Before we adjourned the debate I had commented that there was a grave obligation on the Government, on all of us in this House and, in particular, on the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to inform the farmers of the country honestly and truthfully what will be their position in Common Market conditions.
Deputies receive a large amount of information in the form of booklets and otherwise from the Department and from the Community among other places. I have tried to keep abreast of all the information. I have been fortunate enough to have met people who have been taking part in EEC negotiations, two on behalf of this country and one on behalf of Britain. From what I have read and from what I have been told by these people, I have concluded that the Irish farmer would be better off within the Community than he is at present, provided, of course, that he is geared to Community conditions.
Any Deputy who chats with his constituents, as I do time and again, about their hopes for their future and for the future of this country within EEC conditions will know that most people are of the opinion that the small farmer will have no place within the Community whereas the big farmer will become very rich. Of course, this will not be the situation. It is agreed generally that the small farmer will fare badly but is it not the case that he is faring badly at the moment? I am convinced that the small farmer has a better chance within the Community. In the case of Britain entering the Community and this country remaining outside, we might exist for a very short time but after that short time there would be a complete collapse of our agricultural industry.
It must not be concluded that the big farmer will necessarily be successful within Common Market conditions. He will not be successful unless he is geared to the conditions of the Community. It is my belief that the NFA, the ICMSA and other organisations are not being very straight with the farmers as well as with the Department and ourselves, because milk and dairy products in the EEC countries are in a very problematic position, to say the least. The night before last a bulletin was issued by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries announcing the increased income to the dairy farmers. This is fine but it is surely guaranteed to encourage people to get into milk production. I have watched with alarm since I came into the House the absolute obsession of the Department with pushing farmers into dairying, getting agricultural advisers all round the country to say to small farmers : "Get into the dairy line. You will have a steady income." That is true. It is a great help to the farmer to have a cheque coming in at the end of the month and not to have to wait until he sells a few cattle or lambs, but it is, in the long term, very bad economic policy.
The beef incentive schemes have to some extent arrested this tendency, but, while the Department are taking that line, the dairy people—and who can blame them; their entire energies and their livelihood are tied up in this— are pressing for a greater income from milk. If we provide a greater income from milk the logical conclusion to draw is that more and more people will go into milk production instead of getting out of it.
As I said at the outset, I was not in the House when the Minister made his speech and I tried to read it this morning while Deputy Michael Pat Murphy was speaking. As the House knows, he is always a very interesting speaker and it was very hard to concentrate on the two. However, I am glad to note from the Minister's speech that the beef incentive bonus scheme has drawn some people out of dairying, but there again I have reservations about this. When the first beef heifer grant, as we call it in the farming areas, was introduced some years ago I felt it was a bad thing because heifers of every description, good or bad, would be allowed to breed. This is damaging for the cattle industry and as a result I have seen the most horrible types of animals straying around. Only first-class stock will be accepted in the EEC, so that while we should be encouraging people into beef production we should be encouraging them into the production of the better type of beef. If I were Minister I would increase the grant for pure bred animals, any breed, and not have beef, milk and everything mixed together. This is a mistake.
Another difficulty—and I do not know how one gets around it—is that in the west of Ireland we used to go in a great deal for dairy shorthorns. They are excellent cows in two ways : they are good for milk production and for suckling calves; a good dairy shorthorn cow can suckle two calves adequately.
For some strange reason the dairy shorthorn has declined, certainly in the west. I am glad to see the Minister has taken note of that and is trying to do something about it. I agree it is a good thing to experiment with other breeds but a certain amount of caution is required.
A neighbour and constituent of mine has gone into Charollais cattle in a big way. He is a non-national, and it is interesting to watch his experiment. It is enormously costly and the death rate at calving is very high. I talked to his veterinary surgeon about it and there seems to be no explanation for this. Even the pure bred cows do not seem to be able to calve without assistance, and in rural Ireland it is not always easy to get your veterinary surgeon the moment you want him. I am doubtful about the Charollais breed. I do admit they grow quickly but they are not very suitable for the west of Ireland. They need a great deal of feeding. They are very hard on grass and need a lot of hand feeding as well. On the other hand, I think Herefords and possibly shorthorns, the Kerrys, are suitable for the west of Ireland, and these breeds should be encouraged.
I do not know how we are going to face our dairy farmers—and every constituency has them-and say to them : "You would be better off out of milk production in the long run." There will be a certain market for our dairy produce on the Continent, but they have their problems. They have a big butter surplus and are encouraging the slaughter of cows. They are trying to get over the butter surplus by publicity campaigns—"use more butter" and so on—but here this sort of campaign will not be very effective because the producers of margarine—more power to them—have a very slick campaign. Their advertisements and television coverage are good. Another advantage to them is that margarine is so much cheaper than butter. Those of us who are trying to run a house find butter is an expensive item, particularly where there are five or six children, and it is quite easy to sell the housewife margarine instead of butter. Therefore, dairying is a problem.
I appreciate the difficulty particularly of farmers in the south who have specialised in dairying and never done anything else, but specialising is what the EEC want. However, in the west of Ireland we have specialised in nothing. The very big farmers might have a couple of hundred ewes, a few hundred cattle, 50 pigs and a few good horses. The farmers will do that right down the line. Even those who have only 25 acres will work the system of mixed farming with a few acres of tillage to feed their ewes, cows or other animals. This would present a problem if we were members of the EEC.
I do not think we have gone far enough in telling our people : "You will not survive in the EEC unless you are prepared to work," and by that I mean "look to the management aspect of farming, get out of this mixed farming we all do and try to specialise". From reading the various reports supplied to us I can see there is a good prospect for our cattle industry in the EEC. Our sheep industry is doubtful enough, though it can be improved. We have excellent lambs and those of us who produce sheep could specialise in having earlier and better lambs and market them earlier. In this way there would be a much more lucrative continental market.
On a few occasions I have met some French people at the end of the shooting season who if they were lucky enough to get some very early lamb at the end of February, asked: "Why can we not get this in France?" I imagine there could be a great future for the lamb trade on the Continent if it were developed properly.
Sheep numbers are declining. I notice the Minister says this has been arrested to a certain extent. In my constituency —and that is all I can judge from— sheep numbers are definitely declining. This is a bad thing. I know why they are declining. As far back as 1947 the price of wool was good. It provided an income. I remember a time when we used say the wool would pay for the rates. It is hardly worth shearing the wretched stuff off their backs now. It barely pays the contractor to do it, if it is being done by contract. This little bit of income has disappeared. Bord Olla have done their best about grading and that sort of thing and there has been a slight improvement but there is just not a market for wool in this country or any other country. Synthetic fibres have done away with it.
There is something wrong with the headage grant. I watch people buying ewes, collecting the subsidy and then selling them. This is defeating the purpose of the whole thing. Ewes are for breeding, and I think it is a good thing that breeders receive a subsidy but this subsidy does not seem to be working out the way it should be.
From all I have read it would appear there is a great future for thoroughbred horses in Europe. This is a small but very profitable industry especially in the west of Ireland where people engage in breeding half-bred horses. In my area small farmers are supplementing their income by breeding. Can the Department give us more advice on this subject?
Every small farmer in the west of Ireland used to keep a couple of sows and bigger farmers kept even more. I do not see many farmers keeping pigs nowadays. I have been told that it is not worth their while because the price of meal is too high, the labour involved is too great and as one farmer said the final income is so low that it does not pay the price of petrol used to take them to market. This is a big loss of income to the small farmers. The pig industry is now operated in big combines.
I am not very sure about horticultural operation in EEC countries. I understand the Dutch are far ahead of us. The Department has done a good deal by giving grants to those involved in horticulture. While very hard work is involved a great deal of money can be made. Horticulture does not greatly concern my constituency but it concerns Connemara, Donegal, County Dublin and areas in the south of the country. More should be done to bring our horticultural industry into line with that operating in the Common Market.
I see there is an increase in the number of broilers being reared. I often wonder why. I think it is the most appalling form of meat. I appreciate that every time one attends a function one is served an oven-ready chicken. This is probably because the price of ordinary meat is very high. Housewives must feed their families with something. They buy these chickens which taste like nothing on earth. Nothing can beat free-run chickens but unfortunately they are not now available. I was never interested in poultry. I always considered that hens died in debt. There was a time when the income from the eggs would buy the family groceries. Anyone who keeps hens nowadays does so to supply the needs of the household and if there are eggs to spare they sell them but the proceeds hardly buy a packet of cigarettes.
It has been said that if we enter the Common Market small farmers will disappear. I admit small farmers are leaving the land and they will continue to do so, but medium-size farmers and big farmers are also leaving the land. I can tell the House what is accelerating this. It has to be accepted that what is good for one section of the community is not necessarily good for another. With the introduction of free education boys and girls are picked up at their homes at 8 a.m. or 8.30 and returned home again as late as 5.30 or even 5.45. Obviously they grow away from the farm and the parents may well say, "Ah, poor Johnny, he is working hard for his inter. cert. I will not ask him to look after the cattle or sheep or milk the cow". While Johnny is being educated in the rudiments of Greek, Latin, English and Irish he is growing away from the farm.
In the past, farm education was home education and anything a boy learned about farming he learned from his father. We must educate boys about farming. We have reached the stage in this country where people are saying, "Oh, he has done five years at secondary school; he has his leaving cert.; he is educated". That means nothing to me. A boy can have his leaving cert. and still be uneducated in some spheres. We have to encourage people to stay on the land by educating them because gone are the days when the brighter children went to school and the slow ones stayed on the land.
If our agricultural industry is to survive in the EEC farmers must know their business, they must be educated in farm management as well as the ordinary everyday business of the farm, including doing accounts and filling in forms. Every weekend I go home farmers ask me to fill in these grant forms for them. They should all be able to do this themselves.
If a boy decides at the age of 16 that he wants to do farming he should be channelled into farming and instead of spending one year in a farming school as happens at present he should spend three years there, gain practical experience, learn modem techniques and the business management of a farm.
The Minister stated that the TB eradication scheme had been intensified. About an hour ago Deputies were handed a Supplementary Estimate amounting to £1,530,000 which is required for TB eradication. It strikes me as odd, to say the least of it, that after all these years we need that kind of extra money for TB eradication. What has gone wrong? Surely TB should be eradicated by now? Is it as a result of vets being careless and passing cattle that should not be passed or is it that we shall never get rid of bovine TB? What is the explanation?
Brucellosis eradication is very important. More education would help here. When some people discover that their cattle have brucellosis they rush off to market and sell them. This is not good enough. They may do it because they are not aware that stock coming from an infected herd can cause immediate infection in another herd. They should be alerted to the fact that this is so serious. Many of them are, but I think it needs to be brought home to the vast majority more forcibly. Every help should be given to the man who makes the effort, reports the incidence of the disease to the veterinary surgeon, isolates his cattle and tries to eradicate the disease. He should get every possible assistance from the Department.
About two or three years ago we started dressing our cattle for warble fly. It was, I think, compulsory. Now it seems to have ceased to be compulsory. I notice from the Minister's statement that further legislation will be brought in to cope with the present position. Warble fly dressing is most important and it should be compulsory. However, I do not think the farmer should have to pay a great deal of money to have this done. It should be a nominal sum and the Department should bear the brunt of the cost.
As Deputy Sheridan said, farm workers are leaving the land. That is true. It is a great tragedy. No matter how good a farmer is he must have some sort of help because he cannot be there day in and day out, 365 days of the year, milking his cows twice per day. Farm workers are entitled to good wages. I believe the average farmer is just not able to pay what he would like to pay his farm worker. The Department of Social Welfare, or some Department of State, should make some contribution. Every Budget increases the price of the social welfare stamp. This is good for those entitled to social welfare and nobody argues against it but the fact is that both the farmer and the farm worker have to meet this extra cost. This is becoming a burden and there are people who say: "I could do with another man, but look at the price of the stamps". It is a major headache for farmers. It is not as it may have been in bygone days, a lack of appreciation or consideration for employees; that is not the reason why they are not paid as much as the farmer would like to pay them. It is an economic problem. The farmer just has not got the money to spend on help.
Deputy Murphy referred to the excellent schemes initiated by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The incentive bonus to small farmers is an excellent thing and many small farmers in my constituency have gone into the scheme and benefited greatly from it. I would give the very maximum in the case of an incentive. We have arrived at the situation in which we are giving relief to small farmers through the Department of Social Welfare. It is sad that this should have to be done. It is an admission that we have failed to make our small farms viable. I am all for giving money where money is needed and where people simply cannot exist without it but giving our small farmers this kind of money is an insult to them. The small farmers in my constituency are most independent. They have a pride in themselves and this scheme may easily destroy that pride. It will destroy pride in personal achievement. It will destroy pride in one's work. Ultimately it will sap the moral fibre of these people. I hate to see them queueing up to sign on outside the barracks. Are we reduced to that? Is that all we can do for our small farmers? I see both Ministers' predicament : the small farmers are so badly off they need social welfare assistance. This is a terrible indictment, but this is the wrong way to go about alleviating their position. I cannot advise the Minister but the aim should be an incentive to earn, not an incentive to idle. It is perhaps our climate, but we are a little lackadaisical and, if we get an incentive to idle, that is the end.
I know the Department of Lands and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries work in liaison but I have always believed that the Land Commission proper should be the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and not the Department of Lands. A scheme was introduced some years ago to encourage the elderly or those unable to run their farms to surrender them to the Land Commission. This scheme has not been availed of. If it were we would have allover better farm management and better farms. The division of land is purely a function of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Land is, after all, basic to agriculture.
I heard a Deputy say this morning that the number of officials in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries has trebled. There are schemes in operation which require extra officials to operate them, but I wonder has the agricultural income risen as a result of all these extra advisory services and, very often, administration services in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I must say the officials I meet are excellent. They work very hard and, for this, we should be grateful. We often slate Departments and rarely thank the officials for the services they give. It seems to me, however, that the rate of increase where officials are concerned and the rate of increase in income has not kept in step. Are we, I wonder, overburdened with civil servants and not getting the maximum benefit out of the services? I do not know.
If, and when, we enter the Common Market non-nationals will be able to buy land here. Someone said we will be free to buy land in Germany. Where would we get the kind of money needed to buy land in Germany? I am afraid non-nationals will cast a covetous eye over our hardwon acres and, with their large bank accounts, snap them up very quickly. I do not see how we can prevent that. The person who owns the land is free to sell it. If we go into the Common Market how will we prevent this free sale of land to non-nationals? If, after 50 years of native government, we hand over our land to non-nationals, we will no longer be a nation.
It is argued that the small farmer, if he gives up his farm, can go into industry. Where will he go into industry? The only hope I can see for him is the Ruhr Valley, which is a long way from home. It is different for Europeans. Europeans are used to migrating. We are not. Our workers migrate to Britain and even that migration has led to complications in homes and marriages. If our young boys and girls have to go into industry, then let us gear ourselves to providing those industries in the agricultural areas. Instead of disparaging the part-time farmer he should be encouraged in every way. I am all for this.
In my area I have seen how effectively the small farmer can work his farm and take employment in another job. In Tynagh mines they employ about 300 men. These men have good working hours, they receive good pay and, as a result, the farmers have better farms because they can afford to improve them. In many cases they have gone over to dry feeding rather than milk. We should do everything possible to encourage this development.
We frequently hear people on television say there is no hope for the small farmer. I do not share this view. There are many small farmers in Europe who are managing very well to cope with a job in addition to their farm work. As the Minister knows, farms in Europe are often considerably smaller than farms in Ireland. It must be realised that size is comparative. Some people regard 50 acres as small while others think a 25-acre farm is small. However, a man with 150 acres who does not manage his farm efficiently very frequently is worse off than a person who has a well-run 25-acre farm.
We must instil in the minds of our people that all is not lost for the small farmer. Perhaps he may not do very well in the EEC but he will be much worse off if we stay outside. We must gear the larger farmer to conditions in the Common Market. Above all, we must streamline our farms and we must specialise. In the past the matter of specialisation has been mentioned in a vague way but now we must do something about it. This will require rethinking for many of us and now is the time to do it.
Already we have wasted much time. We have been talking for the last ten years about entry into the EEC and during that time we should have been telling the farmers how to prepare themselves for our entry into Europe. If Britain gets in—we are completely dependent on her—we could be full members before the end of the Seventies. I do not think we are ready for this. I hope the Minister and his Department will be able to help the farmers and to warn them of what is in store. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries have ample resources at their disposal; they have many inspectors and advisers and it is their job to give accurate information to the farmers. In the west we are inclined to put things off until another day but we cannot afford to adopt this attitude any longer.
I must apologise to the Minister; I have not read his speech very carefully as I was not here. In his absence I objected to taking the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries yesterday and today. I appreciate that it is not the Minister's responsibility—I presume it is the Whips who arrange business—but I would like to point out that the three Whips are Dublin city representatives and perhaps they do not think the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries of great importance. To my mind, apart from the Department of Finance, it is our most important Department but, having regard to the way the Estimate was taken and the attendance in the House today, one wonders if other Members consider the Department very important. I have always believed, and I hope my belief will not be shattered, that the future of this country rests with the farmers. If we all believed this and worked as we should, we would have a much better country.
