeting. These seven conditions are as follows:

(a) Recognition by Government of the proper role of NFA—representing 130,000 farm families—in our society and under our Constitution as one of the most important instruments in substantially and materially aiding agricultural and general economic progress.

(b) Participation by the NFA in the formulation and implementation of agricultural policy——

Does the Minister consider that to be reasonable?

Wait now, there is another wee bit there. Do not take umbrage. It continues:

——always conscious of the authority of the Government and in the ultimate of Dáil Éireann in finally deciding on and sanctioning national agricultural policy.

(c) Immediate renewal——

I am not too good at reading this one because it is rather difficult. However this is what it says:

Immediate renewal—extraneous to the Minister's proposed meeting on the milk price issue—of NFA/Minister/Government negotiations in the nature of productive dialogue on the many issues which confront argiculture in general and farmers in particular—memoranda have been submitted to the Government, the Minister and his predecessor on these issues, the latest of which was submitted to the Taoiseach and the Minister on April 9th, 1968, prior to the 1968 Budget.

(d) Agreement on the necessary constructive meetings between the Minister and/or his officials and NFA Commodity Committees on problems and suggested solutions to same relating to all agricultural commodities individually and collectively.

(e) Constructive discussions between the NFA and the Minister on closing the "income gap" (presently £5 per week) between farmers and workers in other sectors.

(f) Ministerial permission to his officials to enable them to have free and frank discussions with NFA officials by mutual agreement on items of day to day importance.

(g) Recognition by the Government and the Minister for Agriculture of those selected by organised farmers for appointment to Marketing Boards, Commissions, Study Groups, etc.

(h) The abolition of discrimination against the Irish Farmers' Journal by having general Departmental advertising restored in the Journal.

Hear, hear.

Hear, hear, except for the fact that this journal is avowedly not belonging to the organisation that allegedly has a dispute with me and, therefore, why be so concerned to put that in along with all these other weighty conditions? It is my firm intention to put them back on the gold standard about which Deputy Dowling was talking earlier tonight in order to take this irrelevant matter out of it.

Surely it is not irrelevant to the farmers' organisations.

Do not let us have a row.

It is not a row.

I want to get that out of the way. I do not want a row on what is the irrelevant matter and the one out of context with these conditions.

Are they not all reasonable conditions?

If the Deputy regards these preconditions as reasonable, all I can say to him is God help him if he ever happens to become Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. He will be crucified, and he will be lacking in responsibility to the Government and the people who put him there.

The Minister must be misreading the whole thing.

I asked for a meeting on more than one occasion without conditions as a solution to the internal, inter-organisational strife that is the root cause of the problems of these farmers' organisations. This is what I got back, and this is the last long bulletin I have got from this source. It is very difficult to feel anything but baffled by the attitude of people here who should know better than to say that, broadly speaking, there is a row and that as it is Christmas there is goodwill about and there should be a reconciliation. The reconciliation is there, and it will continue to be there under our democratic organisation. All other organisations will be free to come to my Department and all other Departments in the knowledge that there may be no decisions made there because it is not within the competence of any Minister of any Government in this State to make such decisions on his own, whether he be with that group or any other group; in the knowledge that he is one of a number of people who control the matter, and that he cannot dispose of that responsibility by saying to anybody: "Come in and I will make the decisions with you." I cannot do this. I have not the authority to do it.

I could not do it because I could be rejected the following day by my own Government colleagues, and would that not be right? Is that not the way our Government must operate? If that is only appreciated, then there is nothing between the members of the NFA and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. This I have told to the leader of the NFA who, remember, I invited to a meeting within 24 hours of his election as president, and I invited him to a meeting again. The last time I met him I told him as plainly as I could: "I do not care whether you call it negotiation, discussion, dialogue or anything else, so long as it is within that context it is freely open to you or any other organisation at least to recognise that this is not of my making, that it is the basis of our Government, and that the whole system of government and of democracy in this country would have to be changed to make it otherwise."

Having said that, I chide those who talk about this matter as if there was a war on with all the farmers' representatives in the country. In fact, as I said earlier, I spent almost three hours in the deepest conference this evening with people really representative of the farmers, the executive committee, numbering nearly 30, of the 27 agricultural committees throughout the country, the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. It was time well spent. There was good contact with them and there were good relations with them. I hope this continues as it always has been, so far as my predecessors and myself are concerned. Only a couple of days ago the ICMSA were up here with me as they have always been over the years. Naturally, they make their case and, like other organisations, they will be looking for their pound of flesh, but they still come and still have contact with the Minister and there is no problem about it. There are the other organisations in the country, whether they be sheep representatives, cattle representatives or whatever organisation they represent, they are all there available and I will be available to them, and they know this.

I just want it to be plainly and clearly understood that in Ireland there is only the one organisation representing farmers who do not see their way to have the same sort of contact with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries as every other organisation is prepared to have. I only wish it was different; I hope the time is now arriving when it will be different.

I hope this will be the last Christmas that we shall have under Fianna Fáil.

You will not only have a good Christmas this year but farming-wise a better one still next year, provided you are fortunate enough to have the same Government and the same Ministers.

That will leave us with a very unhappy Christmas.

Do not worry about next year. It may never happen. The attitude of Fine Gael has always been if it is a bad day today it will be worse tomorrow and if it is a good day today it will be bloody awful next week.

I am only sorry that due to these arrangements I have not had the time I should like to make a real speech about agriculture instead of talking about the carping criticisms made by the Opposition, who had nothing else to talk about, there being no real criticism of the Party or the Government at the moment. However, there will be another day when we shall have more time to discuss this very important matter in greater detail than it has been possible to do tonight. I can only say to the farmers that they had a great year, and may they have a very happy Christmas as well; I think they could not help it.

Question: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration" put and declared lost.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn