Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Feb 1971

Vol. 251 No. 8

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1971, 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.)

When I reported progress on Tuesday last I had dealt almost completely with the dairying industry and the state of that industry as I see it at present. I had not dealt in full with the serious effects of the scaling down of milk prices. There are a few points which I want to bring to the Minister's notice in connection with this scaling down of prices because I believe that it is now it is having its effect.

When this was first introduced by the Minister's predecessor it was against the wishes of all the farming organisations, the creamery managers' association and everybody associated with the dairying industry. The Minister introduced a phased increase in the price of milk and it is having its effect at this point in time. In fact, it contributes to the increased cost of production because the pattern in the dairying industry is that the cows are calving at this time of the year and going into milk, and the milk producers are now aiming at a shorter lactation period. If they want to produce milk from now until such time as good quality grass is available, the only way they can do that is by feeding concentrates which are pretty expensive. If they do that they will produce milk over a longer period but it will bring some of them within the scope of the phased increase and they will not get the full value of the milk they are producing.

At this time of the year the creameries and the processing industries are not getting sufficient milk to keep them going due to the scaling down of milk prices. As I pointed out on the last occasion, the Minister and his predecessor were confused between the big milk producer and the big farmer because the big milk producer is not necessarily the big farmer. We have a situation now in which milk is being produced from the grass only and there is a shorter period of milk production. This results in our processing plants and our creameries having inflated overheads and inflated costs because they have to pay their staffs during the lean period which is a lot longer than it was heretofore.

I am told that at the moment milk is so scarce that the target envisaged for 1970-71 of 550 million gallons will not be reached and that we will not reach 500 millions gallons. I am also informed by a fairly reliable authority that some creameries are finding it very difficult to fill their contracts, and one creamery in the south is short of between 200 and 300 tons of skim milk powder. This is a terrible reflection on the policy pursued by the Government.

Early last year the farming organisations made representations to the Minister and advised him that at a time when Europe was moving out of milk production we should stay put. How right they were. Our contribution is so insignificant and our production is so small that it was a fatal mistake to move away from milk production. The Minister, who is a farmer, will appreciate that it is very easy to go from milk to beef, or to diversify from milk to any other line of production, but it is both difficult and expensive to get back into milk production. It is accepted that it takes approximately ten years to build up a proper dairy herd, and this is the great problem.

The Minister and his Department should realise that, once a farmer goes out of milk production, it is not easy to get back into it again. There seems to be no long-term planning. Last year farmers were encouraged to get out of milk production. That was a mistake. I have been told that representatives of Bord Bainne are at the moment canvassing creameries throughout the country to drop all production except butter so that we will be able to fill the quota to Britain. I do not know how true this is, but I have reason to believe that my information is pretty accurate.

We have heard a good deal from Ministers for Agriculture and members of the Fianna Fáil Party about the subsidy the taxpayer is called upon to pay in relation to agriculture. Every time there is a demand for an increase in farmers' income the reply is that the Exchequer is paying almost £100 million a year to subsidise the farming community. This is not correct. It is grossly exaggerated. I have tried to get the facts about State expenditure on agriculture. A committee was set up some time ago to examine into the amount of money provided to subsidise agriculture. Now, there is a vast difference between State aid to agriculture and subsidising agriculture. In the information supplied by the Department one finds ten different headings: education, research and advisory services; livestock improvement and eradication of disease; production and development aids, marketing support; administration of miscellaneous Acts; land annuities relief; capital for the Agricultural Credit Corporation and so on. The Supplementary Estimate for 1970-71 comes to approximately £97 million.

It was stated recently in a newspaper article that the farmer was being subsidised to the extent of almost £2 million a week. The report of the committee which reviewed State expenditure to agriculture said that it could be argued that a number of headings could be completely eliminated from this alleged State aid to agriculture. Expenditure under these headings is described as expenditure in relation to agriculture and not as State aid to agriculture. The committee are not prepared to argue that all of it is State aid. This is an important point.

In the realm of State aid unique to agriculture I list creamery milk. This aid is unique to agriculture. There is also carcase beef and lamb, bacon, lime subsidy, incentive scheme for small farmers, beef cattle incentive scheme. These come to approximately £46 million. This is a far cry from the £100 million we hear so much about.

With regard to creamery milk the Exchequer aid comes to approximately £30 million a year. There is a hidden subsidy in this. The consumer does not pay the economic price for the lb. of butter and the hidden subsidy amounts to some £5 million.

The producer of pigs is at a disadvantage in that factory processing costs are probably higher than they would be in a more rationalised industry and a good deal of the subsidy goes in price support of factory costs. This is something we should bear in mind.

There is relief of rates, a pretty sizeable sum. This is regarded as a subsidy to agriculture or to the farming community. This is what makes one ask oneself if this is the reason why such a barrier of suspicion exists between the farming and the non-farming community. Relief of rates and land annuities is a tax relief for the lower income farmers and should not be regarded as State aid to agriculture. Every one of us who qualifies gets relief in income tax. Deputies get a certain income tax relief. Could this be described as a subsidy for Deputies? This is something we should examine and, instead of talking about £100 million, we should talk in terms of £40 million which is, in my opinion, the accurate figure.

The cost of rural electrification is described as a subsidy to agriculture. This is utterly absurd. If there is an extension of supply to a doctor's house in Castletownbere is that regarded as a subsidy to agriculture? Is it part of the £100 million to agriculture about which we hear so much? It is ridiculous to regard the extension of electricity to the hills and valleys in rural Ireland as a subsidy to the farming community. The Minister should have another look at this whole question of the subsidisation of agriculture.

When the State contributes to agriculture the taxpayer has a right to know what contribution agriculture makes to the economy. The money spent on agriculture is money well spent but, in order to increase farmers' income, more subsidy will have to be provided. Agriculture employs 28 per cent of the total labour force. It accounts for 50 per cent of total domestic exports and, indirectly, it contributes to the employment of 50 per cent of those engaged in manufacturing industries. We should realise and appreciate the contribution agriculture makes to our economy. Agriculture uses £18 million worth of goods and services supplied by Irish concerns each year. This is something we should not forget. Agricultural exports are not like industrial exports because agriculture is a small importer of goods and an excellent earner, therefore, of foreign currency. The £100 million worth of agricultural products exported requires only £7 million worth of imports. Every £100 million worth of industrial products exported requires something around £38 million worth of imports. Those who complain, particularly those in the cities and towns, should bear this in mind when they talk about subsidising the Irish farmer. This is something they should bear in mind.

Statements are made from time to time about farmers not paying income tax but what people do not realise is that farmers pay rates on their place of employment which nobody else is asked to do. Confusion exists and no effort is being made to clarify it among people engaged in work other than farming. If the farmer pays rates on his place of employment surely he is not expected to pay income tax? I believe if the rates were abolished completely the farmers would not object to paying income tax on their earnings.

We have made very little progress in dealing with the problem of animal health. Two years ago, in the debate on the Estimate for Agriculture I brought something to the notice of the Minister and asked him to deal with it when he was replying but he did not mention it. Probably the present Minister has a better knowledge of agriculture than any of his predecessors had but so far as eradication of animal diseases is concerned progress is very slow and disappointing. At that time we had a situation which was brought to my notice by several people in which we had depots for the collection of dead animals. This is a widespread, pretty lucrative business from which some people have made considerable amounts of money in recent times. The dead animal is collected without regard to the cause of death and immediately afterwards the carcase of that animal is distributed throughout the country as dog meat without any control. This is adding to our eradication problem. The Minister should look into this because it concerns everybody in the farming community. If we wish to avail of the opportunities presented by entry into Europe it is essential to ensure that our cattle are free of disease. I do not know what is the solution to the problem but surely something could be done, either by way of licensing or better control of those engaged in this business? The matter is causing a great deal of concern.

We have failed to realise the extent of the damage and the cost to the farmer of brucellosis in recent times. Particularly in the southern dairy area brucellosis is very prevalent. There is nothing to stop a farmer, as soon as a cow aborts, from taking her to market and exposing her for sale among other cattle. There is no control. This is something that should be remedied. I should like a reply from the Minister on those points.

In regard to bovine TB eradication, this year a number of herds have broken down. I do not know why but I was amazed at the amount of testing being done in my own area by the vets. Is this an indication that no progress is being made? I put down a question to elicit some information from the Minister but he would not agree that this was the situation at that time. We have made very little progress in the eradication of bovine TB.

In the case of warble fly eradication the half-hearted effort made by the Department to get the farming community to eliminate this pest is pitiful. Practically no effort was made and at the end of last year farmers did not know whether they should or whether they would dress their animals because there was no encouragement, no lead given by the Department. When the Department did embark on the scheme it was an absolute waste of public money because it was continued only for a while and quite a number of cattle were not dressed. If you want to eradicate warble fly, treatment must go on for two or three years and every animal must be dressed against a blue card. That is the only way you can ensure full co-operation and be successful in eradicating the pest. Farmers now realise the amount of damage that the warble fly can do particularly to store cattle. I hope to hear from the Minister on that subject.

I have heard a good deal about animal feed. Veterinary surgeons are very concerned about the amount of antibiotics being used indiscriminately in animal feed at present. Some vets have complained that it is now difficult for them to treat animals because of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics particularly when they have to deal with animals that already have had an overdose of antibiotics. New brands of pig feed, rations and meals are coming on the market such as "rapid rearers" and feeds for young pigs and the amount of antibiotics used is detrimental to the industry. Is there any control? There is a certain control in regard to the millers but quite a number of farmers manufacture their own rations. I read a report from an analyst in England in which he said that he had found arsenic of 12 parts per one million in the liver of a pig. The matter is getting out of hand in this country. Copper sulphate, for instance, is now added to pig feed. What you would take up on a sixpence is sufficient for a ton of pig feed but you have farmers manufacturing their own rations using it ad lib. This is very dangerous and it is a matter the Minister should examine.

I should like to see the Minister using his good offices in the present farming dispute in an effort to bring the farmers together and get them to end this strike. The Minister should try to deal with their problems. They have problems. The Minister will have to grasp the nettle firmly and deal with them regardless of what criticism it evokes from those not engaged in agriculture. The Minister must try to settle this dispute which will otherwise escalate and cause serious damage. Even now we have evidence that it is causing damage. There are too many people on strike and too many willing to go on strike at the drop of a hat. I should say that the farming community are the most tolerant section of the Irish people.

They have had a pretty rough time in the past. The Minister has a duty to meet the farming community and come to a settlement with them so that they will get back to work, particularly now as we are approaching spring. We are now in the midst of this strike by the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association and the NFA and we will see, if this continues, wholesale redundancy and wholesale unemployment because already it has had its effect on the lime quarries and the machinery firms in which men are being laid off. The Minister should be sensible about this. Surely it has been proved beyond doubt that they have a grievance. I hope that before it is too late the Minister will realise the seriousness of the situation.

With your permission, Sir, I should like to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 39 of February 4th.

The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.

I do not intend to deliberate too long on this Supplementary Estimate but there are a few anomalies within the functioning of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries which I should like to bring to the Minister's attention. I have listened, since this debate began, to the various speakers and I listened with great attention to Opposition speakers, and, indeed, to some of our own speakers, and the matter upon which they continually harped was subsidisation. I am beginning to wonder if any of us here is honest enough with himself and even honest enough with the farming community to stand up and say that it is time we realised that subsidisation should be phased out in regard to our farming community. This would have many repercussions, could cause great difficulties within the community and could have adverse effects on the industry. However, as long as we continue to pour subsidies into the farming community in the manner in which we have been in the last eight or ten years we are not solving the farming problem. Subsidisation solves an economic problem but only for a period and when the moneys are used up the thing catches up on us again and then we have to find additional subsidies. These subsidies must come from the Exchequer and the money must be obtained in a most arduous manner, by devious means, by the State having to put its hands into the taxpayers' pockets and extract money in the most dubious ways. This has to be done if we are to keep the Exchequer afloat. Every time we advocate additional subsidies to the agricultural community we should remember that we are not really assisting them; we are solving an economic and a financial problem for them but we are also creating a social problem for them.

The farming community deserve a certain amount of respect for the skills they have attained through hard work and dedication to this industry and they should be paid a just price for their produce. If we did that we would, in the future, avoid the necessity for additional subsidies which we might envisage promoting here or which the Department might have in mind. I am treading very carefully here because I fully realise what could happen if we were to withdraw fully all subsidies from the agricultural community. I am not suggesting that but I am suggesting that if we enter the EEC we will have to phase out our subsidies and pay the farmers a just price for their produce.

I hope I will be able to point out a few anomalies. The agricultural community are being allowed fall behind their industrial comrades in regard to payment for produce and recompense for their hours of labour and toil. The Minister has, as he should have, his finger on the pulse in regard to agricultural matters—he is a man of considerable agricultural knowledge—and he is aware of the many disadvantages created in the past because we advocated additional subsidies and stepped aside from the real issue, a just payment for milk, potatoes, cereals or for any other produce from the land.

I should like to see a very definite approach in regard to this and I should like the Minister to tell us positively whether we intend to continue this trend of never ending subsidisation thus bringing ourselves to the point that when we enter the EEC some subsidies will have to be withdrawn very quickly, leaving our farmers in a very competitive market. I have no doubt we will enter the EEC. A very rosy picture has been painted in regard to agriculture when we enter the EEC. This is all very fine for those sitting behind desks formulating programmes which we must implement on the land but it is time we realised that when we enter the EEC we will be competing against people who work a longer day than we do. I say this without reservation because we are apt to forget that we should carry out our work in a dedicated way. When we enter the EEC we will be competing against people who are better geared to carry out their work on the land than we are. Therefore, it will be necessary, not only for the farming community, but for each and every one of us, to roll up our sleeves and say to ourselves that it is time we started to work to produce goods comparable with the products of other countries. I have no doubt that our agricultural community will be able to do this but we ourselves should show the initiative.

The system of farm grants should be restructured. I do not think this needs much elaboration because most Deputies who have spoken on this matter have expressed criticism. The system should be restructured to ensure that the farmer with a small economic holding can obtain direct benefit. At the moment the big farmer appears to reap the major benefit and there is no incentive for the small farmer to apply. However, the worst feature is the fact that he must wait for a very long time before sanction is obtained and payment made.

This brings me to a pertinent point regarding my own constituency, namely, the scheme of grants for glasshouses. About three or four years ago the Minister for Agriculture introduced this scheme. I was pleased and said it would be an added incentive to those in the industry. However, I condemned the fact that a ceiling was not imposed on the amount of money that would be paid to any individual. I fought against this for two years and last year a ceiling of £40,000 was introduced. I am not convinced that this was the appropriate amount; I suggest we should have a much lower ceiling, say, in the region of £20,000-£25,000.

If we look back on the files we can see that some people got grants of £140,000. Large syndicates grouped together, such as fruit importers who were not involved in any way in the production of tomatoes other than selling them across the counter, and they received grants of more than £100,000. The producer with a quarter or half acre finds it extremely difficult to get a small portion of the large sum of money that is allocated to the glasshouse industry. The ceiling of £40,000 is much too high and it ensures that large syndicates obtain the greatest benefits from the scheme.

The Minister may say that the principal objective was to increase the acreage under glass. I realise that this was possibly the reason for the introduction of the scheme but I also realise that the more people there are in the industry the better are the prospects for that industry. This is particularly the case in the glasshouse industry and it is carrying out the intention of the Second Programme, namely, to keep as many as possible in viable units on the land. However, to do this in an effective way we should have introduced a scheme with a ceiling of £20,000-£25,000.

In this case I want to express my concern because people who applied for grants in March, 1969 have not yet been paid, and will not be paid until March, 1971. These people have applied for grants in respect of overhead irrigation, for installation of heating systems or for the erection of glasshouses, and they must proceed with this work. In many cases they have received undertakings from the bank that they can carry out the work provided they obtain the grants.

I do not know if we ran out of money because we overspent in the first few years—I know there were more applicants than had been expected—but if this was the case we should have honoured our commitments. The majority of these people who have applied for grants have no option but to continue with the work without sanction from the Department of Agriculture. The reply that will be given will probably be that they went ahead without prior sanction from the Department of Agriculture, with the result that they will be deprived of the grant. We made a mistake in not having a ceiling and the small producer is being penalised. There are many small farmers in the Rush, Skerries and Lusk areas who are being victimised because the big producers got the bulk of the money that was originally meant for the small producers.

I would ask the Minister to arrange to have the glasshouse grants paid. Those who applied in March this year will not be eligible for payment by next year because the work will not have been inspected when the scheme is completed next year. The majority of the people will not be eligible because they have carried out the work without prior sanction. This is a specific problem and I hope the Minister will consider what I have said.

In the event of our entry into the EEC, our tomato producers will be in keen competition with producers in other countries. From the climatic point of view the continental producer has a tremendous advantage and, therefore, our producers need all assistance possible. In this regard the Minister should exercise his powers in an effort to have the outstanding grants paid.

I have been advocating a change of policy with regard to cereal-growing generally and particularly in regard to our present system of operating the wheat levy. I do not know how the Department intend dealing with the problem this year but it appears it will be dealt with in the same manner as in the last two years, that is, that a levy will be imposed on wheat. I do not suggest for a moment that the Exchequer should have to subsidise wheat-growing and I do not think it is necessary. However, it is unjust to tell the farmer that he will get 90s a barrel or whatever it will be for his wheat and then when the time comes to deduct 15s so that he realises a substantially smaller sum. If the farmer produces a quality product, which everyone advocates, it is not wanted; in other words, if it is really good millable wheat a levy must be paid on it. Farmers thought this levy would last for one year, and that was all right. It continued for a second year, and it will remain for a third and fourth year. If we do not get away from this system it will go on for ever. There are other systems which could be operated. They would not cost the Exchequer anything and would alleviate other problems in that sphere and give another outlet to the Department in relation to the further increase in the production of cereal growing.

I want to advocate, as I have before on many occasions, even personally to the Minister, the growing of wheat on a quality basis. I had a question down to the Minister the other day in this regard. This matter should be examined. I suggest the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries should recommend certain qualities of wheat as millable. There are many of them on the market at the moment; they are not very high yielders. The farmer should know before growing wheat that it will be acceptable as millable, and, secondly, what he will get for it. Along with that, you must cater for the people who are not growing millable wheat; let us call it soft wheat and hard wheat. In regard to soft wheat you would require a commercial type of wheat for which the Minister himself could strike a price in the Department. I advocate a price of £3 10s per barrel.

This would be commercial soft wheat of which there are many varieties in the country. They are mostly winter wheats. There is a tremendous acreage of winter wheat this year, and each year that goes by farmers have a tendency to go more and more and more into winter wheat, and why? Because all the winter wheats are much higher yielders than the spring wheats. The spring wheats could be utilised as millable wheats if they were grown on a variety basis. There are only a few varieties which would be acceptable to the millers and which the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries could recommend. These varieties are not confined to any early-ripening areas. They could be grown generally throughout the country.

The soft wheat could be grown on a commercial basis and would offset the large sums of money spent every year, approximately £9 million, on the importation of feedingstuffs for cattle, poultry, pigs—all our livestock—which could be produced at home. I realise there are difficulties involved, but I should like to know with certainly that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries have tackled this problem in a realistic way. It should be given a trial and, if it is not successful, it will certainly be 100 times more successful than the imposition of a levy whereby no one knows what he will get for his wheat.

It could be argued that the levy does not discourage the farmers growing wheat, and this is so. Each year yields are being pushed up by the extra application of fertiliser and by the introduction of new varieties. This has given the farmer an incentive to continue to grow wheat. Years ago as a child I remember, when we started to grow wheat, if you grew wheat once in ley and got away with it you were deemed to be very lucky. The variety then was Glasnevin Rosa. Now you can grow wheat for the third successive season on the one piece of ground and get a higher yield the last year for the simple reason that the rotation of the soil is activating the "artificials" which have been put in the first and second year. Some of these remain in the ground and have been utilised to greater benefit in the third year. There is also the application of chemicals which have brought about resistance to diseases which years ago were the downfall of wheat production. All these researches carried out for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries by An Foras Talúntais have brought additional money to the farmers. It costs them more money to produce the commodity but they get additional money by virtue of higher production. There is a certain amount of satisfaction in knowing that you can sow and reap without having the worry of diseases which used to be a constant threat to the production of wheat and cereals in general.

Wheat growing would require no support if yields of up to about two and a half tons an acre were achieved. These yields have been constantly obtained in the country generally. The national average yield is not so far below this. I have got these yields myself, my neighbours have got them and I have been down the country and I know that people there have got them readily. If commercial wheat can be grown at the rate of two and a half tons per statute acre there would be no need for subsidies or levies. It would only be justice for the farmer to implement a scheme whereby the farmer would know that the higher his yield would be the more money he would get; in other words the more efficiently and more effectively he applies modern methods and his own knowledge the greater the reward he will reap.

In this way we would be doing justice to the technical knowledge which the farmers have gained through the pamphlets and booklets issued by the Department of Agriculture and the farmers would be compensated for their time and trouble by the introduction of a scheme which would let them know in advance of sowing exactly what they would get for their produce. There is no other industry in which the producer does not know beforehand what he will get for his produce. Every firm which cans peas knows beforehand how much it will get per can, and the same is true in relation to every bottle of milk. Yet in the case of wheat we allow the farmer to live in suspense. This is unjust in view of our proposed entry to the EEC and the competition we will meet then. The Minister, having considerable knowledge of cereal growing, can support what I have said.

I had occasion recently to witness the importation of field barley. I do not know what price was paid for it but whatever it was it was too much. I have seen this field barley dumped at the doorway of a shed but because it was so bad and so light it blew all round the shed. It was absolute dirt brought in from the Continent. The argument will be put forward that we do not produce enough barley but over-produce wheat. The sensible thing to do would be to balance the two. Another argument that will be put forward is that we do not have the protein, but protein can be bought in a plastic bag. Most pig producers buy protein in a plastic bag and mix a spoonful in the pig feed every day. The same is true of the poultry industry. It would be far better to utilise home grown produce instead of importing this dirt.

I have seen deplorable wheat offal imported from Russia. Anyone who went down to the Dublin docks to see the wheat offal we are importing would be horrified because it is the worst type of feeding anyone could consider using. I have seen the Port Milling Company dumping better feeding than what is being brought in. We would be far better off using home grown produce. It is high time we stopped buying from countries who do not buy produce from us, which means that at the end of the year there is a considerable deficit in our balance of trade.

Barley prices were increased by 5s a barrel which is equal to 50s a ton. This increase has already been negatived. A barrel of barley at the present time costs £6 5s whereas last year it cost £5. It has gone up 25s because seed merchants read in the papers that the Minister for Agriculture was giving an increase of 5s a barrel to farmers. An increase of 10s a barrel could have been attributed to labour costs and that would have been quite acceptable but to increase the price by £1 5s a barrel is ridiculous. Of course it will be said that one barrel of barley can produce 30 barrels at the end of the year.

The price of artificial manures has been going up steadily without any clamp down from the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Minister for Agriculture will have to step in on behalf of the farming community and say: "Before the next increase takes place we shall have to have an investigation into this." I have heard representatives of the manufacturers state that as long as the Department of Industry and Commerce allow them to increase the price of artificials they will do so. The only people to suffer are the farming community.

Generally speaking it can be said that the last few years have been good ones for agriculture. Milk production has gone down because we have had dry summers. While cereal growers increased their yields the year before last, the storm on 12th August last did irreparable damage. We also had extremely dry weather in July which did not help to fill the blade of corn. However, we gained in quality and this was a tremendous incentive to the farming community. Yet, just because the Minister gives farmers an extra 5s a barrel the seed manufacturers and the manufacturers of artificials immediately put their prices up so we reach a stalemate very quickly. If they make a valid case for increasing prices then they must get them, but they have not shown any evidence to prove that seed barley should be increased by £1 5s and seed wheat by £1 a barrel.

I have mentioned the glasshouse industry and I want to deal with the financing of it by the Agricultural Credit Corporation. During the years, the Department have developed a considerable amount of goodwill with the ACC. So also have the Department of Finance with whom the ACC have a very close relationship. If one goes into this, however, one will appreciate that the ACC are not being given sufficient capital.

Let us consider the case of a loan applicant from North County Dublin who has 20 or 30 acres of land—this is a fairly average farm in the area, many farms being small—who wishes to add a small portion adjoining. He will get only £6,000 from the ACC. In North County Dublin the price of land is fiercely competitive; a farmer is competing with developers who are trying to buy all the land they can in the vicinity of Dublin Airport, particularly near towns of any size. Therefore, it has become nearly impossible for a farmer to buy land.

The ACC should be enabled, through additional finance, to be more lenient with such people. In the area of which I speak, £6,000 will buy only a very small portion of land and because a farmer is unable to get two loans he cannot go to the bank. The only solution he has is to move to Meath, Westmeath or Kildare. This tends to deplete the number of farmers in the area and I ask the Minister seriously to consider giving the ACC more resources.

Of course, the Land Commission cannot ever seriously consider buying land in my constituency. Firstly, they would have to pay too much for it and, secondly, the successful applicants, in turn, would have to pay too dearly for it. There is therefore no possibility of the Land Commission coming into the picture in North County Dublin. At the moment the ACC are, I think, getting £12 million a year from the Government. I suggest that this be increased so that they can assist not only farmers in my constituency but farmers throughout the country. The principle of ACC borrowing is very simple and repayments are very easy for farmers. The ACC give a certain amount of latitude which the banks do not. On those grounds alone I plead with the Minister to give additional capital to the ACC.

I should like to say something about education for the farming community. A number of small farmers in my constituency have tried to avail of the educational facilities being made available for the farming community, which are widespread throughout the constituency. They are being made available by the local agricultural advisory service, by the Department and by the technical schools. Unfortunately, however, many farmers and their sons are unable to avail of them. There is a labour shortage in the area because of its proximity to Dublin and the ready availability of jobs in building and other industries.

Therefore, farmers depend nearly entirely on their sons to work their farms and it is only when classes are held at night that the farming community can avail of them. I appeal to the Minister to try to arrange such classes so that the farming community can benefit. We have inveigled the agricultural advisers to hold classes here and there but unfortunately the classes are too widespread and there is no continuity about them. If classes could be held at night and if the farmers were circularised about them I can assure the Minister that the farmers would co-operate fully.

I should like to ask the Minister if it would be possible to do something concrete to stabilise the price of potatoes. It is ridiculous to find potatoes selling in shops in Dublin for between 2s 6d and 6s per stone whereas if you go to a farm you will get half a cwt for between 8s and 10s, or £16 to £20 per ton. Therefore, the middleman has a profit margin of anything up to £42 a ton. Somebody is making a fantastic profit while housewives in Dublin and in surrounding areas are paying through the nose. There is no stabilising in the prices of potatoes or cabbage. The argument will be made that the price is regulated by supply and demand. I submit that this is not a valid argument in this case. The middleman is fleecing the housewives in Dublin. The housewives in the city of Dublin are fully convinced that the farmer is making a fortune and that is why there is such a kick up every time we look for additional money for agriculture. They say: "Oh, it is for the farmer again", because they are fully convinced that the £40 per ton paid to the shopkeeper is paid direct to the farmer, and the farmer is making an absolute fortune out of his potatoes. In the summer months when they stop at the side of the road and ask you to sell them half a cwt of potatoes they are very surprised when you ask for such a small price. They cannot believe it.

The price of potatoes should be regulated on a month to month basis, particularly the early crop when the farmer gets about £32 a ton, perhaps less, perhaps more. The Potato Marketing Board is practically non-existent. We might as well be honest about it. It has no effective function whatsoever. It is a waste of time having these people who are potato porters in the market dictating the price, according to supply and demand as they think. It is really in accordance with what they think they can clear in one day. That is how the price is dictated. I was a victim of this and many of my colleagues in North County Dublin were also victims of it. We saw the procedure.

It is time we got away from that type of gerrymandering in which four or five people can dictate the price of potatoes in the city of Dublin by having a meeting for about seven minutes each Tuesday or Thursday morning. The housewife in the city of Dublin is being exploited by the middleman. If the middleman says he is not making the money we should find out who exactly is making the 150 or 200 per cent profit. We have an alternative. We have co-operatives. We have people buying in bulk. The ordinary housewife in Ballymun——

Ballyfermot.

—— or the ordinary housewife in any of the big estates, buys a head of cabbage every day and a stone of potatoes in a plastic bag every second day. If this is what she wants, we will have to facilitate her. She has no place to store one cwt of potatoes and, indeed, no way of getting them. There should be some investigation into this matter and we should try to stabilise the price of potatoes from month to month, at least. It is easy enough to do that with the late potatoes because it is fairly easy to calculate the acreage of potatoes and the average of what will be produced. It will not be exact but it does not have to be exact.

The reason for the drop in the acreage of potatoes—and this will continue—is the instability of the price. It must be admitted that people are not eating as many potatoes as they did, but to offset that every child you see is carrying a bag of crisps. Therefore, the potatoes are being used in other ways. The market is there for them if we produce them, but we must guarantee the price. That is not a lot to ask for in this day and age when we are going into guaranteed markets. The farmer should be respected as one person who should get a guaranteed price. He has enough drawbacks to contend with through the elements, diseases, and otherwise. He should at least be guaranteed a price for a good product.

I want to compliment the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries on land drainage. I have seen in my own area and also throughout the country the tremendous benefits of the work caried out by the land drainage section. I want to speak now for the people in my own county. The staff of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are the most obliging people I have ever met. They use their talents to the advantage of the farmers. That is probably paying lip service to a staff which will never get recognition.

In county Dublin we have no big complaint about land drainage. We have not that much land to drain but we have a considerable number of rivers that are too small to be dealt with by the Office of Public Works and too big to be taken over by the land drainage section of the Department. I wonder would it be possible for the Minister to make a decision about these rivers? I should like to mention the Ballyboughal River, in particular. The Office of Public Works say it is not their responsibility because it is too small, and the Department say it is too big for them to tackle it, that their resources are limited and they cannot tackle big rivers. We are caught in this cleft stick. Surely a decision could be made as to whose responsibility this river is. If it is on the list of the Office of Public Works it will not be done until heaven knows when. If it is on the list of the land drainage section we can get it done immediately. There are people who are ready to pay their subscriptions to have this river drained to dry up about 470 acres of land in the area. In regard to the drainage in our area, the Office of Public Works are practically non-existent. They carried out drainage on a few big rivers and I do not think they intend to do any more.

There is not proper supervision of land that has been drained. I was on land in my constituency about three weeks ago which has reverted to its original state. It has reverted to growing rushes. I do not think this is right. Proper supervision should be maintained over land that has been drained. It should be inspected periodically. The farmer should give an undertaking that he will utilise the land to the best advantage, in other words, that he will keep it in a fertile condition. About £45 an acre is spent on the drainage of land and the farmers' contribution would be, possibly, one-third. A considerable amount of the taxpayers' money has gone into this and it should be stressed to the people concerned that this money is not to be wasted. The Department should inspect drained land and make sure that it has not reverted to its original state.

I do not think the agricultural instructors have been vigorous enough in their advocacy of land drainage. They have not made this suggestion often enough. They have not repeatedly impressed on the people that it is necessary to carry out this work in order to get full production. The advisers of the Department should not be allowed to set their sights on two or three very good productive farmers in an area, build them us as goods in the area, write their biographies and say: "This is what we can do in our area."

All farmers in the area should be treated equally and there should be no dedication to the big man who has both the means and the method of doing things for himself. Agricultural advisers should be instructed to direct their energies to the underprivileged in order to increase productivity in their case. A great deal more attention will have to be paid to the underprivileged. Those who can help themselves will need advice only on very, very technical matters.

It is a pity the warble fly extermination scheme came to an end so quickly. That scheme will have to be re-introduced. It was ill-advised on the part of the Department to cease operating this scheme. I was told that the warble fly infestation was about 3 or 4 per cent. That is an absurd estimate because, no matter where one goes in the summer, one sees a cow or a calf obviously infected with warble fly. The percentage must be much higher. The scheme of eradication must be re-introduced promptly. Hides are very important and I hope every effort will be made to get rid of this infestation for the benefit of exports. Eradication is important to the dairy farmer because warble fly infestation affects milk yields.

I have been critical of the Department but, if one is to do one's duty, then one must be critical. I can assure the Minister that I am critical only in the interests of the agricultural community.

It may seem strange for a city Deputy to discuss agriculture. It is our most important industry and the Minister has told us that State investment in agriculture has reached almost £100 million. There is every justification then for all and sundry discussing agriculture. I do not know a great deal about all the facilities available, but I certainly know that the failure of the economy at the moment is particularly felt in the field of agriculture. There is no proper co-ordination. We have a patchwork of subsidies. This probably goes back to the days when the Department was set up by the British.

We depend mainly on agriculture and, if we are to have a proper agricultural policy, we will have to make radical changes. There is at the moment large-scale rural poverty and social decay. I have seen that in the west and in Donegal. It is very evident in these areas. We should aim at building up a dynamic social life and a healthy economic growth in these areas.

We are inclined to consider rural Ireland in isolation, almost as if it were a reservation like the Indian reservations in the United States of America. This is quite wrong. It takes only three hours to get from one side of Ireland to the other. The problems of agriculture can be solved only within the framework of a properly planned economic and social policy. We should establish a farming structure which will result in commercially viable farms run by competent farmers. I dare say the Minister expects me to come out with some heresy which will give him an opportunity later of denouncing the Labour Party. I should like to see more control over production, distribution and marketing. Deputy Foley talked about the price of farm produce in our cities and towns. It is not the farmers who are making the profits.

There is grave discontent and disappointment with the present Land Commission. We should have a proper land policy, a policy which will ensure that land is available on acceptable terms to young farmers with the ability to work the land.

The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries would not have responsibility for that.

But that is exactly what is wrong. There is this strange divorce. We are inclined to consider these things in isolation. One cannot talk about agriculture without talking about land. Land and agriculture should be considered together because they go hand in hand. The Department was, as I said, set up by the British and it has adopted an attitude of exclusiveness. It had its own programme in opposition to the programme for economic expansion. It set up its own investigating team into the efficiency of agriculture and acted quite independently of the CIO set up by the Department of Industry and Commerce. This demonstrates the attitude of exclusiveness on the part of the Department. This must be changed.

We should involve the farming community to the maximum extent in matters relating to agricultural policy. They should be represented on all boards. There must be more involvement where the farmers are concerned.

I am very concerned about the co-operative movement. There is need to concentrate more on this. We should encourage fruit farming among small farmers and so ensure increased incomes for them and probably more leisure. I should like to see a farmers' insurance scheme on a co-operative basis and probably initially underwritten by the State. I heard Deputy Foley talk about the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I should like them to extend their facilities so that no worthwhile project would be held up for lack of credit. The potential of each enterprise should be the criterion. While it may be said that this would be the responsibility of the Minister for Lands I should like a rural development corporation to replace the Land Commission and settle as many farmers as possible on economic farms. I should like to see them build up a land bank that would be available to young farmers. I would also advocate control of land ownership by non-nationals if Ireland should enter the EEC. I shall not say more on that subject since it is not relevant.

I should like to see the fertiliser industry come under public ownership so that the farming community would have a greater say in it. I should like the co-operative movement to expand. The Department might consider setting up a national co-operative scheme to encourage co-operatives throughout the country. They are not sufficiently encouraged. There should be co-operatives to produce and supply all animal foodstuffs including home produced ones such as fishmeal and skim milk.

We have different boards such as the Meat Marketing Board and the export boards but, looking at it from the outside, I think there is unnecessary duplication and that if we had a national export board to co-ordinate the activities of these various bodies and avoid duplication it would be a good idea. By this means we might be able to place greater importance on branded products and ensure that these quality products would be branded so that we would have greater access to foreign markets.

I have a particular interest in the western farmer because I see tremendous poverty and decay in the west. The present subsidy structure discriminates against the west. A recent survey showed that farms of less than 30 acres, which predominate in the west, provide an average income of under £6 a week. Dr. O'Connell of the Economic and Research Institute, in a paper presented to the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland in 1970, offered a breakdown of the payment of the main agricultural subsidies between the provinces. The interesting thing is that he said that the payment per farmer in Munster in 1966 was £155 but in Connaught it was only £17. This is discrimination against the western farmer. Total subsidy payments affecting farm incomes averaged £175 per farm in Munster but only £25 in Connaught. If we are to help the west we should seriously consider matters like that.

When I spoke of co-operatives I did not suggest that the Government should run them. The Government should promote them. The co-operatives should be run democratically by the people involved. Grants should be available for buildings owned by co-operatives. There should be more emphasis on research to find the most appropriate agricultural products for a region. An adequate advisory service on production and management should be available. I think there is a research project on sheep production at Maam. This is to be encouraged and the idea should be expanded.

There is also discrimination against the smaller farmer under such schemes as the beef incentive scheme. The Minister should seriously consider this. A distinction should be drawn between agricultural incentive schemes for the region and the social policy payment.

The fishing industry has been neglected. While a staggering profit was made last year the potential of the industry has not been thoroughly exploited. We are an island and the wealth is beside us but we are not utilising it. We should be pouring capital into this industry that could bring prosperity to the country. We should have fish-processing plants in the towns around the coast. This industry could literally provide an extra 10,000 people with employment. Instead, we are talking of the EEC and we are going to give them an open invitation to exploit our resources. If we enter the EEC we shall find that the following morning their members will have fishermen around our coast because they know at present the wealth of our seas. They are availing of it while we are not. I should certainly support much more investment in the fishing industry and all ancillary aspects of it. We should be exporting fish on a vast scale. Instead, in our supermarkets you see canned fish on every shelf. This is not right when there is an industry available that could employ so many.

The need for co-operatives has been shown by the price of farm produce in Dublin. I read in the trade union information leaflet last month that potatoes had increased in price by 50 per cent last year. The farmer is not getting that profit. It is a terrible indictment of all of us if the farmer is not getting the money when the Dublin housewife has to pay so much. The co-operative movement is needed to stop exploitation by middlemen of both farmers and housewives. Something should be done urgently about this.

I want now to refer to the abuse of antibiotics because this comes under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. This is a very serious problem. The Minister should be aware of this fact and if he were a Minister who was dynamic about it he would say that it was a serious problem that would affect cattle and also people because there is a cross-transference of resistence due to the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in cattle. The Department have control over this problem and they will be directly responsible if the present position is allowed to continue. When people become ill and need lifesaving antibiotics they will find that because of this cross-transference of resistence the antibiotics will not be of any avail at the crucial moment. Dr. Ellen Geraghty in the Royal College of Surgeons has definitely proved that there is this cross-transference of resistance to antibiotics from cattle to human beings. I would ask the Minister to take immediate measures to curb this indiscriminate use of antibiotics.

I wish now to talk about sheep and sheepskins. We have an anomalous situation in that you can export as many hides as you like without a licence. The hides are not necessary to keep the leather industry going. But, for some peculiar reason sheepskins cannot be exported except under licence. We are always talking about exports but this extraordinary situation has puzzled me greatly. I think vested interests are being served by this prohibition on the free exportation of sheepskins. As I said, you can export sheepskins only under licence, and then only 20 per cent of the sheepskins obtainable on the home market. Although this prohibition is operated by the Department of Industry and Commerce the matter comes under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

I know of one company, whose employees are constituents of mine, who were fined for exporting sheepskins. They were accused of exporting something like ten or 15 skins in excess of the allowed number. This was despite the fact that they have a customs watcher who signs, seals and checks on the numbers. It is a terrible situation that you should get into trouble for exporting. I wrote to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries inquiring about the number of sheep and lambs slaughtered at meat export factories; I also asked for information about the number of sheepskins exported by meat export premises. I was told that this number was not available. I do not know how we know about exports. The figures are not available in the Minister's Department but an official said that the Central Statistics Office might be—"might be"—in a position to help. I received an acknowledgment from them.

I was also told by the Department that information was not available about the total number of carcases of mutton and lamb disposed of on the home market by meat export premises. I think they get a subsidy on meat for export and some of these carcases are being sold on the home market. Yet there is no information about the figures for carcases being sold on the home market. Is there a subsidy being paid on these? The Minister shakes his head. He does not know. No, no danger of that. But how does he know when he does not know how many are sold on the home market? The reply also stated that due to the very high standards of hygiene and production procedures now required at meat export premises—which is all right—and the consequential increase in the duties and responsibilities of the Department's veterinary staff at such factories it was not administratively feasible to keep records of domestic disposals of mutton and lamb on the basis of the number of carcases involved. That is poppy-cock. The Minister is admitting something which he is not able to check on because his Department's veterinary inspectors are overworked. That is what he is saying.

There is an interesting point in regard to a breach of the regulations here. Meat export factories are allowed to export freely all the sheepskins they like but in regard to the carcases that are sold on the home market, that are not exported, what happens to the sheepskins? They are allowed to go out. They are being sent out of the country so they are in breach of the regulations for carcases sold on the home market. You cannot have it both ways. If people are being deprived of exports why does it apply to one section and not to another? Does the Minister understand what I am talking about?

I understand what the Deputy is saying and I will have an investigation made.

I appreciate that. It is an interesting point that they are stopping skins from being exported but yet meat export factories can export as much as they like because the carcases are being exported, but so many of these carcases are sold on the home market that the sheepskins belonging to those should not be allowed to be exported.

The reply also stated that it was not possible for the Department's staff at meat factories to differentiate between skins from carcases which are exported and those from carcases which go for home consumption. There is discrimination here against certain people and vested interests are involved. I wonder why we cannot export sheepskins freely? The Minister is progressive and I think he will see the injustice here. I would appreciate if he could do something about it. The company to which I refer is in danger of closing down. Let us look at these regulations and if vested interests are involved it is not right. We have the Dungarvan factory saying: "Oh, we need the sheepskins" but what about the hides? They need hides too.

Exports are very important for us. Time and again I have asked for a review of these regulations and I was told that if any alterations took place in the processing of sheepskins they would be allowed export them freely. I asked what type of processing and they would not specify the type. I asked if pickling would do—and which this firm were prepared to do in order to retain their employees—but this was rejected by the Department. They said "no". Even for sheepskins which are wholly processed and sold as sheep-skin rugs licences are required, they said. This is ridiculous. I found myself hitting my head against a stone wall when I got replies from the Departments of Industry and Commerce and of Agriculture and Fisheries and from the Revenue Commissioners. It is wrong that a firm should be almost made bankrupt because they were accused of exporting sheepskins in excess of the stipulated number, particularly as the customs man was there checking on it. Like the Gestapo they went in and demanded books and sent inspectors up to the north to the firm's customers checking on the number of sheepskins. This was wasting State money. There is a great market for all sheepskins abroad and we should be availing of it. I think the Minister is sincere enough to do something about it.

As a western Deputy and farmer there are a few points I should like to put before the Minister regarding the west of Ireland. The five western counties receive only £2½ million by way of milk subsidy whereas a sum of £32.4 million is paid throughout the country. Milk is not produced as extensively in the west as in the southern and eastern regions and therefore our subsidy is much lower.

Under the beef incentive scheme a grant is paid to any person who has 100 cows. In the west of Ireland there are many small farmers who have only three or four cows and they cannot avail of this subsidy. If this was paid to the farmers in the west of Ireland it would mean an increase in their incomes. Although I am a farmer, I consider it is entirely dishonest to the taxpayers that they should have to pay for the subsidies granted to people who own 50 or 100 cows. These people do not need this money; it could be used to alleviate the hardship of small farmers who are finding it difficult to survive, particularly in my constituency.

I would ask the Minister to amend this scheme so that the grant is not paid to farmers who own more than 20 or 30 cows. I was in milk production myself; when I became a Member of Dáil Éireann I discontinued with this line of production and I am now in the beef incentive scheme. However, I do not like to see this scheme exploited and the taxpayers' money paid out at random. From figures I have here I gather if a man has 20 cows he can get £400 from the Exchequer, later he could sell 20 calves and collect £1,000 for them. These points are worth noting and the Minister should consider the payment of a grant to western farmers for the first two cows. If this were done it would be of considerable benefit to people in the west of the country.

In the west there are various supply stations and small creameries. However, we should consider seriously the position of the creameries in the event of our entry into the EEC. I believe there is a future for the milk industry in the Common Market and this would be of considerable benefit to the small farmers of the west. They could develop their small holdings as a result of obtaining increased prices for milk in the EEC countries.

Despite all the increases given by the Government in milk subsidies in the last six or seven years, it is strange that the farmer has not received any increase whatever. To my mind the creameries are not viable and their costings are too high. At the moment the farmer is not getting any more for milk than he received two years ago. I should like the Minister to let us know the position of those small creameries and to state how they will work in Common Market conditions. Perhaps the Minister might carry out an investigation to see if there is a possibility of the creameries amalgamating so that the farmers would be in a position to compete and operate a viable unit that would work in Common Market conditions.

The matter of water supply is an important factor in milk production. The Department of Agriculture will give a grant of £120 to a farmer for a bore well. I have known several farmers in my area who have bored wells at a cost of £600 or £700. It was essential for them to have milk coolers and therefore a water supply was vital. However, the sum of £120 is a very small contribution having regard to the increased cost of materials at the present time. I appreciate that the Department of Agriculture are co-operating with the Department of Local Government where the cost of group water supply schemes exceeds a certain figure. These group water supply schemes are a rural matter and I should like the Department of Local Government to hand over to the Department of Agriculture the responsibility for such schemes. The Minister should give consideration to increasing the grant for bore wells. In many cases it is necessary to go down 200 or 300 feet; in addition, the person has to pay about £2 15s per foot for the first 120 feet; he has to buy a pump which will cost in the region of £100, with the necessary equipment. In very many cases the ultimate cost of the well is £700 or £800.

There is an Erin Foods processing plant in Tuam and there are several bacon factories in the west of Ireland but this is really the only industry that exists in this part of the country. In my town there are two bacon factories but it is necessary to import pigs from Northern Ireland to keep these factories operating. This should not happen. In my own town there are over 200 people working in a big bacon factory. They are the most hard-working people in Ireland. The bacon factory is progressing well but cannot get sufficient pigs to keep it going. Sometimes pigs have to be brought from the north. I would like to see five or six pig fattening stations erected in County Mayo or in the bordering counties which would supply these two bacon factories which are a great asset to the community, to the people who work there and particularly to the farmers. One of the most successful pig fattening stations in Ireland is operating on a co-operative basis in Balla, County Mayo. If a number of these pig fattening stations were established to supply the two bacon factories we could double the employment there. Not alone that, but emigration would be reduced. What we want in this country is more production, and this is what will keep the people in the west of Ireland.

In my constituency there is an extensive land project scheme operating under the Department. I must compliment the officers on the land project scheme for the wonderful work they are doing. However, these people are handicapped in so far as the farmers with whom they are dealing cannot benefit from the arterial drainage scheme there. There are 800 extra drainage jobs which the Moy drainage people have practically refused to do. As a result thousands of farmers will be unable to avail of this land project. Some scheme should be implemented whereby the main drain could be opened between townlands where this drainage business was being carried out in order to give a chance to the farmers who live there to avail of the land project grants. There has to be a certain depth of drain before a person can qualify.

Again in connection with this Moy drainage scheme, over the past few months or few years silt has got into the pipes of some of these land project schemes. Complaints and representations have been made to the Board of Works and they have decided they will not carry out these extra drainage schemes. I cannot see why County Mayo is allowed only £35,000 for drainage and roads. We have no money at all for this type of work. If the Minister could give a 100 per cent grant for the outside drain this would be a wonderful asset to the farming community, particularly where drainage works are needed.

There have been various protests in recent months and in years past by the various farmers' organisations. The NFA and the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association are protesting about their income and maintain it is not keeping pace with that of industrial workers. There is no doubt whatsoever that the price of agricultural production is not satisfactory, whether it is the price of milk or anything else. The price of pigs has not increased wonderfully. Take the price paid by Erin Foods for potatoes, something in the region of £11 to £12 per ton. As a farmer, I know exactly what it costs to produce potatoes, and I cannot see how any farmer could sell potatoes under £18 or £20 a ton and have a reasonable profit.

Let me quite honest and say I am not fully behind the manner in which the farming organisations are protesting. They have refused to buy agricultural machinery. This is only helping the Government because it reduces imports of machinery. This is not the way I would do it. I am a member of the NFA and I am a farmer. As such I do not entirely agree with their helping the Government who have failed to meet them and Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries who, in the past, failed to meet them on the steps of Leinster House. I do not agree with farmers helping the economy when the machinery is not imported.

I saw recently on the "Late, Late Show" a group of farmers, including Mr. Maher the Leader of the NFA and the Leader of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, drafted from all over the country. I should like to know if these people were paid to appear on that television programme. One man from my own county stated that he had four acres of arable land and five acres of bog and he classed himself as a farmer. Any man coming from my county who classes himself as a farmer with four acres of arable land and five acres of bog should be ashamed of himself. He does not represent the farming community. This type of man should not be allowed to appear on television because he never had a hope of surviving in the west of Ireland without other means of support. The vast majority of the farms in the west are around 20 to 30 acres. Some of the farmers are part-timers, but they are as successful as any farmers in the rest of the country. I must compliment Mr. Maher and the leader of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers for their contributions that night, they were a credit to the farmers, but the representative from Macra na Feirme should have prepared himself better to go on television.

We have all read the statement made by the Minister for Lands on part-time farmers in the west of Ireland. I hope Deputy Gibbons will never make such a statement. The first thing to do is to get the job done and then one can look for praise, but that statement was only bluff, in the same way as talk about the Land Commission going to Castlebar and the Department of Education going to Athlone was bluff. There is no point in people talking unless there is a realistic approach behind what they say. Why should a member of the Government make such a statement unless it was decided that such action would take place? What we want is action. My constituency has been represented for the past 20 years by two Ministers, but what industry has come there?

What responsibility has the Minister for Agriculture for industry?

The Minister for Agriculture spoke about part-time farming and that is what I am dealing with. I would like to see industries, but not industrial estates like the ones in Galway city and Cork city, where farmers could be temporarily employed, so that they could be part-time farmers as well. Parts of my county are 80 and even 90 miles from Galway city, which makes it impossible for a part-time farmer to work in Galway city. This talk about part-time farming is a farce. The Government should approach the problem in a logical way and ensure that industries are scattered throughout the west of Ireland. In this way part-time farming could be implemented.

A constituent of mine who built a pig fattening unit and then applied to the Agricultural Credit Corporation for money to stock that piggery was refused by them. I do not think the Agricultural Credit Corporation should refuse to finance anyone who wants to go into production but this has happened on two occasions in my constituency. Any person prepared to go into production should be helped by the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I have been in contact with the Agricultural Credit Corporation about these two cases but still they have refused. Production benefits the economy of the country and those who want to engage in it should get all the support they need.

I want now to deal with the new regulations regarding the purchase of wool. I had a Parliamentary Question down to the Minister but I did not receive a satisfactory answer. The first regulation is that 880 square feet of floor space is required; around which there is supposed to be a five foot wall. The floor space is to be divided into sections for the different grades of wool and special lights and special scales have to be installed. In addition, everyone must go for a course in wool grading. Is this a deliberate move to push out the small wool buyer?

What is this country coming to? Are we here to help the foreign financiers, the tycoons, who are coming in here, or are we here to protect our people who have made a living, or part of a living, traditionally through the years in this line? Why these stringent regulations? Why are they being imposed when the price of wool, at 3s per lb, does not make it worth while clipping? Fifteen years ago I was getting something in the region of 6s, 7s and 8s per lb for wool. Today it is being sold for 2s and 3s. Surely there is something seriously wrong? I ask the Minister if he can tell me who is responsible for these stringent regulations.

The Wool Board.

There must be an authority over them.

They were set up by this House for the protection of the wool producers.

For the protection of the big wool buyers, the big wool merchants, to push out the small men. I can give the names of several people in my county who have asked me to raise this matter. I have brought it to the Minister's attention and I trust those people will be protected. I am not here to protect any man who does not buy and grade wool properly, but where a man has been buying wool during the past 40 years, surely it is ridiculous to ask him to go on a course in order that he may be able to grade? Surely if a man has been 20 or 30 years at it he does not need to go for a course of one week in grading? If I were to go to the institute in Ballinrobe and talk to the lads I would have this thing off by heart in about one day. Those people have been at it traditionally all their lives. They know what a fleece of wool is and how to grade it. As I have said, I would not protect any man who would hinder the trade. I ask the Minister to consider these points which cover the bulk of the problems in my area.

The main thing that strikes me about this debate is that there has not been a great deal of reference to Europe. It seems to me that a debate on agriculture at this stage should be mainly concerned with how our people should gear the agricultural industry to go into Europe and to take full advantage of all the benefits that are to be gained by being in Europe. Everybody will agree we are an agricultural country: that is the essential nature and background of our industry. Other industries are growing quickly but it will be a long time before the nature of Ireland is anything but agricultural.

There are things wrong with agriculture today which should not be wrong. First is the antipathy that exists between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the farming organisations. I will not say who is to blame for this antipathy, but it is there and it is surely regrettable as well as ludicrous that in a nation essentially agricultural in its makeup and its physical layout there should be antipathy, to use a mild word, in the relationship between the Department in charge of fostering our main industry and the persons working within the industry.

As I have said, I do not know where the blame for that lies but I feel that the reason why it grew in the first instance was the failure of those charged with the administration of agriculture in the Department to consult with or listen to the people engaged in the industry. From speaking to farmers—I know this is what they feel and believe—I have learned that the reason for the present relationship is a history of non-consultation, a history of the announcement of decisions after they have been taken, of rather rigid attitudes towards general problems and towards individual problems that might be outside the norm of the general situation.

The Minister, in his Annual Farm Review, contained in the Department's Farm Bulletin of December, 1970, paints quite a rosy picture of our agricultural industry. It is a wide ranging review: It deals with the Common Market and the fact that in the Minister's opinion there is no alternative but to go into the Common Market. He deals with some of the arguments put up by opponents of the policy of entry to Europe and deals adequately with them, because those arguments have no real substance.

The other part of the Minister's review deals with the state of the industry and there is great emphasis on the amount of Government support, the inference I draw from it being that he is saying: "We are doing an awful lot for you. You should not be whinging. We are a most generous Government." He deals at one stage with two items, the £30 million support for milk and the £20 million for rates relief, and points out that these constitute half of the £100 million made available by the Government to agriculture. In one of these figures, the £20 million for rates relief, I think we find part of what has been wrong with agriculture because that rates relief is an indiscriminate relief: the inefficient man who does not deserve it gets it and the rich man who does not need it gets it, granted to a lesser extent than the poor man, but he gets it. To spend £20 million indiscriminately in this way and not to ensure that there is more and efficient production is not proper.

The Minister stated that he is open to any practical suggestions for improving agriculture and states that the money raised must be distributed fairly. He said he would welcome constructive and orderly dialogue with farmers' representatives. The very wording of that indicates the attitude of the Minister and his Department towards the farming organisations. Why not say, "We welcome dialogue"? The implication that dialogue would be otherwise than orderly and constructive is unfair and insulting to them and explains the antagonism and the apathy that exist and have existed for so long.

I should like to examine the argument in this review at page 6 under the heading "Comments and Suggestions by Various Organisations". In the first example is quoted a comment, which the Minister regards as unconstructive, from the Advisory Officers Association. Then he goes on: "Another association, the NFA ..." A stranger reading that would imagine that the NFA were some sort of a minor organisation of no status in our community, and of no standing vis-á-vis the farming industry. It is easy to understand why the NFA feel there is a reaction to them in the Department not altogether sympathetic.

We are on the verge of entry into Europe and at this stage, with all the opportunities that involves for the agricultural industry, one would imagine that all the persons engaged in the administration of agriculture, and those engaged in working in the industry, would be planning as vigorously as possible, and with as much empathy as possible, towards gearing ourselves to go in and take advantage of that situation, that there would be a complete and thorough examination and analysis of the structure and workings of our agricultural industry to see how it needs to be changed or modified so as to gain something for the people in it who have had hard lives up to this, lives without the benefits that other members of the community have had and to improve the lives of the people in it by taking advantage of entry into Europe.

There are no radical changes. So far as I am aware no detailed and deep analyses are being carried out. It is a great pity that the present system with its inefficient subsidisation and antipathy between workers and administrators will continue to exist after we go into Europe. If any changes come about they will not come through any thought or action on our part, but by force of the circumstance of association with the European Community in the intimate fashion in which it will obtain.

In the December Farm Bulletin there is an article headed “Irish Agriculture in the EEC” and the author is Dr. E. A. Atwood. He mentions the European Community agricultural plan and he emphasises that it is not a detailed plan but that it sets out certain principles which, by and large, appear to be acceptable to the European Community and which consequently will affect us in a very short time. He regrets that the principles of the implementation of this plan have not been discussed here at all or hardly discussed.

The first principle of this plan which he mentions is that it must be acceptable to farmers who have to participate on an entirely voluntary basis. To my mind, there has been no education by the Department of the farmers on what this plan involves. There has been no systematic campaign of lectures throughout the length and breadth of the country to make Irish farmers aware of what the European agricultural plan involves. The Minister can complain in his statement in the bulletin that the anti-Common Market campaigners with their emotive propaganda can do harm but, in my submission, his Department are not doing sufficient to combat this emotive and superficially attractive propaganda by the Common Market study group against entry. It is unfair to the farmers to leave them in a state where they do not know what agriculture in the EEC will mean for them.

The second condition of this European farm plan is that it can be adapted to meet the varying needs of different regions. I wonder has any study been initiated or even thought of by the Department as to how our farming region will fit into the overall European pattern, what the emphasis should be in production, presentation of products, marketing, and whether there are particular regional problems which we will have that should be drawn to the attention of our negotiators in Brussels so that account can be taken of them in the course of negotiations.

Again, the programme will not be implemented by the European Community as such. It will be for the member States to implement the farm plan. Have any preliminary discussions been initiated to decide how we might take advantage of some of the proposals contained in this, or how we will bring up the income of our agricultural workers to the level of their industrial colleagues, or how we will ensure that agricultural workers, people engaged in farm work, will have the same conditions—a five day week and annual holidays—as people outside? Have we done any preliminary studies to see how this very desirable goal can be attained? I am not aware that we have.

I am not aware that any thought has been given to the change in the present structure of the administration of our agricultural industry. I should like to suggest to the Minister that something radical may have to be done. The present set up of the Department's advisory services on a county basis, the relationship with the various farming organisations and the marketing organisations, all these will possibly have to be drastically restructured before we can face Europe and before we can begin to think about organising ourselves to get the benefits of going in there.

The first thing we have to decide is what new investment can be made in agriculture. At the moment investment in agriculture, as far as the farmer is concerned is the payment of a grant for a specific purpose or he may get a loan from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, or there may be hidden subsidies by way of support for milk prices or rates relief, but there is not a sufficient follow up to ensure that this investment is efficiently spent and that there will be a good return from that investment. If a farmer wants to build a lean-to for cows he applies for a farm grant and gets it. There is no investigation as to whether he needs it and there is no investigation as to whether his farm will be more efficient as a result of this investment by the Government.

It appears from the White Paper on Agriculture that there will be a saving of at least £36 million per year in price supports and export subsidies which will be available for direct investment in agriculture by the Department. This is a substantial sum and it should go a very long way towards providing adequate investment for any developments that might be intended. The whole difficulty is that while there may be money —and I would hope that there will be money—to provide capital for this industry, there is no machinery for its proper investment. If every farmer could get a cheque for whatever sum he thought fit for his needs there is no way of ensuring that his opinion of his needs is correct and that he will spend the money given to him and afterwards utilise the investment in the best possible manner.

This brings me back to what I was saying originally about the lack of communication or the antipathy between the administrators who make these investment payments and the farmers who use them. The local agricultural advisory services are the only bridge between the two sections and these are so taken up with advising farmers on the running of their farms on a day-to-day ad hoc basis they are unable to give long-term advice. Indeed, one wonders sometimes if these advisory services possess within themselves the necessary business acumen to ensure that the money is well spent. I have seen excellent farm land and I have seen land which has been completely unproductive. A farmer is at the mercy of his local adviser for the proper management of a farm of perhaps 100 acres worth £15,000 to £20,000; one would imagine that for the care, management and control of such a capital sum highly skilled advice should be available all the way along.

It is important that, if there is going to be a proper investment in farming, there should be full and complete co-operation with the farmers themselves at all levels. They should have a voice in policy making and in the direction and spending of this investment. We must have local enthusiasm and initiative. They are essential for the success of any venture. At the moment we have not got this because there is too much centralised control. What I would propose is that at this stage the Minister should take a very hard look at the present administration of the agricultural industry and the aim should be to involve all farmers more actively in that administration.

I think, too, that some new body such as a rural development authority will have to be considered. Such an authority would have to be organised on two levels, on a national level and on a local level. On the national level, all the farming organisations should be represented, together with the representatives of manufacturing industries with interests in agriculture, representatives from the Department and, on local level, there would be officials from the national body plus local farmers and members of the advisory service together with some members of local authorities.

I have in mind that this rural development authority would take over many of the operating functions of the Department. It would take charge of the advisory services and farm buildings. It would, to be logical, take over the Agricultural Credit Corporation. It would also want to take over the Department of Lands, or certainly some functions of that Department, because, if it is to be a proper rural development authority, it must have control of everything affecting rural development. I envisage a development authority on which farmers would be not merely represented but would be listened to and actually participate in decision-making. That could lead to an upsurge of morale in the agricultural industry.

At local level it would again have to have fairly wide executive functions. It would not want to be just a debating chamber. Organised on a local basis, it would be available for contact by the individual farmers, a body before whom they could go to put forward their views and make their problems easily known. A farmer planning development, or seeking capital assistance, could go to his local branch of the rural development authority and put his plan before the skilled personnel manning it. I would hope, too, that these local bodies would have their own budgets from which they could invest directly in their own local areas, with all the intimacy of supervision that that would entail. This rural development authority would, in fact be the farmer's bank and the farmer's adviser and planner. It would involve the farmer individually at all stages.

Some of the facilities are already there from the Agricultural Credit Corporation but this body is based in Dublin and its administration is centralised. It has local agents in an effort to get the full picture on any application. My colleague, Deputy Finn, mentioned a constituent of his who, to all intents and purposes, qualified for a loan but did not get it. If the structure were different, with a body at county level to which the farmer could go and be interviewed on the spot, the farmer could be satisfied that there were good reasons for refusal and he could be advised of some better investment as an alternative. At the moment the body in Dublin makes the decision and that is the end of it as far as the farmer is concerned; we have yet another farmer with a sense of frustration and morale diminished that much more.

The type of financing available for agriculture consists of subsidies which, of their very nature, are both indiscriminate and inefficient. There are grants or short-term loans. Very often these are personal loans. Investment in agriculture should be considered on a different basis. It should be considered as a long-term investment, as long as the term provided by the Land Purchase Acts, and the repayments should be a charge on the land and not a personal charge on the farmer. If there was an investment of some thousands of pounds in a farm and the farmer decided to sell then the repayment of that investment would be carried over to his successor because the successor would be taking over the benefit of the investment. That would make farmers keener to accept loans. Many of them do not want to accept loans because they are afraid of the implications of a loan. If they thought that the personal liability would run with the land there would be a greater willingness to accept investment by those farmers who need it.

This authority could be set up. The type of investment would be geared to that farmer's specific needs. He would have the benefit of expert advice, not just local advice. The administration of these ideas is something that would merit long and detailed discussion but something radical is required so that Irish farming and its organisation can be restructured away from the present position. We are on the edge of Europe with a bland climate and in a position because of that principally and because of our soil characteristics to produce all types of food, with the possible exception of tomatoes, of a better quality and at a price cheaper than any competitor in Europe. We could, in effect, become Europe's larder and it would be a pity if our industry was not geared to take advantage of these assets; to ensure that our production is efficient in relation to price and high in terms of quality and that the selling organisation is aggressive and vigorous and that the hall-mark of all our products would be quality. These things can be achieved but I fear they will not be achieved under the present structure of Irish agriculture. Radical changes must be made before all these things can follow.

If we had this restructuring with a rural development authority at national level and its county boards at local level and if it got the confidence of the farming community you could then progress a further step towards the implementation of the European Farm Plan, the provision of the five-day week and holidays for farmers. The only way this can be done is by farmers co-operating; whether in groups of two or six, I cannot suggest, but there must be some form of co-operation. The individual unit, if the man living on it is to have any quality of life, cannot survive as we know it at present. A whole mental attitude must change before the Irish farmers come to appreciate this and operate any system different from the present one. A big factor in changing that mental attitude would be a complete restructuring of the administration of agriculture. If you had the rural development authority with its local boards having real autonomy in their operation, I would visualise them getting the confidence of their workers and being able to arrange two-farm or three-farm operation, whatever might be desirable and necessary to meet the exigencies of any particular situation and area. We could set a headline for other agricultural communities in Europe. We could be the first country in Europe able to implement the European Farm Plan in terms of leisure and income for farm workers. By farm workers I do not mean agricultural labourers but anybody working on the land, employer and employee.

This should be a most exciting time for Irish agriculture. There should be a wind of change abroad. There should be active and vigorous consultation between all sections of the community, Government, farming organisations and advisory services, to see how best we can take advantage of this exciting time on the eve of entry into the biggest and richest market in the world. But instead we have the sad spectacle of farmers' organisations mounting protests which are gathering momentum and which will lead to a difficult clash with the Government. We have the spectacle of protests by Irish farmers taking place in our towns. There is something seriously wrong when these things happen at this time. I urge the Minister and his Department to realise that the people in the industry are more important than any principles of bureaucratic administration or any question of saving face or deciding who is the boss and that without the goodwill and enthusiasm of our farmers we shall not be able to take advantage of all that Europe can offer.

The only way in which I think the Department can get back the trust of farmers—that trust has been lost for so long that it will be difficult to recover—is to offer a completely new deal on the lines on which I have been speaking, an undertaking by the Department to examine the structure with a view to setting up an entirely new structure in which the farmers will have a full and real voice. If that can be done and the confidence of the farmers restored, with their energy and enthusiasm there will be no doubt that they will be able to turn their industry into a highly profitable and desirable one, to the benefit of the nation as a whole and to their individual benefit.

Although many speakers have referred to various aspects of the Department's policy in this debate the first and most important aspect of it, to which I would direct the Minister's attention, is the present situation existing between the Minister, the Government and the farmers. I am not blaming anybody for it but I am long enough connected with agriculture to know what can happen in a dispute of this kind. I recently attended a meeting of the Beet Growers' Association and this matter was discussed at length. I gave my advice: try to fix it up; try to settle it before it is too late; try to iron out whatever difficulties there are between the Department and the farmers. Surely we are not going to dissipate the short time we have in which to organise before our entry into the Common Market by having rows between ourselves? It is a shame and a disgrace and something for which future generations will blame somebody.

I have a long memory of farmers having grievances with the Department and the Government and I well remember the results; I do not want to see that happening again. There must be some way of coming together to iron out these problems. We have various problems, problems within the State, but surely this is one problem on which we can come together to iron out. I appeal to the Minister, the Government and to the farmers to get together immediately before disaster strikes the farmers and before we will be facing different situations that I am aware of. These problems are not so serious that they cannot be overcome. The farmers state that their incomes have not increased in comparison with incomes of everybody else and nobody can deny that. Their incomes have remained stationary while other incomes have increased by from 10 per cent to 30 per cent. Let nobody tell me that they have not got a legitimate grievance. With goodwill between all concerned this matter could be settled in a very short time. The first thing to do is to get together, not for an hour or two but for a day or a week, or a month if it is required.

I can assure the Minister and the Government that the frame of mind among the farming community is deteriorating day by day and in the not too distant future, although I hope I am a bad prophet, something will happen which will make it a lot more difficult to arrive at some kind of agreement. I am sincere when I urge that a meeting be called immediately to iron out this difficulty. The Minister will be meeting a lot of people in the meantime; he will be going to the Common Market, he will be talking on various aspects of farming, but this is the most serious problem facing him. The people to whom I have been speaking make it quite clear that in the very near future the Minister will have something more serious on his hands if he and the Government do not come to terms with the agricultural organisations.

There is no doubt that in farming organisations there are people who may be rash and hard to deal with but the vast majority are honest people anxious to see the country and agriculture advance. That is the reason I am making this plea. Something must be done about it very quickly. I have had long experience of farming organisations; I have been a member of a county committee of agriculture for nearly a quarter of a century, Chairman of the Central Council of County Committees for a long time and I have had a lot of experience dealing with the Department's officials. I should like to pay tribute to those officials. They are the best set of officials in the country. They are dedicated men, experts in their own job and easy to discuss problems with, and I would say to the Minister that he has a more dedicated set of officials than any other Minister. Sometimes when officials are blamed for one thing or another it is not realised that they are only the mouthpieces, if you like, of the Minister, of the Government and they are just putting forward the policy handed to them. I know many of these men and I know their work and the improvements they have brought about in various aspects of agriculture, in regard to the advisory services that have grown up and generally the great benefit they have been to the community. Such a dedicated group makes the work of a Minister easy and while the Minister also may be blamed at times he has to act within the limits of the finances the Government provide for him. His officials are a credit to the Department and the country.

Another very important problem facing us is our entry into the Common Market. Have we done everything possible to prepare the farmers for this advance, as I would call it, this entry into the Common Market when we will be facing competition from countries like France, Germany, Holland and Denmark all with a tradition of farming and who have developed their farming industry to a very high degree? Having travelled a little bit around Europe I can say that our farmers are as good as the farmers in any other country and we have nothing to fear from them. We have many advantages which farmers in Europe have not got. If we are geared for entry into the Common Market and if we get the necessary assistance from the Government and from our negotiators the farming community will be able to compete on the same terms as any agricultural community in the Common Market. Have we made every effort to prepare the farmers for entry into the Common Market? The answer lies with the Minister and with our negotiators.

On many occasions our farmers were asked to produce certain commodities but when they did so they found that it was hard to dispose of them. For years we have been exporting our agricultural products to the most depressed market in the world—the British market—in competition with the products dumped there by every other country. Even in those difficult times the farmers did their best but I do not want to see this happen again.

As I have already stated on several occasions, there should be a section dealing with prices and markets in the Department. This section should carry out an investigation into market trends and be in a position to tell our farmers the likely prospects for various products during the year. They should be able to tell the farmers when it is advisable to switch to another line of production and, in general, keep the farming community up-to-date with market demands. I should like the Minister to give us his views on this when he is replying.

Other speakers have referred to the dairying industry. Much money has been spent by the farming community in building up herds and in ensuring that the high quality of our milk is maintained. It is now admitted throughout the world that our dairy products are a credit to this country and to the marketing organisations and we have reached the stage that we are unable to fulfil our export orders.

The dairying industry is the foundation of agriculture in this country. We are told that beef will be one of our major exports in the Common Market and that the prices obtaining there are much in excess of what we receive today. If we want a good beef industry we must have the calves and if a large number of farmers get out of milk we shall be in trouble. I would appeal to the Minister to look into this matter. It takes a long time to build up a good dairy herd—I would estimate ten or even 20 years—and it is disheartening to see people who spent much money in this line go out of dairying. It is a tremendous loss to the agricultural community and to the country. We should make every effort to encourage the farming community to continue with milk production because the outlook appears very good.

A problem facing many beet growers is an increase in acreage. This year is probably the only remaining year before we enter the Common Market when our quota will be taken into account. For that reason we should make available as much acreage as possible for beet growing. I asked the Minister a question on this matter recently and he said to me "You have got enough mileage out of that". I told him that I wanted acreage, not mileage——

You got that too.

I hope when the Minister meets the beet growers he will discuss with them the matter of an increase in acreage. This is an important industry for this country. Beet is a rotation crop; it is good for the land and in addition there are the by-products needed for the feeding of cattle and sheep. The distribution of the tops and pulp are of great assistance to farmers and represent a considerable saving. For that reason when the Minister meets the Beet Growers' Association he should tell them that he will double the acreage for beet and make it at least 12,000 acres. It would give employment and reduce the amount of animal feedingstuffs that are imported.

Many skins and hides are exported and I have already stated that we should make some effort to process them and put them to use in this country. We are importing raw materials for many industries; we have these valuable products that would give worthwhile employment and would be of immense benefit to the economy. When we were exporting cattle on the hoof we had not that opportunity but now the meat factories—many of which have been set up by the farmers —give worthwhile employment. Similarly, we should make every effort to see that all the skins and hides are sent to Irish industry and processed there.

Many farmers have complained to me about the delay in the payment of grants. Some people say the Government have a great deal of money. I have never heard any of them admitting they were short of cash. They should not be short of it because they have a good hold of it and it is very hard to extract from them grants which are awaiting payment sometimes for a year or a year-and-a-half. Therefore I would ask the Government to pay these grants that are due as quickly as possible. I come from Cork, a maritime county which has a very long sea-board and where a very important fishing harbour has been built recently. It is a credit to the Department that provided the funds and to the engineers and workmen that built it. I would like to see it being fully utilised. We have been told that a fishmeal factory will be established on an island near it, Dinis Island, Castletownbere. This talk has been going on so long without anything being done that the people are beginning to think it has fallen through. My information is that it is being investigated again. The erection of that factory on the island, with a fine harbour and a great fishing potential near it, would not only give greater employment but also would supply a very important ingredient in our foodstuffs, protein, which we have been importing from other countries.

Every effort should be made before we enter the Common Market to gear our fishing industry to compete with the foreigners. I am afraid it has been left too late. I do not live too far from the coast and it is very sad to see Spanish and French trawlers fishing outside and within our territoral waters. How can it pay fishermen from Spain, when they have to cross the Bay of Biscay, to come to our coast to fish? We have the men and we ought to be able to provide them with boats and to educate them to fish in the waters that the Frenchmen and Spaniards find so profitable.

There is great scope for expansion of our exports of mutton to the Continent and the prices are very good. What are we doing to increase sheep and lamb production to meet this market? This is an unlimited market available to us with excellent prices, but our sheep numbers have been reducing for a number of years. Within the last ten years we have lost nearly a third of our sheep numbers; they have gone down from 6,000,000 to 4,000,000.

The Department should find some way of increasing sheep numbers. There are many difficulties. Farmers have had their sheep and lambs killed by dogs and foxes. I would appeal to the Department to tighten restrictions on dogs roaming around the country, often without owners and also to deal with foxes in order to reduce their numbers.

Another aspect of farming in which I am interested is herds and flocks. I remember a time—probably many other Members here do not—during the Economic War when the hide of a Hereford was worth only the same as the hide of a non-descript. That position has changed. At that time our cattle industry suffered a blow from which I do not think it will ever recover. The then Government accomplished a great deal and we had as fine a herd of dairy shorthorns as was to be found in any country in the world. Much of the credit for that was due to former Ministers for Agriculture and to officials of the Department who bought the best of stock and encouraged farmers to breed from the best of stock. It is most important at the moment that every animal reared is of the highest possible standard.

The same applies to sheep. Efforts are being made to improve the breeds of sheep and to get the type that is suited to the market. It takes a long time to do this. Sheep have been imported here from different countries of Europe for qualities that are needed here. I hope to see the day when they will be distributed around to the farmers in order to improve our breeds of sheep. I would appeal to the Minister and to the officials of his Department to do everything possible to improve the various breeds of farm animals. Money spent in this direction is money well spent. A large number of cattle were recently imported and they were quarantined in Spike Island where some of us were quarantined at a different time. I hope they make better progress there than we did. It is good to see Spike Island being used for something which is of value to the country.

I want to deal now with what I consider to be a very important aspect of agriculture—animal disease. Have we done everything possible to reduce disease in our herds and flocks? A great deal of money has been spent on bovine TB eradication. We have built up through our veterinary service and through various offices in the country a team of experts and we have attacked the problem in a positive manner. But many farmers are asking: "Have we gone far enough? Are we getting results?" An earlier speaker said he did not think we were getting the desired results and I am afraid I have to voice the same opinion.

It is disheartening to find that half the herds have gone down even though they have not had a reactor for maybe seven or eight years. Other countries have got rid of TB and I do not see why we cannot do so. I am sure the farming community are anxious to get rid of it because any farmer who has to test his cattle two or three times a year is in dire straits. I appeal to all branches of the farming community to co-operate in every way possible with the veterinary service people in an effort to rid our cattle of TB. If even one or two animals react another test takes place within 60 days and very often there is a chain reaction and the farmer cannot put his animals up for sale for 12 months. This creates problems for the farmer both from the feeding and financial points of view.

Cork was the first county to have an animal health committee. It has done great work. We are endeavouring to get rid of sheep scab which has had a very bad effect on our sheep flocks and has meant we were not able to export store sheep for a number of years. We joined with Kerry and formed a committee to try to get rid of the disease and we should have it under control in a year or two. They did it in Britain and there is no reason why we cannot do it.

We co-operated with the Department in an effort to get a type of sheep dip that would be recognised. We were told that experiments had been carried out for many years but they had proved unsuccessful. We then put forward the idea of tagging sheep just as cattle are tagged for TB but we found there were not sufficient tags available. There is a golden opportunity here for any industrialist to set up a factory to produce tags. It amazes me to think that we cannot produce plastic tags in order to tag the sheep in Cork and Kerry. If the idea was a success these tags would be used all over the country.

My constituency probably produces the largest number of fat pigs in the country and we have been agitating for many years to get a bacon factory established in West Cork. I have seen money subscribed by farmers only to find that vested interests have blocked the building of a factory. At the present time we are trying to get a factory built. We are also trying to increase the number of pigs produced because if we can increase the number of pigs the establishment of a new factory will not affect factories already in operation. The co-operative society of which I am a member is building a factory at enormous expense. We are hoping the Department will help us by giving us the same grants as they have made available to other counties and we shall be calling to their offices shortly to collect our share.

We are endeavouring to build up an industry in a part of the county which has been traditionally a pig fattening area. Small farmers breed and feed pigs. They know how to do the job and if a bacon factory was established in the area it would be of immense help in keeping the population on the land. The biggest difficulty has been the transportation of pigs to factories over 100 miles away and the importation of feeding stuffs at a higher price than was paid in other parts of the county.

Our store cattle trade plays an important part in the economy. The chairman of the Irish Cattle Exporters Association has said that the closing of Birkenhead may interfere with the export of cattle which will have a detrimental effect on farmers. I would ask the Minister and his advisers to ensure that the ports of entry into Britain are kept open for the flow of whatever Irish store cattle are available.

I will not go over the points made by other speakers. I will conclude as I started by expressing the hope that the Minister, the Government and the farmers will get together and finish this squabble that is going on. The farmers have the goodwill of everybody in this country. I am sure the difficulties are not insurmountable, that they can easily be fixed up by people of goodwill. I am appealing to the Minister, to the Government and the farmers to come together as soon as possible and fix up this dispute which has now been carried on for a number of months and which is in danger of disrupting the whole agricultural community.

I should like to begin my contribution on the note on which Deputy O'Sullivan finished. I add my voice to his in an appeal to the Minister and the Government to make every effort as soon as possible to bring to an end the unfortunate trouble that exists between the farming community and the Government. I fail to understand the Government thinking on this problem. It has been pointed out to them very clearly and on numerous occasions, and on no occasion has it been contradicted by the Government, that there is a discrepancy between the incomes of farmers and of industrial workers of approximately £8 per week. This is something that may seem enormous in relation to the number of people involved, but it has given us an average figure. Of course, one is left to understand that the difference in a great many cases is very much greater.

It is true to say, as Deputy O'Sullivan has put it, that this is not an insurmountable problem. He pointed out that if the two sides came together in a spirit of goodwill, in a spirit determined to find a solution, there is no doubt it could be attained. The sooner it is, the better, not only for agriculture but for the nation as a whole.

It has always puzzled me why other sectors in the community can have negotiations and can hammer out long term agreements and have them implemented without the slightest difficulty, yet the same thing cannot be done in relation to the agricultural community. The position at the moment is that farmers do not know what their income is likely to be in 12 months time. The changing pattern of farming activities, the possibility of our entry to the EEC, are just so many years ahead in terms of thinking that the farmers deserve the sympathy of the nation because of the manner in which they are being treated by the Government. At a time when agriculture should be expanding at a very fast rate in order to put it in a position to compete with some of the nations whom we will be joining in the EEC, there is restriction rather than expansion.

There may be farmers who are not in immediate need of new machinery, but the land is crying out for lime. There are farmers who need to replace old machinery with new, and the limestone is piling up in the quarries instead of being put out on the land. If this situation is allowed to continue not only will it have serious adverse effects next year and for many years to come but it is something that the Government should be looking at from other points of view, particularly from the probable increase in unemployment as a result of this campaign.

As the last speaker said, the sooner this is tackled the better. If the Government were to call in the NFA now, it does not matter how long it would take, a solution would follow. Agriculture needs an annual review more than any other sector in the economy. It is vital for farmers.

We used to hear Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries saying they were unable to deal with the farmers because they lacked unity because there were too many farming organisations and they could never get any two of them to agree on any one point. We have now an organisation representative of every sector in agriculture, united in a determination to improve agriculture and to help the nation, and as such they should be given a hearing at the highest level at the first opportunity. That would solve a great many problems, economically and otherwise. We are being reminded continually of our adverse external payments, our balance of payments. This also is a recurring problem but it could be overcome largely if agriculture were able to expand at the rate at which it is capable of expanding now, and in the time between now and entry to the EEC.

Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned some of the main problems confronting farmers. One problem which he touched on is the declining sheep population. It is hard to pinpoint the reason for this. If we enter the EEC we will have a ready and lucrative market for mutton and lamb and in addition for the by-produce, the wool clip. One would have to see the terrible sight of sheep being ravaged by marauding dogs to appreciate how quickly a farmer could drop entirely the production of sheep.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn