Naturally, I am very pleased that the case I made here last week for the liquid milk producers in the Dublin area and in the Cork area caused the Minister to examine his conscience to such effect that, over the weekend, he decided to increase the price of liquid milk in these areas by 2d per gallon.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 37: Agriculture (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £8,938,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain subsidies and sundry grants-in-aid.
—(Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.)
Perhaps if the Deputy would now speak for milk producers in other areas it might have the same effect.
This means that, over three years, the unfortunate milk producers in these areas have received an increase of ?d a pint per year, at a time when production costs were soaring. The Minister admits he took away from the producers in those two areas in the past year a subsidy of £300,000. In fact, therefore, they did not even get an increase of ?d per pint per year over those three years.
One hears the case made inside and outside this House that we are selling butter abroad at give-away prices. The question was asked why our people here cannot benefit from this cheap butter. There is no reason in the wide earthly world why this cannot happen without costing the Exchequer anything. The matter is so serious that the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary should take the trouble to explain what this would involve. The suggestion was made that perhaps the price of butter on the home market could be brought down to the price of margarine and in this way cut out margarine altogether. People here who could not afford to buy butter would then be able to buy it and enjoy it. On the face of it, there is a first-class case to be made for giving our people butter as cheaply as possible—butter that we are practically giving away on the export market.
I think it is correct to say that the last 75 million gallons of milk cost about 2s 4d a gallon in support—an enormous subsidy. If it could be spread out to enable Irish people to get cheaper butter then the case should be examined. I have made some rough calculations. We consume about 650,000 cwt. of butter in this country and we are using about 200,000 cwt. of margarine. It would cost the Exchequer about £3½ million to reduce butter to 2s per lb. There would be a substantial saving if we succeeded in replacing the margarine by milk which we should otherwise have to export, a saving of about £1 million, leaving a figure of £2½ million.
At this point, I get a little muddled in my calculations. I think we must then go back to subsidise the 200,000 cwt. as well. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary has the figures available to him. The Irish people should know the full facts. If they cannot get the benefit of the cheap butter perhaps the Government could go part of the way and examine whether it could be given to the social welfare classes, or portion of it. Deputy Murphy has made a case in this regard. One constantly hears criticism of the fact that we are giving butter away on the export market for a very small price indeed, a price at which our people in this country would be able to afford to buy it rather than having to buy margarine. There is no doubt about it that it is almost impossible to understand the attitude of the Minister in refusing to double the beef calf subsidy in order to get rid of the surplus milk that is costing us so much to export.
My calculation is that the last 150,000 cows—basing cows on a 500 gallon average, approximately—are costing the Exchequer £60 a cow. Yet we have the Minister refusing to pay a £25 beef calf subsidy in order to induce people away from milk production to beef. It does not make sense to any man who thinks seriously about this business. We must have a serious look at this because we know that every cow's milk, taking the lot of them, that is exported is costing the taxpayer £30.
The Minister said £35.
I am being conservative, but the last 120,000 cows are costing £60 a cow. It is that surplus that we want to drain off, the surplus we cannot get any sort of reasonable market for. Bord Bainne are trying very hard and on the whole are doing a very good job. At times one hears complaints that while they have to sell the commodity they have not the control of quality and that this control should be reposed in Bord Bainne. However, this is something I have no positive views on. It would appear normal that if you have to sell a product you should have some control over the quality of that product and I am afraid that in this case quality control is still being left in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. There are complaints frequently that Bord Bainne should be responsible for sales in the home market. Their only interest possibly is that they look for a better promotion job so that more milk will be sold at home in order to drain off some of the surplus that Bord Bainne cannot get rid of.
Another complaint one hears frequently is in relation to the subsidy on carcase beef. It is to the effect that the competition now is rather unfair for those in the store cattle trade, because of the existence of a subsidy on carcase beef that is, perhaps, greater than it should be, while there is none for store cattle, this is unfair competition which militates against the store producer. There must be something in this complaint because it has gone on for some time.
The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has said he is dissatisfied with the way the trade agreement with Britain is going in relation to quotas of one sort or another. It is quite obvious that we are being treated extremely badly by the British. In that agreement there was supposed to be a growth factor satisfactory to the Irish Government and people, but obviously that growth factor has been ignored completely, and when one has regard to the way imports from Britain have rocketed during the lifetime of the agreement, the case for increased quotas becomes unanswerable, and why the British adopt the attitude they do is hard to understand. One could say that the people responsible for reviewing this situation are doing a bad job because the result is bad.
I remember that when we were discussing the agreement here the Minister at the time said we had got practically everything we had asked for and that he thought this quota of 25,000 tons, on which the British would pay a subsidy, was a wonderful amount. That was the full amount at the time. We are now exporting 75,000 tons and we can easily see how this is working against us. I do not know how we can get a better deal but certainly there is a very strong case to be made for improvements in the agreement. By the time it has been fully reviewed I hope these improvements will emerge and become obvious.
In the Supplementary Estimates there is an item for sheep and I think this is one of the things we will have to be given an opportunity of expanding if we get into the EEC because prices are likely to rise by, perhaps, 50 per cent and not nearly enough is being done to prevent a decline in sheep numbers and to increase the numbers substantially. All we have done in this direction has been in respect of mountain sheep. There is a case to be made in respect of early lamb for a subsidy of 3d per lb. on lamb produced from March to June, and the giving of a subsidy to lowland sheep producers and not to confine it entirely to the hills. In the lowlands people are despairing for many reasons but mainly because little or nothing has been done to improve their situation.
I was interested in the provision for increased grants for glasshouses. This is one scheme that has done very well, has had significant results, but, unfortunately, we have not looked ahead in the glasshouse scheme. In the case of milk we asked the producers to give us 550 million gallons by 1970 and they gave it to us, but before we got it we began to reduce prices because we did not put any new research efforts into new products. We have Kille-shandra who, on their own, did research into a new product, long life whey which is selling at a premium. There is scope for much more research into this type of product if we are to sell at a reasonable price the extra milk being produced.
In the glasshouse industry we provided fairly substantial grants and we got good results. As I said here a couple of years ago, I was impressed by the co-operation between An Foras Talúntais, the growers and the advisory services. Immense strides were made on general improvements in production. It became obvious we were getting some place and that the growers were eager. However, immediately we get the production we do not trouble with the markets. We do not set up an organisation to investigate the prospects for such marketing.
I am aware that for some time past there has been pressure from the horticultural industry for the setting up of a council. What is mainly needed in the tomato industry is compulsory grading. This matter has already been raised at Question Time. Last year four groups decided in the early part of the year that they would export to the British market. Of course, that involved having available suitable trays, packages and so on. However, the trouble often is that as soon as these groups export one consignment they may find that the price on the home market is a penny per pound more so that when the time comes for them to export the next consignment, they welsh and will not agree to send the consignment. There must be compulsory grading. I know that some of the people among these groups were ashamed to have had their names coupled with growers who put good tomatoes on top of their trays and bad ones underneath.
As well as having compulsory grading we have also reached the stage where each grower must be compelled to export a percentage of his production. Until such time as there is rigid control of this nature there is little or no hope for the glasshouse industry— an industry in which there is such great scope. There is a very strong feeling that in order to get exports under way in the tomato industry, we should give the growers relief of income tax on exports the same as mushroom growers. It is hard to make a case against that. I know it is not a matter for the Minister but the case might be put to the Minister for Finance.
There is a staggering increase in the figure for the eradication of tuberculosis in cattle and when the Minister is replying I should like him to tell us the reason for this increase. Was there a breakdown in the country or is this an all-out effort to eradicate the disease once and for all? We are all aware of the enormous amount of money that has already been spent on TB eradication but this increase is a matter of concern to all of us.
With regard to the eradication of brucellosis I was disappointed to notice a saving of £300,000 in the amount provided for this purpose. This scheme is moving too slowly. In Northern Ireland additional restrictions have been imposed in relation to this disease but the fact that we have this saving indicates that we are dragging our feet in this matter. There is no encouragement for any herd owner who is trying to eradicate the disease himself and there is a case to be made for giving him something.
Concerning the disposal of surplus wheat the Minister said, and I quote:
As the House is aware, there was a large surplus of wheat over the milling requirement from the 1968 harvest. This surplus had to be disposed of as animal feed and the Exchequer had to bear the cost as no wheat levy operated in that year. In addition to a sum of £900,000, which was paid in 1968-69 to An Bord Gráin to meet part of the loss involved, there is a provision of £500,000 in the Supplementary Estimate to meet a further part of the loss involved. Indeed this may not be the end of the Exchequer commitment for the 1968 crop.
Why are we still in doubt about the amount of commitment? Surely we should know at this stage what is the total commitment in respect of wheat of the 1968 crop. Why do we not know and when will we know? I know that a substantial amount of wheat was carried over into the 1969 season because of a belief that we should not have two such good years in succession. However, I hope that part of the expense involved here does not arise from overstoring, storing for too long and involving us in the extra cost of storage.
We are glad to learn that the land project scheme is going ahead but I think most Deputies will be aware of the delays in the payment of grants towards this scheme. I do not know why this should be so but, perhaps, the Minister could look into this matter.
Concerning the additional sum for grants for the purchase of forage harvesters, this was one of the best schemes initiated from the point of view of encouraging silage making. The increase is not enormous, being about one-third, but it has had the very worthwhile effect of increasing silage production.
The last matter about which I wish to speak is one that was raised also by Deputy Fahey who said that one of the main things wrong with Irish agriculture is that we have not enough advisory assistants but Deputy Fahey obviously did not pause to ask himself why we have this situation. Is it not a fact that there is turmoil in the advisory services because reasonable salaries are not being paid? Is it not also a fact that the salaries paid are very much lower than the salaries of other professional people? For instance, an engineer starts with about £1,500 a year, whereas an agricultural graduate starts at about £900 a year. If the Minister agrees with Deputy Fahey about the shortage of advisers, he should do something about the salary scale. There is no incentive for people to take degrees in agriculture. The Minister should do whatever he can to overcome the difficulties that are facing the advisers as well as the committees of agriculture.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
On a point of order, can we take it that the Parliamentary Secretary is not concluding?
No, the Parliamentary Secretary is just speaking.
I was under the impression that the Minister was not present. That is probably why the Parliamentary Secretary is in.
In his own time the Minister will deal fully with the points raised but I should like to refer to a few points within the limited scope of this Supplementary Estimate.
Coming from one of the most intensive agricultural areas in the whole of Ireland, with a combination of milk and tillage, I welcome the additional moneys made available for agriculture. Extra money is being provided for shows and show societies. This is highly desirable because wherever there is an element of competition it makes for higher standards. From my own experience, we have found that competitions for beet crops and so on improve the standard of workmanship and the standard of the final product in a big way. I welcome the provision of extra moneys under this subhead.
An Foras Talúntais is also being assisted. This I regard as another highly desirable development. With all the advantages we have in north east Cork, we also have the dairy section of An Foras Talúntais. I am very pleased to say that they are doing an excellent job and I feel that the outcome of their work will have a big bearing on the future of our agricultural products. In co-operation with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries they are conducting very intensive research activities and probably the foremost of these activities is the attempt to diversify dairy products and to provide a wider range of products. From my experience they are fulfilling their purpose in north east Cork and doing a very good job. The advantage of their work is not alone seen in the open days or the fixed, scheduled demonstration days but their example is followed by many farmers in north east Cork.
The land project is also being provided for. I am pleased to say, having regard to the amount of work that has been carried out in many parts of Cork, that this is a well worthwhile investment. From time to time we hear complaints that the standards being sought by the land project office are too exacting but I am a believer in getting good value for money. I have at all times advocated in my statements that it is only right that where the taxpayers' money is being invested the best value possible should be got for it. This is reasonable. The land project office is doing an excellent job. Indeed, we would like to have the advantage of the land project in parts of County Cork and north east Cork where it is not at present available. The Board of Works enters into it here in that drainage is necessary before the land project work can be carried out. My one regret is that this necessary drainage has not been done with the result that land project grants are not available to farmers in certain areas. Many acres of top class land in north Cork are being flooded by the Black-water and its tributaries and where land is flooded an applicant does not qualify for a land project grant. However, what is being done is well worth while, I feel that effort and endeavour should be compensated and paid for at all times and certainly the operation of the land project scheme is well worth while.
I am glad, too, to see attention being paid to the glasshouse industry. There is a tremendous future for the horticultural sector. I have had experience with the representatives of the glasshouse owners and they certainly have the right ideas as regards the development and improvement of the glasshouse industry. It is highly desirable that a training scheme should be introduced because we must keep our minds on the fact that if we are to compete on the international market and hold our own we will have to produce top quality stuff. The grading system for tomatoes is well worth while.
We have heard from Deputies on the other side of the inadequacy of Government policy towards farmers while on the other hand we have heard that our Irish farmers are among the most efficient in the world. I claim that their efficiency is brought about by the aims and services and policies of the Fianna Fáil Government and that one cannot be divorced from the other. Their efficiency and their high standards of quality of production would not be possible if it were not for the assistance given by the Government and the Department down the years. Needless to say, we welcome criticism but it should be constructive and some of the comments from Deputies on the other side were anything but constructive. The farmers of Ireland recognise that their standard of wellbeing is due to the policies of Fianna Fáil.
Good man yourself.
He is telling the truth.
As a direct representative of farmers, I am naturally interested in securing as much as possible for them. In fact, I wish that the Estimate for Agriculture could be doubled but, unfortunately, we must be sensible in our attitude and in our approach. It must be admitted that the Fianna Fáil Government and the Department have stood squarely behind the farmers and have made their present standard of wellbeing possible.
I did not intend to speak on this Estimate because of its restricted nature but I wanted to make those few points especially that about the assistance for shows and competitions and any type of activity that would have the effect of improving our food standards. At the moment we hear a good deal about the establishment of what is known as the national codex alimentarius committee which has recently been established by the Minister. This is an organisation which aims at improving the standards of food products and has as its object to bring about standardisation of food among the many participating countries. When we join the EEC we will have to be able to attain the standards of this international organisation.
Money is made available, too, for the provision of forage harvester equipment. This is highly desirable and I would hope for an extension of this type of grant to provide money for farmers who are prepared to go into co-operation in the use of farm machinery. In beet growing areas we see the effectiveness and the usefulness of what are known as farm machinery syndicates. These are regular, formal companies which bind farmers together in the use of the various implements which they need. This type of activity should be encouraged because it helps the small farmer and makes available to him the most costly and best type of machines at a reasonable cost. I visualise Government assistance to syndicates of this type. I feel they should be encouraged. They are certainly the answer for small farmers who want to have the benefit of top class equipment.
As the Minister will be dealing at length with the various aspects of the Estimate, I have only hit a few spots in which I was particularly interested. I am not making any attempt to reply to the points that have been raised.
My contribution to this debate will be brief. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries indicated that those employed in agriculture can be thankful to Fianna Fáil policy and to the Fianna Fáil Government, and probably to the Minister as well, for whatever money they have. In my view there is no direct agricultural policy whatsoever. The Government have been asking farmers during the past few years to increase milk production. Last week the Minister stated that one of the products of this, butter, was being exported at the rate of 1s a lb. People are being charged five times that price on the home market.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the point in encouraging the farmers to produce something, or to increase their production in something, for which the market is already oversupplied? The prospects for the future do not seem very bright either. What is the sense in asking farmers to produce more milk when in actual fact it is costing other sections of the community, along with the farmers, a certain amount of money to subsidise it?
We will be entering the Common Market some time in the future and the Department of Agriculture should have a clear-cut policy whereby they would indicate to the farmers what we need when we become part of the EEC. Will it be beef or milk that will pay them best in that community? This is what the Department of Agriculture and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries should be concerned with at the moment rather than this stop-go policy which has prevailed with Fianna Fáil for quite a while. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary must agree with what I am saying. The sensible thing to do would be to prepare for our entry into the European Economic Community rather than introducing this Supplementary Estimate to try to forestall the farmers for a few more years with some silly promises of one type or another.
Does the Deputy not agree with the Supplementary Estimate?
As the Parliamentary Secretary says: "My only wish would be that the Supplementary Estimate would be doubled". As the discussion on this Supplementary Estimate is rather limited I will just deal with a few points. First of all, I should like to deal with the farm building scheme. At the moment many farmers do not know what they are entitled to under the farm building scheme. It is the duty of the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department to set up an advisory service whereby those farmers who are not aware of what benefits they can receive under the farm building scheme would be educated in that respect. Macra na Feirme are doing a very good job in this regard but the Department are lacking very much in this respect. I suppose one could say that where pilot areas have been set up a certain amount of good has been done.
We sent up a question to the Minister regarding the Dunmore pilot area. When this pilot area was set up three agricultural instructors were appointed to it but since October, 1969 we have been without a pilot area instructor. What was the sense in appointing three instructors when at the moment we have none? I agree with pilot areas but the one thing I see wrong is that a lot of the agricultural instructors concerned with them have no practical experience of farming. They deal with figures and things like that which are of little good to the farmer in many cases. They encourage them to put up a lot of expensive buildings such as cow byres, haysheds and so on. That is little good in the west of Ireland when you have to borrow money. It is all right when the buildings are going up and for some little time afterwards but when you have to start paying back the money it is a different story. Where is the money to come from then?
You will find in this regard that a millstone is being tied around the necks of small farmers. They find it very hard to bear the brunt of the cost involved in running their farms because of the manner in which the agricultural instructors instruct them to run them. Many of those farmers accept the advice of those instructors but it would be much better if a lot of this money were put into some type of production from which there would be a monetary return at once. Long term plans, whereby they could put up the necessary buildings later on, could also be made. The manner in which the pilot area instructors instruct the small farmers is not right. In one area near where I live too many haysheds and cow byres have gone up and as a result you have a big expense of galvanised iron on a very small farm and the farmer finds it very hard to pay back what he has borrowed. I would appeal to the Minister to ensure that some type of advisory service be set up to let small farmers know exactly what they can receive in regard to roads to their farmyards and water schemes from the farm building scheme.
I would like to refer also to the land project scheme. The grants for this at the moment are moderate. One thing I object to is the delay in the payment of those grants. This affects a lot of people. In my area a fair amount of work is going on under this scheme and in many cases we find it very hard to get the agricultural officers to pass the schemes. As a result many of those who are employed as agricultural contractors to do this type of work in the area have machines on the hire purchase system. No farmer they go to can pay them cash down for a scheme. The result is that the contractor has to wait until the farmer gets the grant which means that he has to do the work and wait until the Department passes it. Even after they pass it they wait for quite a while before they pay the grant. This should be speeded up because a lot of those small contractors who are doing great work for the small farmers are being forced out of business due to the delay in the payment of those grants. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see to it that those grants are speeded up.
In the last Dáil I put down a question about wool prices. The Minister set up a wool board, An Chomhairle Olla. I do not know what the functions of this board are but I know that the Minister picked the vast majority of the members himself. As one who produces a small quantity of wool every year I think the price paid for the wool is scandalously low. If the Department does not do something about the price of wool it will find that the sheep population of Galway will dwindle even further than it has dwindled at the moment. I make the point in the hope that the Minister will increase the price for wool.
Many people not engaged in agriculture are under the impression that farmers get everything for nothing. I am quite sure that there are a number of gentlemen farmers who get an easy £ because they have plenty of cattle and superior management but the vast majority of farmers in my own constituency work very hard for a very small income.
In reply to the Estimate on Lands the Minister for Lands said he thought his Department should be amalgamated with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and that part-time farming should go hand in hand with industry and at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis he got a standing ovation for this suggestion. Fine Gael have expressed this view for some time but rather than talk about it I wish the Government would implement the idea.
There are a number of farming organisations but I do not feel there is enough co-operation between them. I understand the Minister is in consultation with the NFA at this very moment. I know that the Minister is putting one body fighting against another.
That is not true.
Surely Deputy Crowley would not know anything about it anyway.
The Deputy must keep to the Supplementary Estimate.
I appeal to the farming organisation to come together as one body.
Did the Minister not say that?
Deputy Donnellan should keep to the Supplementary Estimate and Deputy Crowley should allow him to do so.
I also appeal for greater co-operation between the Minister and these organisations because I feel this would be to the benefit of our agricultural policy. I think we should have representatives from the Department studying conditions in Europe.
The Chair must point out that there will be a debate on the main Estimate in which an opportunity will be given to deal with policy matters.
I say this by way of conclusion. These representatives should be able to let farmers know what they will be expected to produce if and when we go into Europe, which I believe will be in the near future.
I notice that an increased sum has been given to the Agricultural Institute in this Supplementary Estimate. We should all be pleased with the work which the instititute has done. It must not be forgotten that the institute was established during the lifetime of the last inter-Party Government. This fact is sometimes conveniently forgotten outside this House, as, indeed, are many other things. In the first years of its operation it devoted the major part of its activities to soil science, but as this study has been completed, as far as the practical farmer is concerned, they now have an opportunity to study animal genetics and animal breeding. It is essential that we should import the best breeds for milk and beef so that with the same feeding and the same number of cattle we will be able to produce increased milk yields and greater liveweight gains which, subsequently, will get us more money.
Many worthwhile experiments have been carried out by the Agricultural Institute but the results of the experiment carried out at Grange on the feeding of cattle without roofs over their heads have not been fully conveyed to the farmers. It was suggested to farmers attending the experiment that it was just as economical to feed cattle on silage and meal with no roofs over their heads as it was to do it with a roof over their heads. The farmers who saw the experiment just did not believe it. There were no figures for mortality rate, perhaps there was no mortality, but I still believe that any beast left outside in all weathers will devote some portion of the food to the preservation of its own body heat.
I want to agree with what my colleague Deputy Donnellan said about too many farm buildings and too little land. I do not think small farmers should take on the responsibility of repaying loans which they cannot afford. The farm improvement scheme gives an opportunity for providing better and more economical housing for our cattle which, in turn, will bring a greater profit to the farmer. As I have been critical about an experiment carried out by the institute, it falls upon me to give my reasons.
I borrowed from the Agricultural Credit Corporation approximately £3,500 repayable over 21 years. I availed of grants to the extent of about £800. That unit will provide self-feed silage for 100 cattle in two units of 50. The cost, if one were to put only one beast per year through that unit, not taking into account the principal being repaid, which is an advantage for the owner, but taking into account merely the outgoings, is £2 per head. If I am lucky enough to put my heavy cattle through that unit and then have a few months left to put stores and anything else into it at this time of the year until I have them out on grass, I avoid poaching and I am putting, more than one beast per head per year through that unit. The cost to me, not giving credit for principal repaid when I avail of the grants, is £2 per head per year for one beast passing through.
How much is £2 per head on beef in the Common Market? It is one-sixth of a hundredweight. If we can organise ourselves to provide the best technical and financial advice for farmers and produce units in bigger or smaller sizes, without doubt, this experiment falls down. It is an advantage to have a beast well housed, the hay kept dry and right, and the straw for bedding piled above the silage bench. Take the difference in cost for one-sixth of a cwt. in, perhaps, 100 days winter feeding in such a unit. It is quite certain that the beast out in the elements lying on wet grass will not produce this one-sixth of a cwt. of beef which will be produced by an animal fed exactly the same amount of meals and silage in a comfortable, modern, well-designed unit. I suggest that that is an experiment which should be discontinued. Experiments should be along the line of producing well-designed self-feed silage units which can be mucked out with a tractor, which can be as large or as small as the farm can carry and will mean that the beast will be dry and comfortable—necessary conditions for putting on weight. As a practical farmer I have no doubt that any advice to the contrary is incorrect. I should like the Minister to comment on the matter when he is concluding.
I wish now to comment upon the increase in the Supplementary Estimate for the land project. The increase for the subsidy on fertiliser, both phosphatic and potash, betokens greater use of fertiliser by farmers. This is something that we all think is the right thing, the thing which will bring greater profits in the years to come and immediately. As a farmer I have no objection to saying that quite a lot of the subsidy on fertiliser that is applied to grain goes in the first year and we as a Parliament and the Government are putting that aside into the Capital Budget, thereby implying that this will bring further results in the years to come. In the case of granular fertiliser fed down the spout in a seed drill, this is hardly true. Whether one has to worry about that aspect of the matter or not, the fact is that the extra application of fertiliser is commendable and merits mention.
There is provision in the Supplementary Estimate of £224,000 for the land project. I remember when the land project was the subject of scathing abuse in this House. It is a long time since the former Deputy James Dillon stated that one million acres of land had become arable and profitable as a result of the land project. He had the pluck to take £24 million of Marshall Aid money at 4¾ per cent. Last week the ESB had to take money at 9½ per cent. Let us thank God for the foresight and pluck of former Deputy Dillon and let us remember that at that time there were those in this House who decried him and said that he was putting the country in pawn. By whose standards do we work now?
Who is putting the country in pawn at the moment? Those who are over there now, who at another time were here, are responsible and, for political advantage, are not saying what could be said.
The scheme of grants for calved heifers was a disastrous failure. I want to give the history of that scheme. The history started before the scheme was announced. In the previous year, when I had been shadow Minister for Agriculture for Fine Gael, Deputy Clinton, former Deputy James Dillon and I sat down over three or four days and produced a heifer mating subsidy scheme which was designed to make it possible for the farmer to mate a heifer and have her calf, even if she was a beef heifer, before she left the country as beef. It was an entirely different scheme from that operated by Fianna Fáil. Once we had proposed that scheme, they had to do something different, being professional politicians to their fingertips. They did something different. The Estimate in the first year of this scheme of grants for calved heifers produced in his last year as Minister for Agriculture by Deputy Smith was £350,000 and the Supplementary Estimate for that scheme in that first year, when all the chancers in agriculture—and there are chancers in agriculture just as everywhere else— availed of the scheme, was £1,900,000. That is the proof that the scheme was a disastrous failure. In this Supplementary Estimate today we are hearing its death knell. It has gone now, as it had to go, because it was ill-designed and was made to be different from the proper scheme which we had devised which could have helped the farmers and could have been of continuing help to them as they moved towards the Common Market.
I want now to deal with the two largest items in the Supplementary Estimate and, with your permission, Sir, I propose to discuss them together. In subhead K.29—Beef Cattle Incentive Scheme—there is a provision of £900,000. There is an extra provision of £4.061 million for Milk Production Allowances, Marketing of Dairy Produce, including grants-in-aid. I want to advert to a matter that has slipped the attention of many people who are worried about our advent to the Common Market. It is a fact that when the Common Market membership becomes ten instead of six our position in regard to milk products will improve marginally. At the moment we are outside the Common Market and, as the Minister said in his opening speech, we have to sell butter at 1s per lb. When we enter the Common Market that will no longer be the position. Marginally, our position will improve and we will not be in an absolutely disastrous surplus position within a Common Market of ten nations. This should lead the Minister to realise that the sums he is now providing are really capital sums. They are an investment in the prolongation of breeding herds here.
I have already mentioned the question of animal genetics and animal breeding and said how necessary it is that the full attention of the Agricultural Institute should be devoted to these two aspects so that we will get the very greatest profit from our herds, whether for beef or for milk, when we go into the Common Market. It is on profit that we all live. At the same time, I want to emphasise something that people may not realise. In fact, within the Ten we will not be as badly off on two counts. The first count is that the arrival of 60,000,000 British will mean that there will be more people to drink milk. That does not quite cancel out the arrival of Ireland and Denmark and any other country with a surplus of milk products. Our position, as far as a surplus or a deficiency of milk products within the Ten is concerned, will be better than it would be at the moment within the Six.
The second reason why we will be better off is that, when we get into the Common Market, there will be a system of target and intervention prices. As I understand the situation, the price at which the Six would have to intervene to support our milk products would be higher than the price we are receiving at the moment or, if not higher, about the same. The last time I looked at it, it was marginally higher. So, in fact, things are not as bad as the Minister suggested in his opening statement. If we can get into the Common Market there is the point that surpluses and loads to be carried will be spread on ten backs instead of one and we, as a surplus producing agricultural community, will be in the favourable situation that the cost of disposing of those surpluses will be a responsibility not only of Ireland but also of Britain and all the other countries within the Common Market.
Another interesting fact in relation to beef and milk that must also be thought about very seriously is that milk consumption remains largely static. I suppose any of us looking at it in a practical way would say that in advanced communities such as we have all over Europe this will probably continue to be the case. In fact there are not many children in Europe who cannot get an adequate amount of milk. There are many millions of children in Africa and South America who cannot get an adequate amount of milk but, with social services as they are in Europe, Britain and here, there are not many children who cannot get an adequate amount of milk. Children are the big milk consumers and what has happened over the past year will continue to happen, that is, milk consumption in the various countries within the Ten will continue at about the same level.
This is not true of beef. The situation in relation to beef is that you could be quite well off and you might not be able to afford beef every day. In Europe the price of beef is such that pork is everyman's meat and beef is eaten as a delicacy, as something that is more expensive and more prized. As the standard of living rises in these countries it would seem that what has happened over the past decade will continue to happen and that the consumption of beef will continue to rise. Therefore, I would think that we will not be as badly off as the Minister suggested.
When we get in—we will have a long hard pull until we do—we will certainly be better off as far as milk is concerned, and this great new market for beef will be opened up to us. The figure I saw in the shops in Paris not so long ago for a hind leg of lamb was £1 per lb. They did not cut the leg of lamb the way my wife would want it if she went into the butchers. They went right up across the rump and gave a huge lump of bone as well. In the same city, steak would be making about the same price or more. Of course the mark-up on the continent is colossal with added value tax and all the rest.
In these circumstances, it is still a fact that if we can produce good beef in sufficient quantities we will have a great opportunity for expansion. That is why I started my remarks on this Supplementary Estimate by exhorting the Minister to see to it that now— because cattle breeding is a long process—full attention is given to animal genetics and cattle-breeding, that as well as that, full attention is given to the improvement of our sheep breeds, and that in each case these will be made an absolute priority. There are beef breeds that can do better than anything we have here: Charollais, Semanthol, Limousin and various other breeds are being investigated at the moment. There is our opportunity, but we cannot do this in five minutes. A cow has a calf once a year roughly and if we want to get to the ordinary farmer, the man we all want to work for, the man Deputy Donnellan is talking about, we have to do this job now.
We have been a little too fainthearted in the past. Of course we were interrupted by the outbreak of the foot and mouth disease in England and once that happened it was ridiculous even to think about importation. I want to impress upon the Minister the opportunity that seems to be there. We should not be too dispirited or too disconsolate just because there is a huge figure to be met now. If, within a unified Europe, we will be working towards a better situation for Irish agriculture, then it is our job not to count the cost now but rather to point our thoughts in the right direction, towards producing an agricultural policy, and designing the work of the Agricultural Institute and the Department towards Ireland in this unified Europe which surely must come. Opportunities lost now will not return, and now is the time of opportunity.
May I say first of all to the Members of the House that my absence from the House during a great part of this debate was in no way intended to be any reflection on the House. Indeed, I was sorry that I could not be here but arrangements had been made for some time in advance for discussions with various farmers' organisations and that was the cause of my absence from the House not only today up to a short time ago but last week as well. I should like to have been here for all of the discussion but, from what I have heard, and also from the notes I got, it would appear that the discussion ranged over wider matters than those concerned absolutely with the additional money requested in the Supplementary Estimate.
However, this in itself may not have been any harm in view of the fact that it is quite a considerable time since we had a full overall discussion on agricultural matters in this House. I am not sure of the details but I understand there is some suggestion that, perhaps tomorrow, there might be a debate on a token Estimate. I do not know whether this is so, or if it is so what exactly it would entail, but if it should entail widening the discussion on the Department following on the contributions already made on this narrower estimate my remarks in reply would of necessity be more restricted than they might otherwise be.
To get on to the matters that were raised. There was, of course, the usual discussion on milk and beef, and the beef subsidy schemes and the cost of the subsidy for milk. A great part of the £8.9 million for which the House is being asked is required for the support of milk products or dairy products this year. Some Deputies had quite a bit to say about milk and dairy products as a whole. The attack of course was mounted on this matter of a scaled support. It was referred to as scaled pricing. There is a clear distinction here. No effort has been made to scale prices but a very decided effort has been made to scale the support from the Exchequer to the individual milk producer, and that is based on the fairly just formula, as I see it, of giving the greater part of the support to those who need it most. This is not to say that substantial profits cannot be made by the big enterprises engaging in milk production. I have said that only 2½ per cent of our producers are suffering a diminution in actual price support and this has been refuted here in the House. I have given the absolutely correct figure and that is the way it has been under this new support arrangement.
If we had all the money we would like to have perhaps we could, willy-nilly, continue to support milk regardless of the quantity produced. However, it must be realised that the money we have available comes from the Exchequer and that there are many other uses to which any surplus that might accrue could be put, not only in agriculture but in many other activities of the Government. We must therefore ask ourselves would we be fair to the community and to the public in continuing, as we have been doing up to recently, to give the same support for every gallon of milk produced regardless of the quantity and regardless of the profit per gallon that the particular producer was making from it.
I think we have taken the right decision. All I am sorry for is that when milk price support arrangements were first instituted the scaled support arrangements were not built in. Had that been done at that time it would have been welcomed as was the initial support then proposed. Not only would it have been welcomed but there would not have been a chirp about it by way of criticism because it would have come to be accepted as fair and proper to help our dairying producers on a differential basis, giving support where it was most needed, while at the same time trying to maintain a situation where all participants in the dairying industry would be engaging in it on a profitable basis and getting a return for their labours proportionate to their input.
The big milk farmer has no cause for complaint. Let us remember, taking one year with another and taking the average milk producing period as eight months of the year, mostly during the fair weather of the year, off the grass, if you like, a number of milk producers have been getting as much as £2,500 of support for their milk, an average of almost £50 a week or considerably higher than that if it is related to the eight months average milk producing period. If that situation is contrasted with the situation of the smaller operators of whom there are 80 per cent in the dairying industry, it will be realised what a big figure £2,500 is by way of support and what a large income that would seem to the 80 per cent to whom I am referring. Far from penalising the large producers, which has become the catchery in recent months, we are still supporting them to a very considerable degree. The large milk producer working on any sort of efficient basis is doing quite well under our new support arrangements. More power to him and may he continue to do so, but let us not have people crying on his behalf and saying he is being penalised because he has become efficient. People who make that kind of argument either know only too well what they are talking about or have no idea what they are talking about.
That tongue-in-cheek attitude is adopted by people who want to make trouble and to minimise the usefulness of the efforts we are making to support the dairying industry as a whole and to retain it intact even in these times of grave pressure on our dairy markets, in these times of gluts and surpluses in nations much bigger and better off than we are. We do so in the knowledge that this situation will pass. How long it will take to pass is the big guessing point at the moment, but pass it will.
In the meantime we cannot afford to lose our cow numbers. We would like to have less milk commercially sold or utilised for dairy products. Therefore, we have been set the rather difficult task of maintaining our cow numbers and increasing them, if possible, while at the same time trying to keep down the throughput of commercial milk selling and to turn out more beef. Any one of those aims might be readily accomplished but to do all three is very difficult. However, we are succeeding on all three fronts. Despite the stresses of the dairying market our cow numbers are increasing, admittedly slowly, but nevertheless increasing. At the same time our total milk cheque to our dairy industry continues to increase and our total beef production continues to rise.
Therefore, we are succeeding in doing the three things which seem to be incompatible and which other countries in somewhat similar circumstances have tackled in a completely different way. It is often asked why we do not do as they are doing. If we were to do that we would kill off our cows. This is very easy to do but once it is done it is not so readily rectified. We want to keep increasing our cow herds. We want more beef and we want to be in the position that if and when we do enter the EEC and milk becomes a viable proposition again we can readily move back into substantial milk production in addition to continuing beef production.
In trying to accomplish these aims we must defend ourselves from attacks by various people who are interested in only one element and have no regard to the other elements that go to make up this group of people who breed the cattle and produce the milk, altogether amounting to a very considerable proportion of our farming enterprise in this country.
There is a great deal of talk about rationalising in order to get bigger returns per gallon for our milk. As I have made known on many occasions, I am for amalgamation and rationalisation, but these moves must be socially as well as commercially desirable.
The effect on our national economy as a whole must be taken into account. All these things require careful study and if at times, perhaps, I have appeared to decry some effects of amalgamation proposals it was because those proposing them were not doing so in the most useful manner. They were making wild claims regarding the financial benefits that would accrue; in some cases they claimed that there would be an increase of 6d or even 1s per gallon if certain amalgamations were carried out. Everybody knows it would be impossible for any amalgamation, no matter how outlandishly unsuitable it might be from many points of view, to have an inbuilt benefit of anything like 6d or 1s per gallon. I am not against amalgamation but I want to debunk wild claims, made perhaps unthinkingly, for which there is no basis and in respect of which there would be a great deal of gnashing of teeth if such amalgamations went through and the reality had to be faced that instead of 1s per gallon there might be 1d or 2d per gallon.
To help me to evaluate any proposal it is my intention to set up a group of experts who would take an objective view of any suggestions for amalgamation. Their job would be to advise me; they would not be a general stalking-horse or a substitute for the Minister behind which he could hide, but would be an aid in helping the Minister to arrive at conclusions where propositions are made. An arrangement like this would ensure that when we agree to amalgamation we would have looked at both sides of the coin, not only in the purely local and profitability sense, but in the local social sense and the wider context of ultimate amalgamations and rationalisation taking place in adjoining areas. This body is not intended to be a decision-making organ behind which the Minister could shield from all subsequent criticism but is merely to ensure that the best possible knowledge is obtained from people, chosen for their objectivity, who have no particular axe to grind.
There have been the usual rather exaggerated suggestions about what we could do at home to find new outlets for milk and dairy products. It was suggested that the establishment of milk bars would help in this direction. There are milk bars in this city and throughout the country but I should like to see milk being made available in our bars—and I mean liquor bars. If milk could be sold in our bars this would be of benefit to many people. It would certainly mean that many would get home on a slightly straighter path, in addition to helping increase the consumption of milk.
We have been endeavouring for some time to ensure that in our hotels and restaurants, particularly those registered by Bord Fáilte, milk would be available as a matter of course, just as tablecloths and cutlery are provided on tables. There is no reason why milk should not be readily available in a country that has such an abundance of milk and which is such a good value product from every point of view. At present while milk is fairly readily available in some bars or hotels in other cases one would think the management had to bring the cows in and milk them to judge by the length of time it takes to fill an order. All these measures are minor and, taken individually, would make very little impact but grouped together they could help to reduce some of the surplus we have and would be of benefit to the nation as a whole.
On the question of margarine we have the pro-and anti-factions, with wild claims from both sides. It is considered by some that the control of the sale of margarine in any way would be practically unconstitutional while the other side holds the view that not to impose controls would, equally, be unconstitutional. However, somewhere between both extremes there must be the happy medium and compromise. Due to the extreme publicity and propaganda which the international concerns have carried out in relation to margarine it is true that the butter market in this country has been eroded. We have either got to conduct a propaganda war with these people or take the more obvious course—to have some sort of control over their operations. Even as private commercial companies in some cases these combines could afford to spend more money on advertising than we as a nation would be prepared to spend and I do not, therefore, see much point in conducting a propaganda war. Personally, I have no doubt whatever about which product is better but the fact is that propaganda can, and does, have a tremendous impact. At the moment about 10,000 tons of margarine are being used in this country, for which butter could be very usefully substituted. If we work on the basis of a loss of £250,000 per 1,000 tons we can and £3 million at the moment and that is an approximate figure.
A suggestion has been made regarding free milk for hospitals and schoolchildren. One of the difficulties in cases like this is that the administrative costs quite often practically outweight the advantage of providing the commodity. There is the inbuilt propensity in our nature that, where something is provided at no cost, very little is thought of it and it is abused rather than used. There is also another tendency to get this free milk for specific reasons but to substitute it instead of the milk that might ordinarily have been bought at full market price, with an ultimate loss to the Exchequer and no additional quantity of milk being consumed. Having regard to these tendencies I have mentioned, there might be very little return for all the work and all the accompanying paraphernalia that would be put into such a scheme. However, the suggestion is not being discarded but is being examined to see whether something useful could be achieved by the establishment of such a scheme.
From the point of view of utilising more dairy products at home the position is that we could use a good deal more Irish cheese. I want to put on record how much I deplore the attitude of the shops, particularly the large shops, which import cheese despite the fact that we have an abundance of home made cheese. In my opinion, they have a goddam cheek to bring the stuff in at all and a greater cheek to display it practically exclusively on the shelves. There is this extraordinary trend, not only in relation to cheese but in relation to many other commodities. Biscuits come to mind immediately. There are all sorts of things in tins and the further away they are made the greater the display: you name it, they have it. They have everything except what is made in Ireland. There seems to be some kind of premium attaching to distance. The further away the product is manufactured, the better it is; that seems to be the implication.
I do not see what we can do. It is for the consumers to take the matter into their own hands and make it clear that they are not interested in the imported article when they can get equally good, or better, produced at home. Something must be done about this because the practice is growing and it will have consequences for industry, employers and workers, here at home. It may be said that the Dairy Publicity Council is not doing enough. Perhaps it is not. Perhaps it could do more. I have been in touch with the council and they are very willing to do more, and I am hoping that in the coming financial year steps will be taken to ensure that Irish dairy produce is displayed in abundance in all our shops. It is in our own interests to buy Irish and it is nothing short of a scandal that products of a lower quality are peddled here as if they were sent down from heaven for the benefit of the people. The people must get wise to this and demand Irish goods.
The suggestion was made that Bord Bainne should be given the responsibility of operating home market sales. They have enough on their plate operating on the export market, particularly in depressed markets and almost closed markets, and all their energies are required in the external market to find a footing of any sort in order to dispose of an export surplus. The home market is using a considerable amount of dairy produce. It could use more, but I do not think Bord Bainne should be diverted from the absolutely essential work of looking after export sales. It was for that purpose it was set up. Perhaps, if the time arrives at which we can actually sell abroad instead of partially giving away, Bord Bainne can be asked to do a job on the home market.
It is not true to say we are unfair to the Irish consumer when we sell butter at 1s per lb abroad. It is all too easy to make that statement. It is all too easy to ask why we do not sell it at the same price on the home market rather than give it to reluctant consumers abroad. The fact is we are getting almost, though not quite, an economic price at home. We pay a considerable subsidy even on the butter consumed at home and, as against losses on export, we get a reasonably good price. If we were to reduce the price of butter at home to the price at which we are selling it on the export market one can see immediately that on every ton of the 33,000 tons there would be a loss of perhaps 4s per 1b. If we were to increase consumption by 4,000, 5,000 or 10,000 tons we would still lose in the overall. It would be only too pleasant if we could operate an economy like that, but it just does not work out that way. We would, in fact, find ourselves in more difficulty.
Deputy Bruton talked about the levy on liquid milk and he said that two-peace per gallon is twice as much as is necessary. All I can do is to refer the Deputy to the milk producers in Dublin and Cork. So long as I get back the equivalent of what the disposal of surplus milk is costing the Exchequer at the moment, I will not mind which way they take it. I am afraid Deputy Bruton miscalculated. The levy is necessary to give us back the money that the Exchequer wants returned.
The beef incentive scheme was discussed at some length. If people are oriented towards beef, then the scheme is a good one. The man who is interested in milk sees the scheme as something designed to attract people away from milk production. Neither one of these conclusions is correct. The correct conclusion is a bit of both. We want people to refrain from producing more milk. We want to help people in curtailing milk production at this time if this is possible. We want to encourage them not to go in for milk production if they are not already involved in it. We wish to do this because of the depressed state of the market. We want to encourage them to produce beef. We need more beef. We would like to reduce the level of milk production until our market has become stabilised. This scheme is double-edged. It was introduced on that basis.
We have a suggestion that the subsidy should be raised substantially because it is not attractive at the moment. The £12 subsidy per cow will not compensate a man for decreasing the milk production. If he had intended to lessen the milk production for other reasons the subsidy would encourage him. I do not want such a man to sell his herd and to cease rearing cows. I want him to stay in cow production. We need to have the same number of calves as heretofore but we would be glad not to be embarrassed by more milk production from any particular herd. To say that we should double the subsidy from £12 to £24 is ignoring certain basic facts.
In furtherance of this argument, it is said that one could save £10 or £11 per cow because each cow is costing £35 in milk subsidy and the difference between £35 and £24 is £11, so every cow taken out of milk production saves £11. This ignores the fact that there are about 500,000 cows in the country which are not producing milk commercially but which participate to quite a considerable degree in the beef incentive scheme. If we increase this £12 subsidy to £24 we must remember that, while there may be a saving on each cow taken out of milk production, there will be a considerable number of cows for which we will have to pay the additional £12 over and above the £12 we pay at the moment. On this basis the scheme could cost us considerably more than the sum we have allocated to it this year.
Allowing for attractions out of milk production into beef production and for the amount necessary to pay for the first and second cows under this scheme, our bill could come to something in excess of £7 million. While stepping-up the subsidy from £12 to £24 seems to have an in-built reward from the Exchequer, as against the support given for milk production, it does not work out like that. The additional cost for the basic beef herd which is already there must be calculated before one begins to calculate the savings on attracting cows from milk to beef production.
It could rise to £9 million.
It could. It could rise to £7 million or £9 million. That depends on how attractive the whole new situation of doubling the subsidy would be. One can only guess how it would work out, how much impact it would have, how many people would be attracted from milk production to beef production for the first time, and how many additional cows those who are already in beef production might keep in the future. If we were in a position to announce an increase of that sort our overall bill for the scheme in the year ahead would rise by at least £5 million over what it is costing in the present year. The increase could be £7 million.
A suggestion has been made that by increasing this subsidy we could also apply it in such a way that we could phase farmers out of milk production and could pay the subsidy to them on some of their cows. If farmers declared they were only going to milk 25 cows this year instead of 50 last year, it has been suggested that we could arrange for them to collect a beef subsidy on the cows which no longer produced milk for sale. It is not easy to police such an operation. I deliberately use the word "police" for the reason that some of the herd would produce milk and the question is which part of the herd would produce the milk and how much milk would it produce. Calculations might be made on the milk production of 50 cows, and a subsidy paid on less milk sent in than previously. Such a scheme is full of difficulty. No two cows necessarily produce the same amount of milk. A great deal of milk might not necessarily be got from a selection of the 50 cows and the residue would be collecting a subsidy the other way. A farmer could be said to have things both ways. I am not saying this is a totally wrong concept. It would be very difficult to operate such a scheme.
Deputy Clinton was anxious to know how many cows were switched from milk production to beef production because of the £12 subsidy. I do not know and I do not think anybody else knows. I have no doubt whatever that if there was not a scheme in operation at the moment there would be more cows in commercial milk production than there are at the moment. The inducement to engage in milk production would still draw farmers in the years ahead as it has been drawing them in the years just passed. I cannot put a figure on it. We will be able to get down to figures for this when we have more experience of the scheme. At the moment it would be foolhardy to attempt to do this.
There has been much talk about pigs. The throughput of our factories this year has been an all-time record. This has been generally accepted. An additional number of pigs went through our factories. What is in doubt is where they came from. We are being told how many came from the Six Counties and how many were born, reared and fattened in the 26-Counties. I do not believe that there has been a huge influx of pigs from the Six Counties. I have no doubt that there was a movement of pigs from that area. I do not doubt that there is a movement at any stage, either way across the Border, if it is commercially attractive. It may have been commercially attractive to bring in pigs before we brought down the weight of our top-weight pigs to near-conformity with the reduced weight of 145 lbs in the Six Counties. I do not believe that the two million pigs which went through our factories can be accounted for to any considerable degree by smuggling operations. Anybody who knows anything about smuggling operations would not countenance that the figures for smuggling were of any great impact in that total record throughput which has been arrived at in this particular year.
Neither do I agree with those who say that the upsurge in numbers has not some relation to the various incentives and aids that have been provided by Government policy over a number of years and stepped up in recent times. All the various things we have been doing to encourage pig production on a more rational and uniform basis are beginning to pay off and the rise in throughput at our factories will, subject to market availability for the produce either as pork or bacon, continue. Provided we can keep the relationship between the profitability of a pig fed and fattened and any similar activity on the farm, or available to a farmer, I think we should continue to get high numbers. We may even seek and get still higher numbers than are going through at present.
This is not to say that some of the pigs did not come down from the Six Counties. They did not leave because of the troubles in August or anything like that. They did come down but there was not the influx that is talked about and we are not likely to have any repetition, necessarily, in the immediate future of what we had last year. Whatever the level of it may have been, I do not think it is likely to run at that level this year because the same attraction is not here. Although complaints are made about the price of pigs, the price of feeding and the profitability, or lack of it, and about smuggling and the lack of prevention, nobody seems to think of congratulating ourselves that our price levels in our factories are such as to attract pigs from the Six Counties. We should be rather proud of this in a way because we so often hear so much about how much better things are north of the Border that you become rather sick of it. Here, we have a case where pigs are more valuable down here to the extent that smuggling in various degrees is said to be going on. It was price that brought the pigs down and it was not any of the difficulties encountered last summer.
It is true that the talk about smuggling has largely stopped. One does not see it headlined in past weeks any more than you see headlines about barley or wheat smuggling. I suggested publicly at one stage that all the talk would stop only when the shoe was on the other foot and something was going across the Border in the opposite direction. I suggest the stoppage came when potatoes began to go across the Border in a northerly direction. That is why the two-way trade is operating again and there has not been the outcry about the wheat and barley and pigs that were said to be pouring in and about to smother us only a few months ago. There is no doubt about it being a two-way trade. To what degree it may be countenanced, I do not know; but there is a level below which it cannot be controlled. If the profit is there it will take place, and it does take place. The territorial boundary is such that it is physically impossible completely to prevent it in regard to any commodity at any time. While we may deplore it at times very often there is little more we can do than what is being done at the moment by way of customary patrols and Garda patrols along the Border.
Countenanced by whom? The Minister said he did not know to what extent it was countenanced. Did he mean by his Government?
Or by the Deputy, for instance.
I do not think the expressions of opinion on these benches countenanced it.
If the Deputy is suggesting that the views expressed over there do not count very much. I agree.
Who did the Minister suggest might be countenancing it?
I am not here to be cross-questioned——
I was just curious.
I know the Deputy is a very curious sort of gentleman at times.
I like to know what the Minister means.
That is mutual. I am not the only one who can say that.
I am always willing to offer clarification.
The trouble is that when the Deputy clarifies it the matter becomes more obscure.
I am sure the preventive officers are listening to the Minister with great glee.
I am sure they are.
At least they have a very good alibi in future and possibly an ally in the event of difficulties arising.
It is not only a question of an alibi or an ally but it highlights the absolute ludicrous little Border we have up there. Nobody knows where it is at times, never mind know what is happening on either side of it.
Is that why the Minister countenances this smuggling?
The Deputy is not dealing with a child; he is not in a class and that sort of intervention does not get something on the record that he would like to have there and which I have no intention of putting there.
That is not an answer.
Let us get back to pigs and to the fact that the policies pursued on this side of the Border in increasing pig numbers are showing up to advantage. Deputies over there should read the criticisms that were made a year or two ago about how pig numbers had declined and how the Government were to blame for that situation. They can see how others can stand up in their place here today and talk about the increased numbers and not in any way acknowledge that the Government had a hand in bringing about an increase in stocks. The fact that we have increased stocks will be explained by saying they were all smuggled across the Border. That is one of the features of the Opposition that tends to confuse if one thinks back too far or reads what was said six or 12 months ago.
We have had suggestions about the sheep subsidy scheme to the effect that it should be extended to cover inland or lowland sheep. In our considerations, in initiating a mountain sheep subsidy scheme and extending and improving it, this is a matter to which we gave some thought. On every occasion since when there was any change and even annually, when we were viewing the year ahead and providing money to cover the existing hill sheep subsidy, it has also been considered. It is not an easy suggestion to counter in one sense. We have a declining total number of sheep but in the lowlands particularly there is a decline. The attractions of other farming enterprises and lines of production that are apparently more profitable must play a very considerable part in deciding whether sheep stocks expand or contract I think that recent years will be seen as years when the attraction of milk, beef or cereal production or root crop production—depending on the part of the country concerned—may have encouraged people to cut down on sheep and step up their other activities.
At the same time it is held that in the absence of an absolute floor price market arrangement, no matter what the profitability might appear to be in sheep, people will not produce them in any great number or the numbers will not revive. That is debatable against the background of a British market, which is a supported one and whose price level is by and large paralleled here by the aid we are able to give on the export of lambs and the fact that we have a cross-Border trade for stores, lambs or sheep. The fall in number in Britain, where they have almost guaranteed markets and prices, makes one wonder whether the argument is basically good that certainty of market is the essential ingredient missing here at present. Britain has that certainty and her numbers are falling. The further they fall the greater assurance there is to our sheep producers that there is a ready market that is fairly reamining this at the moment. I do not munerative available to them but that knowledge does not seem to have had any effect in the recent past. We are exknow if we can do anything by way of manipulation of the existing support or subsidy. It is rather puzzling against the background that sheep numbers are so low, particularly in the lowlands, and have shown no signs of recovery as yet.
A number of Deputies suggested that the inspections of mountain sheep for subsidy purposes are too severe. I have also heard suggestions that such inspections are not severe enough. Perhaps there is truth in both. Perhaps a little tightening-up here and a little slackening there and a greater uniformity can be achieved according as we get used to the administration of this scheme. I would not say that, at the moment, there is not basis for both criticisms; I have no particular evidence that there is. We are learning in the course of the administration of this scheme and maybe, in the time ahead, we shall be able to do a more satisfactory job as a result of experience.
Animal diseases came in for considerable discussion. Somebody asked when the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme would end. It will never end. That is not to say we shall be running the country and taking out hundreds of thousands of reactors every year, at very great cost to the community. While that is not what is in prospect, nevertheless, once we have an area clear, there will have to be some surveillance to ensure that the disease does not emerge again. This is a continuous process. You cannot just eradicate the disease and close up shop and think that never again shall we have problems of this nature. Once we are really clear then we have to ensure by our own efforts, that the disease does not re-emerge, or, if it does, that it is controlled quickly and at no great cost by its expanding or getting out of hand.
There is a natural desire in this House that the brucellosis eradication scheme be extended as soon and as far as possible. This is the intention of my Department and it is my intention. We are moving along as fast as we can and shall continue to do so in the hope that ultimately we can eradicate this scourge, as well, not only to obviate the losses it causes and has caused over the years but indeed, also, on a purely commercial basis, because the Six Counties is now moving into the clear as far as brucellosis is concerned. Britain is expected to commence operations in clearing in 1971. As sellers to both of these markets, it behoves us to try to get rid of brucellosis as fast as we can. This we are proposing to do. Already, five counties have been declared brucellosis-free. We want to add to this as quickly as we can and radiating from that front is the manner in which it will go.
There has been certain criticism of our prices for animals taken up by way of reactors. It was argued that the levels were laid down a considerable number of years ago and require to be up-dated. This may be so; perhaps we can do something about that.
Mention was made of the warble fly, which is difficult to eradicate completely. There are some intractable people with infected animals who did not present them for dressing even when we were offering it for nothing. Mistakes must have been made, also, by haphazard operators who went around to do the dressings. Somebody said that they just shook their hands at them, in some cases, or left the mixture with the farmer and suggested that maybe he would do it himself. We have brought damage from warbles from a very high incidence to a very low level in a few short years but we still have this pest with us in some areas. We are making an evaluation, as best we can, as to the incidence of the pest and where it still seems to persist. We expect this information to be fairly well available to us in a coherent from by April when we intend to have another look at the situation to see what further steps can be taken to wipe out the pest, if at all possible.
Fluke control in sheep has been mentioned by way of the Department's giving more information to sheep owners on the subject. Certainly, we can readily give information as to its control: I thought we were endeavouring to give it. We can have another look at the matter from the point of view of intensifying propaganda in regard to fluke control. This is very necessary especially if information alone can make inroads on its control. We should be very glad to make known to farmers in a more forceful manner the control methods we recommend.
Difficulties in relation to grants for water, particularly on farms, have been mentioned. The suggestion was made that where a group scheme is in prospect or a regional scheme, which is perhaps even more remote at times in an area than a group scheme, farmers are finding difficulty in their individual applications in getting any satisfaction from my Department. This is not so, and if there are Members of the House who come across this problem, we will have to intervene and try to smooth things for the people concerned. With that in mind, I ask Deputies who come across this problem to get in touch with me in the Department with a view to solving the matter.
There has been much mention of farm buildings, the main suggestion being that there are delays in paying grants. This is always difficult to answer. One can always pick out of the thousands of applications a relatively few isolated cases of which it could be said that they were not dealt with very expeditiously. There may be some explicable reasons in some cases and in others there may not be any good explanation for the delay. It has now been brought to our attention. We have taken note of the suggestion and we will do our best to ensure that there will not be any element that would tend to make this scheme unsatisfactory. If there is, we will try to eliminate it in our examination of the administration of the scheme.
There were suggestions on the question of grants for dry-stock as distinct from dairy stock and it was submitted that the entire matter should be reviewed. It is topical that this should be raised at this time because it will be realised that during the past number of years there has been a leaning towards equipping the dairyman by way of buildings, dairy parlours and milking houses and so on as distinct from the dry-stock producers. It is time to have another look at this and we will give it that look to see if there can be a levelling up in the assistance given to the dry-stock producers. As I said to somebody recently, though the suggestion to level up the dry-stock assistance may have merit, it may well be that we should instead level down the assistance to the dairy stock people. It is more likely, however, that there will be a compromise in a new scale of grants. We will consider it and Deputies will be hearing more about it in the near future.
There have been suggestions that when farmers avail of the land project scheme and also the farm buildings scheme, one type of inspector should be in charge of both. This suggestion seems to be attractive but I am afraid that is not the way the schemes can be operated. Several of the people who deal with the land project do so on the basis of their training for that particular role. Farm buildings are an entirely different thing, though both are related, and you could not expect to get in all cases and in every area a man who could assume the dual role. While it might be useful to have it in a few cases, it would be nearly impossible in all areas to have men who would be qualified for both. Therefore, this is clearly not on, though it is a worthy thought that it might be accomplished.
There has been a suggestion that the agricultural advisory services should perhaps push the use of lime and fertilisers to a greater degree, and as an addendum it has been suggested that perhaps the number of instructors is insufficient. There are 600 throughout the county and they are pushing the use of lime and fertilisers through educational classes and courses. They have been pushing the greater use of fertilisers and in fact more lime and fertilisers have been used in recent years. However, in so far as it is desirable and useful to mention it to them, we can mention it to the CAOs and others in our various talks with them.
The glasshouse grants scheme was mentioned. As I indicated in recent days, the scheme has been amended. We took out the open door and where the sky was the limit heretofore as regards the total amount any applicant could get, and an applicant did not need to have any contact with agriculture or horticulture—a business firm could engage in it to a colossal degree —we have brought down the limit to a maximum of £40,000 in the case of applications already in hand and to £25,000, with the one-third of the estimated cost still being the yardstick, in so far as new applicants are concerned, with the further addendum that priority will be given in future to those mainly or solely earning their livelihood from agriculture or horticulture or both.
The intention is to direct the money to those who really need it, to those who will make proper use of it, those who will earn their livelihood from these operations. That is the way we should move at this stage rather than in the way we operated in the immediate past. I should say that, as a result of the scheme in the past, the £500,000 earmarked for a five year period was well exceeded after two and a half years. That is why we had to call a halt in the middle of last autumn. A re-appraisal was essential if it was to continue and as I have said, I recently announced the conditions on which it is to continue. Perhaps, the House will realise and appreciate that the attainment of this upper level is the right way to operate a scheme such as this.
With regard to the small farm incentive bonus scheme, the rousing suggestion has been made that the figure should be raised to £1,000. Certainly, I would not mind in the least having £1,000 to offer to every participant or potential participant in the scheme but we must realise that that sort of money does not grow on trees any more than the other moneys which we have to get by the million. I would point out to the House and to the Deputy who raised this matter that this scheme which emerged a few years ago in the modest form of a £200 bonus scheme has been increased recently by 50 per cent, thereby increasing the benefit to £300 per holding. Considering that all the other grants are available to participants in this scheme this amount is not bad for merely striking the target that has been laid down by a farmer in drawing up his farm plan. It is a free scheme given to a farmer for doing something that he himself wants to do. The idea of increasing the figure to £1,000 cannot be thought about at this time.
The question has been asked as to what we will do about the pilot areas. This question has been put to me in various forms during the years. A pilot area, by its very name, gives a fair indication of what the scheme is all about. Some years ago the scheme was introduced in each of 12 counties and it was decided to give special grants and advice in these areas as to how best the lot of the people could be improved in each of the parishes and how this could be done in an intensive sort of way while trying, at the same time, by co-operatives and other means, to engage the people in new enterprises or outlets for their products or, indeed, in any new line of farming.
The result of a couple of years experience on the parish basis encouraged the Government to go a little further and expand these pilot areas by adding about one more parish to each so that during the past couple of years we have been working on the basis of approximately three parishes per county of the 12 designated western counties. We got a good deal of information on the basis of the parish operations and we then decided to expand the operation into areas three times the size of the parish to see how this would work and if flaws would emerge when the scheme is more generally applied. Therefore, these different enterprises in different areas are being tried out on this broader scale while they still remain sufficiently small to be within the perspective of the adviser in the area. We hope to have an evaluation from this effort of the three-parish basis from which we may learn a lot. We may find that certain incentives are meaningless and should be discontinued because of their not being good value for money while we may find that others are very good value for money and should not only be retained but broadened, improved and increased by way of the amount of grant. We hope that the result of this exercise will mean that grants of assistance from the Department may be more intelligently applied to the country as a whole. Therefore, to answer the question as to what we will do with the pilot areas in the future is not possible at this time because they are pilot and they are there for the purpose of evaluating so that the question can only be answered when we have decided that all useful information has been gleaned from the exercise. The question cannot be answered until we have made up our minds as to what we will then do and this stage should be reached fairly soon.
There was a suggestion that sufficient money is not given to An Foras Talúntais to enable them to plan ahead. They have my sympathy but which one of us can say that, in his own estimation, he gets enough money? Who is there among us who can positively plan ahead in so far as money utilisation is concerned? At the same time, let me say that year after year our import of Exchequer money to An Foras Talúntais is greater and greater. This year it will be in the region of a couple of million pounds. It is increasing and will continue to increase. How far will it continue to increase? Will the increases be fast enough to do the jobs that it is believed are useful and necessary to do? Everything considered we have been making a fair input to An Foras. While more money could be used, they have been given fair scope during the years and the money we are now contributing is not to be sneezed at as An Foras will readily appreciate. While they never fail to avail of an opportunity to impress on us how much more money they would like to receive and the plans they could make if they had this extra money, they realise that our contribution is no mean or small amount.
I am sure they are also aware that the idea of a planning programme to cover some years ahead is one which I favour and I am glad that the council of An Foras Talúntais are thinking on these lines. It will make for better operations between An Foras and my Department if we have this long term planning. As to allocating the money for two or three years ahead, this is sound sense and I am in favour of doing this. I will do all I can to try to formulate the type of financial programme that will be fairly satisfactory to An Foras, their director, their council and their staff while, at the same time, giving a fair return to the country in all contexts by way of benefits to the farming community generally for the money spent.
Agricultural shows were mentioned and it was suggested that a small show should get fair play as against the bigger one. I do not know what exactly Deputy Creed had in mind here but if he is thinking of the type of assistance that is provided by the local agricultural committees, then I say that if they think they should go a little further than they are doing I would be very much inclined to sympathetically consider any proposals they may send in with regard to increasing their contribution on the basis of encouraging a small show in some strategic area as against spending more money on a big show that is well established and does not need contributions to the same degree. We would certainly be sympathetic in that direction if there was any question of such being raised.
Then we had the question of the farm income. This is the hoariest of all the hoary statistics that one can quote. I do not blame the Deputy who quoted it in any way. It came from that most reputable of bodies— An Foras Talúntais. It came from a survey of theirs which showed that the average income of an Irish farmer is £465. I could spend the next six months playing around with that figure and those who would play around with me on the figure would be just as wise at the end of the six months as I am at the beginning because it does not mean anything very much. There are qualifications of all sorts that must, in fairness, be built in with that statement which are not built in with it. Therefore, trying to answer that sort of assertion is like looking for the needle in the proverbial haystack. It just cannot be done adequately except on a much broader basis and with many qualifications. The figure of £465, in fact, has little relevance in the context in which it was used in this debate. I would welcome this figure being introduced here in a more protracted debate on, say, the general Estimate, and followed, with all the conditions that I know must go with it, to its logical conclusion. We could have a very useful exposition of the fallacy of throwing out this sort of isolated figure and the effect it can have on the public mind.
That reminds me of the Minister's old friend, Deputy Dillon.
I was reminded of him earlier tonight but not for the same reason. I was reminded of him by something Deputy Donegan said but I shall leave that. I do not quite get the relevance here but perhaps the Deputy will enlighten me later on. However. I would welcome a discussion on this on a broader basis, perhaps on the Estimate proper or indeed at any other time the opportunity arises.
Deputy O'Donnell Complained about there being no opportunity of having a detailed discussion on agriculture since the end of 1968. I regret that as much as Deputy O'Donnell does because if one were to go back—and I did not go back—to read the debates of 1968 I would say that much of the bubbles that were blown at that stage by the Opposition at these benches have long since burst very decisively. The loss is mine and the Government's that we did not have an opportunity during the past year to have a full discussion and to expose some of the fallacies that were preached to us in the 1968 debates. Perhaps in the coming year we may get this opportunity that was not available to use in 1969. I would welcome it as much as Deputy O'Donnell.
There has been a suggestion that there is a conflict between the Minister for Lands, the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Agriculture in regard to pronouncements recently. Quite candidly, I am not aware of the circumstances of these alleged conflicts. I was not in the House for Deputy O'Donnell's contribution but he talked about the 70-acre farm. I would like to see people with 70 acres of land. If it were possible I would like to see them with 100 acres of land but I know it is not possible and that it will not be possible for a very long time, no matter what re-arrangements take place, to have this happy circumstance of an adequate acreage being available. The question, even then, is whether 70 acres is adequate. Seventy acres of what sort of land in what part of the country and participating in what type of farming operated by what type of farmer? These are the questions one must ask when one talks about the viability of a holding. So many things decide this issue that while 70 acres is a nice figure for many of our land-hungry western farmers, and indeed land-hungry farmers in many other parts of the country as well, taking that in isolation and talking about it is not an answer in itself and never can be. There can be no suggestion that the Minister for Lands reckoned that if a man is given 70 acres of land he can be let off and is safe and sound forever after, regardless of what form of farming he participated in and what type of farmer he is, whether he is prepared to work hard, prepared to do more than the average farmer or to do less. All these things must come into this and I am quite sure the Minister for Lands had in mind these conditions applying to any figure that he, at any stage may have mentioned. I must say I am not aware of the relevance of the Minister for Social Welfare to this alleged conflict and therefore I am not in any position to comment on it. I would be surprised if the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Agriculture found themselves in any conflict. We do not usually do so. This Government, as Deputies over there have found to their cost, do not have the sort of deep conflicts that sunder a party and leave it in opposition for generations, as has happened to our colleagues across the way.
An all-party committee on agricultural price support was suggested by Deputy Desmond. I thought he was here but he is not. I do not know what he would hope to attain by an all-party committee on price support. There are so many people who are readily available to advise on the use of the money we can afford from the Government for price support, and other supports not necessarily in the agricultural world, that an all-party committee does not seem to me to offer anything that is not already available in one form or another. Members of this House, no matter what party they belong to, have their say-so even though it may be only infrequently on a Vote such as this. They also get their points across quite frequently and deliberately by way of supplementary questions which are really statements, much to the discomfort of the Chair at times as well as the rest of us. They get these things across in the House. Of course, outside the House many of them are members of committees of agriculture and can discuss what the Government should do or should not do or are doing badly or well. They get these things through there also. Then there is always the opportunity, as Deputies are well aware, with a Minister as approachable as the present Minister for Agriculture, of getting across to him. Of course, they have no problem whatsoever in getting across to me at any time. A nod is as good as a wink to this fellow. He does not have to be put up in the middle of the night to know what is going on.
We never thought the Minister was a blind horse.
Believe me, if a Deputy has a good proposition I will take it and use it. I have no hesitation about using somebody else's good idea if it is good enough but it must be good enough. All in all, as I say, I am not quite sure what Deputy Barry Desmond had in mind. Perhaps at another stage he might elaborate somewhat more on it and give us a better idea of what he had in mind.
Deputy Michael Pat Murphy, strangely enough, had somewhat in different terms but perhaps maybe on the same wavelength the idea of a subcommittee of the House representative of different parties on agricultural policy formation. Perhaps he and Deputy Desmond were really talking from the same thought, from the same brief, maybe from the same discussion in their own party and perhaps we will hear a little more from both of them about this particular suggestion. We had then as well, when we are talking about committees, and teams of various kinds, Deputy O'Sullivan suggesting the setting up of a team to forecast market trends. A very useful occupation I must say and if I could find the type of group which could really forecast those things really accurately I would not only make a fortune myself but I would let the rest of you in on it and you could all make a fortune at the same time. However, taking Deputy O'Sullivan's suggestion seriously, while this sort of thing is not formally done by a group in my Department, at the same time a reading of the signs is continuously going on, and this has already helped and does help to formulate Government outlook and Government action in regard to the future agricultural policy. This, together with the advantages we gain from the knowledge of people in the business, such as the Pigs and Bacon Commission, keeps us fairly well posted. They have a weather eye open at all stages. The new Livestock Board must be of considerable advantage to us in the future also. Like the Pigs and Bacon Commission, their job is promotional, and in order to promote they must research and evaluate. As a result of this we will get from them very useful guidance in regard to market operations.
Likewise, Bord Bainne, which have been there for a considerable number of years, also do this sort of thing. It is part of their job. They must do it if they are really to know the position. Again, my Department receive from this body an amount of valuable information about dairying. In addition, the information we receive from other sources, such as trade missions abroad, all adds up to perhaps what Deputy O'Sullivan suggested: a group to evaluate market trends. As I say, we do this almost every day. There is no formal body set up specifically to do it but it is done as part and parcel of the day's work in the Department. It has proved itself over many years to be perhaps as good a method as we can get. If somebody else has some suggestion which can bring about a better method of evaluating things I would be very glad to hear it because this sort of information is invaluable to any Government at any time particularly to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. That is about all I have to say. I would, as I say, welcome the opportunity to discuss on a broader basis many of the things that have been suggested and many of the comments that have been made. I think Deputies for their contributions on this and I will have a look at quite a number of them within the next few weeks.
Vote put and agreed to.