Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 15 May 1975

Vol. 80 No. 15

Agriculture Industry: Motion.

Mr. McGowan

I move:

That Seanad Éireann notes the serious plight of those engaged in agriculture.

I welcome the opportunity of discussing this motion however displeased I feel at the very long delay. It is about 12 months since the motion was put down but the important thing is that it has not become less important since it was originally put down. If anything, the need for this House to discuss the plight of those engaged in agriculture has increased. I am very concerned at the present situation, the apparent lack of interest on the part of the Government and the lack of effective action. I am critical of the Minister for Agriculture because while in office he will have achieved many records as Minister for Agriculture that are not very commendable. Under the present Minister for Agriculture we will have had more people leaving the land than under all the previous Ministers for Agriculture since the State was formed. That is a serious record.

In regard to the previous Bill—on which I shall not comment to any extent—I do not know who the agricultural worker is. I have a reasonable knowledge of agriculture as I look after a few acres myself. I find it very hard to define an agricultural worker or to get one at present.

The conditions under which they have worked and survived and the whole economy of the industry have been so bad that the agricultural worker has nearly disappeared. It is only the farmer's son who has kept the farm going as a business to maintain the family unit, who could be classed as an agricultural worker. They are the only agricultural workers that I know exist. There is the man who has a tractor, farm machinery, who works for his neighbour and does contract work in the area. Outside those people, who are part of the farming unit, it is difficult to find a farm labourer. Some time ago in my county I saw a long queue at an employment exchange. I stopped and had a talk with the 83 people that were there. To my sorrow and amazement I found that all of them had previously been engaged in agriculture. Subsequently, some of them went to road work, some to forestry work but originally, all of them had come from farms. That leads me to say that the Minister for Agriculture will hold a record for having displaced more people off the land than any previous Minister, than all the previous Ministers together. That is no boast for me to make in the Seanad: I am very close to those who have to survive and make a living on agriculture.

There are many reasons why I criticise the Minister for Agriculture. First, the farm modernisation scheme has been in existence for some time. The Minister has yet to convince those who are engaged in agriculture that he has played a major role in formulating a farm modernisation policy which suits the needs of those engaged in agriculture. It is becoming more evident that this is an EEC policy, that the civil servants in Brussels have contributed to the formation of the farm modernisation policy without any real influence from Ireland or from the Minister. If we even had a greater percentage of civil servants from the Department of Agriculture involved in formulating the policy in Brussels, we would see some semblance of how it might be related to Irish conditions.

On examination, we find that it does not measure up to our needs and does not take account of conditions here in Ireland. I could give many details of how the scheme does not suit Irish needs. I can give an example in my own county where we have 1,024 applicants for participation in the farm modernisation scheme. These applications have been in for some time. At a meeting last Monday I found that only 24 are processed and will qualify out of 1,024. If I were to tell the House nothing further than provide that information from an agricultural county like County Donegal where agriculture is the basic industry, where the people are largely depending on a living from the land, it should speak for itself. The Minister and his Department will accept that that scheme will be very difficult to administer in my county and in other counties in the West. I see no reason for that difficulty except that the scheme is complicated and lacks consideration for the needs and conditions in Ireland. The Minister is largely responsible for this situation.

I would describe the Minister for Agriculture as a nice, decent, quiet man, but he lacks the power, punch and initiative to go out and bargain at a time when the whole future of Irish farmers is at stake. Those engaged in agriculture know that never before did they lack someone to go out and fight their battle. This is a crucial time and there is a complete lack of confidence. I checked those 83 people and found that they came off the land and they now form part of the 103,000 unemployed. That is a sad situation.

I can go on to give many examples where our Minister for Agriculture has failed the people. The money that is provided for the slaughter premium has become a bit of a joke and has been referred to by many people. I fail to understand how the Minister cannot see that the slaughter premium is not reaching the producer. You do not need to be a lecturer in agriculture or to have a great brain to see that the people who are packing meat have made millions of pounds. This is not a slogan to be used by newspapers or by anybody who wants to talk about agriculture; it is evident to everybody that the meat packers have made millions, while the small people in agriculture have been driven out of it.

The Minister has the responsibility of seeing that does not happen. He seems to be there unconcerned and allows it to happen daily. I have visited slaughter houses that work overtime and work on Sundays slaughtering young heifers that are underweight. These animals got away under the eyes of the Department vets. Young heifers of under 6½ cwt. are being slaughtered. Seven out of ten of them are in calf. You can set up in this business very simply. You can get five or six agents around the country to buy young cattle and sign the forms. The man who slaughters them gets the premium. This is very simple. If our Minister for Agriculture does not understand that this is happening, that there are people in the meat slaughtering business becoming millionaires and that the farmers are not getting the slaughter premium, then he should not be Minister.

I am sorry to say this but I would be failing in my duty as a representative of the agricultural community if I did not use the opportunity to tell the Minister that. Those engaged in agriculture do not believe that the Minister understands what is happening. This is a sorry state of affairs.

About seven or eight months ago I attended a meeting of executive members of the IFA in my county. About 700 attended the meeting which was addressed by the President of the IFA, Mr. T.J. Maher. Much to my amazement not once did he mention the farm modernisation scheme. Those people have lost their teeth from the time that they were standing across the road outside threatening to pull down the railings around Leinster House. Listening to the speeches that day I heard the IFA President say: "We must understand the Government's difficulty but we want nobody in politics to speak for us; we are able to speak for ourselves". I was one of those in that hall and I knew that Mr. T.J. Maher was a candidate or a potential Fianna Gael candidate himself——

Mr. Ferris

I would not believe that.

Mr. McGowan

Yet, he was suggesting that nobody in politics should speak for the farmer. I was very interested to know the total extent of his criticism of the present Government. In fact, the strongest expression he used was to call the Minister for Finance "tricky Dick." I could come to no conclusion but that the present President of the IFA is in the Minister's pocket and, therefore, the need for people to stand up and speak and fight for the farmers is all that much greater because they are leaderless. Their leader has sold out to the present Administration. The IFA burned their boats when they blocked the roads, when they threatened to pull down the railings outside. The fire has gone out of them completely: they are doing nothing constructive.

I read a paltry reference in the papers today to the fact that the President of the IFA will take the French to court for refusing to accept Irish lamb. This is a poor gesture: it certainly will fool nobody. It does not convince me that there is any strong representation on behalf of the IFA —far from it. No farmer will be "codded" into believing that is the type of representation the farmers want at the present time.

I was one of a delegation who visited Libya not too long ago. Much to my surprise, in a country that we think is underdeveloped and still existing in primitive conditions, I was taken out to see a farm scheme where a net profit of £500 could be made on a unit of 12 acres that was reclaimed out of the desert. If we had the people we class as primitive back here to manage and direct agriculture in our country where conditions and climate are right, then we would not have the flight from the land that we now have. All this leads me to believe that we suffer from a total lack of direction, total lack of initiative and leadership in agriculture.

In regard to the farm modernisation scheme we have, on numerous occasions through the county committees of agricultures, through the chief agricultural officers and their associations, advised the Minister over a period of 12 months but this advice has fallen on deaf ears. We advised the Minister that the limit on income was totally unrelated to Irish farming conditions, in other words, a man would need to have a unit of about 70 cows before he would benefit under the scheme. This was totally out of line with what we find in the west of Ireland and eliminated many people from benefiting. Yet, the Minister failed to accept the advice of county committees of agriculture and their chief agricultural officers. He ignored it. I do not know whose advice he accepted. Did he just go along with the blueprint which he got out of Brussels?

These are questions that the agricultural community will want answered by the Minister today. We do not have many opportunities for asking questions, but these are questions that I hope the Minister will answer. Does he hope for any effective change in our farm modernisation policy? Does he think that he and his advisers could influence any change, and when is that change likely to come about? These are simple questions. Another defect in the scheme is that a man will not benefit after he has reached the age of 55 years. With due respect, I am sure the Minister is not far off 55, and I would hope that he is looking forward to a few years in public life yet. In fact, I know one of his associates who is about 68 and is thinking of having another "go" at his seat in the Dáil. If these fellows are capable of carrying out jobs on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the State generally at 68 or 65—over the age of 60—I do not know why the Minister accepted that a man would be too old at 55 to look after a farm when, in most cases, he would have a young family. The Minister accepted this and kept very quiet about it. I find it most difficult to understand how the Minister could really ask people involved in agriculture to support and accept this farm modernisation scheme as it has been presented here.

A farmer has to pay increased rates and higher prices for everything he purchases in order to survive. He has to pay increased costs on oil, tractor parts and tyres. I would like an explanation of why farmers who live close to the Border in County Donegal should have to pay more for their tractor parts and tyres than the farmers living in County Tyrone. Most farmers find it necessary to keep a motor car. It would be very hard to survive on a farm without a car, station wagon or van but the farmer in the South has to pay £1,000 more for it than if he lived in County Tyrone.

The increased prices that he is met with are not all outside the Minister's or the Department's control. I gave details here not long ago of some of the increased costs farmers have to meet. First, I want to ask the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries—I asked the Minister for Finance and I did not get a satisfactory reply—why have the Government done nothing about the price of fertilisers this year? In December fertilisers were £50 per ton while in April they were £106 per ton. I think the farming community are entitled to an answer to that. Secondly, somebody made a substantial profit at a time when the farmers were on their knees, when they had gone out of business and had to sell their young cattle. The whole cattle stock of this country is going down. The amount of acreage under tillage, the numbers of cattle and the whole industry are contracting and will never be expanded again.

The same thing is happening to the cattle industry as happened to the pig industry. The present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was not too long in office until the pig industry folded up due to the same type of neglect as was evident in regard to the price of fertilisers. The price of meal went up from about £28 per ton to £80 per ton under the present Minister and he did nothing about it. Perhaps he did not know it was happening but I feel that it is my responsibility to remind him. I know what I am talking about and I can give the Minister details of where this has happened in regard to fertilisers and meal.

All this adds up to the situation where the farming community are hardpressed to the point of getting out and there are none getting back in. I would hope our discussion today will highlight the need for effective action and, rather than getting the satisfaction of having a few uncomplimentary remarks to make about the Minister, let us do a bit more. There will be contributions from those who are as interested in agriculture as I am and the Minister will see that he is under pressure and that he will be under pressure so that he will go, first, to his colleagues in Government and then to Europe and to the Common Market and make a genuine stand for those who depend for their living on agriculture. It is not yet seen that the Minister is making a tough, hard stand.

Not too long ago when the decision was made to import beef from outside the EEC countries I was bitterly disappointed that our Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries did nothing about it. Our dependence on the sale and production of beef is well known to everybody. I would have expected our Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to raise a rumpus when that decision was taken, to walk out, protest, veto, or use whatever action was open to him. But no such thing happened.

I hope that I have succeeded in opening a discussion to which many people will contribute and that the Minister will be more concerned at what is happening, instead of expressing the hope that the farmers are now well able to pay the agricultural workers. The Minister will realise that very few farmers are able to pay anything. There might be a very low percentage who are able to pay. I think the Minister is out of touch completely with the whole farming industry. The whole economy depends largely on the farmer. If the farmer is not doing well I do not know what other section of industry will look after the economy here. There are still too many people on the land living on uneconomic incomes. I would only hope that the Minister will show the farming community that he is capable of looking after their business. That is the responsibility he is saddled with. I think he is not fulfilling it nor is he capable of doing so. I hope that in the future he either changes his attitude on behalf of the farming community or that he changes his job.

Mr. Dolan

I am very glad to be able to second this motion so ably proposed by Senator McGowan. It notes the serious plight of those engaged in agriculture. This motion has been on the Order Paper for quite a long time. When we put it down in October or November, or even longer ago, the writing was on the wall so far as the disastrous situation of agriculture was concerned. It was evident to anybody who could read the signs or signals that we were heading for disaster. I respectfully submit that was the time when action should have been contemplated and some plans formulated to avert this catastrophe that has hit the agricultural economy.

I have known the Minister since we were in Dáil Éireann together. I know him to be a very genuine and sincere man. I would not like him to think that I am reflecting on him in any way in a personal capacity by anything that I have to say. Having said that, it is my firm belief and I think it is the belief of thousands of people that our present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is cast in the wrong role and that he is not the man to be in charge of what many of us would consider our most important Department, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. What method they have of picking those I do not know. It may be because he had some connections with agriculture; it may be for lack of personnel. One would not expect that these reasons would be watertight in view of the fact that this Government claim they are the Government of all time. I suggest that there is something wrong in the allocation of positions in the Government and the performance of a certain person in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries since this happened should bear that out.

Things have changed completely from the time when a Minister of Agriculture would stay at home in his own country and administer the affairs of agriculture. Since our entry into the EEC this has become a tremendously important role for any Minister and our Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is now forced to go to Brussels and make his case in competition with the other agricultural Ministers represented there. I admit that it is not an easy task for any Minister, but there is something that should be built-in in every individual which no amount of qualifications can give him. That is the ability to size up a situation, to act with firmness and to be decisive. I respectfully submit that our Minister lacks these qualities.

In February, 1974, it was evident that things were heading for disaster. At that time, Deputy James Gibbons, who was Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in the Fianna Fáil Government, mentioned the green pound but nothing whatever was done about the green pound until the bottom had fallen out and then some effort was made in late November of last year. That was much too late. There did not seem to be any eagerness to pursue it when it would have been right.

Another thing that has resulted in loss of confidence by many people engaged in the production of beef and pigs was the inactivity of the Minister during the period from August to the end of last year when people had to get rid of their cattle because of the disastrous state of the fodder situation. They had to sell them at whatever price the people in the meat factories chose to offer. Many of these meat factories had their agents in the cattle marts buying on commission and making tremendous profits.

It has been admitted that many farmers suffered, especially on big cattle, at least an average loss of £80 per animal. That was a disastrous situation which resulted from many of the meat factories sending the meat into intervention and qualifying for intervention payments. But, as Senator McGowan said, these payments were not coming back directly to the farmer. It is a significant fact, one that must be adverted to and put on record, that almost 70 per cent of the meat processing factories are used and owned by farmers' co-ops. They get grants from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries from public funds. They are exempt from income tax. There are many other facilities which they enjoy which the ordinary industrialist does not enjoy. The intervention money coming from Europe was being channelled into these meat factories but no attempt was made to ensure that that money would come back to the producers. It is a well documented fact that many of these people have mushroomed overnight into the millionaire bracket and the poor small farm producers have gone out of production. Many of them had to join the dole queue, not because they did not work hard enough but because the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries allowed them to be slaughtered financially in these slaughter factories.

Surely it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Minister and his officials to work out a plan whereby any slaughter premiums or intervention payments would be channelled back to the producer. After all, if the producer is not protected the meat factories and so on will eventually go out of production.

How could any Minister of State justify his actions and how could any farming community have any faith in him if he tells them in 1975: "I am going to make some inquiries as to where these millions went?" Will he be able eventually to ensure that he will rake up all the money that is due, in conscience, to the producers? Will the producer ever get it? Not likely. What is even worse, indeed the farming community have adverted to it, is that if the same Minister is there during the remainder of this year the same thing will happen. There does not seem to be any effort made to ensure that this will not happen. If this is allowed to happen again that will surely be the end of our cattle industry. Those who suffered most were not those who had heavy cattle to sell to meat processing factories but those who had small store cattle in the west and in other places.

Senator McGowan mentioned the NFA. They are an excellent body. Any of these farming organisations that work for the benefit of the farmer are worthwhile and I think the NFA are doing a good job. But somebody will have to look at the facts. Almost 70 per cent of the meat factories are owned by farmers but these factories connived in the attempt to mulct the producers. The NFA have a duty to see that this does not happen again and that restitution will be made to the people who were diddled out of their just price for their animals. It is no wonder, as Senator McGowan said, that there is not a squeak from any of them now regarding what is happening because many of them seem to have a hand in this themselves.

The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has not made any attempt, so far as I know, to do anything in this regard. All he did was to go out to Europe on a few occasions and sit there in the Parliament. He was present when it was announced that meat was being allowed in from Russia and from various eastern countries. He knew the terms of the agreement. He knew the effect that that would have on the meat industry here. He knew the effect it would have on the pig industry and on agriculture in general, but he made no attempt whatever to make any effective protest. The Italians walked out and they got somewhere. He is supposed to have equal status so far as the Germans, the French and the Italians are concerned.

That was the time for the Minister to act and to highlight the position in which the industry was and the disastrous effect such a policy would have. One of the reasons we voted so overwhelmingly to enter the EEC was because we thought we were getting extra markets instead of being tied to the old British cheap food policy market, that we would be able to sell many of our agricultural goods abroad. We felt this was a great opportunity. As soon as we had achieved it, there was a change in Government. This Minister went to Europe and sat there like a statue, passed no remarks while the floodgates were opened, and the meat rushed in from Russia and other countries.

At the same time, people here were looking frantically for ships and boats to contain intervention meat of all classes and qualities to be put in cold storage. It was then allowed to be sold off to the French who made fortunes overnight on it, and it was then sold back to the Russians. When he should have been making some attempt to empty these containers to have them ready for next year, he has been allowing them to simmer around our coasts. It has been alleged that much of our meat is in a perishable condition. This is disastrous as far as the farming community are concerned. No farmer would treat his products in that way. To see a Minister of State allowing these things to happen is not the best incentive to any farmer to slog along and work long hours in order to eke out a meagre existence for himself. He should be able to cater for his family in reasonably frugal comfort. Many farmers now standing in the dole queues are watching the people in their Rolls Royces and Mercedes driving off to the races and so on with the farmers' money in their pockets. These people have much of their money invested in sound real estate. They will enjoy the benefits they reaped from farmers during this disastrous season.

Padlocks are being placed on many farms all over the country. Small farms are closing down completely. It could be truthfully said when recording the role this Minister has played that he could be placed in the same category as Oliver Cromwell because he will have removed more people from rural Ireland and driven them into cities than any other Minister who held this office. That will have disastrous effects on the economy. In rural areas schools, halls, churches and other amenities will be left empty. Over-crowded conditions will be created in towns and cities.

Senator McGowan adverted to the fact that excessive profits were made on fertilisers. This happened under the eyes of the co-ops which were supposed to be the farmers' friends. They stockpiled and charged excessive prices to the farmers. In many cases they are still stockpiling as farmers are unable to pay the prices. If the farmers are not able to buy fertilisers they will not be able to produce crops. This is all due to mismanagement.

With proper leadership and proper agricultural services and proper advisers we should be able to compete with any European country. We have the most suitable climate; we have the best grassland in Europe; we have skilled people engaged in agriculture. We have people who are prepared to attend classes, read magazines and in general improve their farming techniques. We have people who make a fair attempt to take advantage of the facilities offered to them under EEC membership.

However, many people have been discouraged completely. I have come across farmers engaged in the production of pigs who were almost wiped out in the past 12 months. Longford, Monaghan and Westmeath, traditionally pig producing counties, have given up production altogether. This is not surprising taking into account the very high price of meal. Were it not for the feed vouchers issued during the winter meal producing factories would not have been able to sell the meal— the farmers would not have been able to buy it.

This country is very unfortunate in having in office a Minister such as we have now in so far as his initiative, leadership and drive are concerned. He is not fit to build up any confidence in the future. He is not able to make the right decisions on behalf of the farmers.

The farm modernisation scheme and the retirement age of 55 have been mentioned. The farmer's son is not taken into account at all when the retirement payments are being made. A son who has lived on a farm all his life is being put to one side; he will not qualify for any grant.

I should not like to say anything which would undermine the confidence of the people in this basic industry. The Minister has a lot to answer for. Some change must take place and as far as the agricultural sector is concerned it would have to take place in the near future.

Mr. Butler

We totally reject this motion. In the 20 minutes allowed to me I hope to be able to prove that there is no serious crisis in agriculture. We on this side of the House know the capabilities of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. We have seen him working and we are fortunate to have him as Minister. Many of the statements made by Members on the other side can be disproved.

Much play was made of the statement that a serious move from the land was taking place. The average rate up to 1972 was 11,000 people per year. The average rate since 1972 is 6,000 per year. If we are condemned because 6,000 people left the land, then strong condemnation should be made of Fianna Fáil because more than 11,000 people per annum left the land during their period of office. I am a member of the co-operative movement and am actively involved in it. I want to say here and now that the co-operative movement did not hoard fertilisers so that they could sell to the farmers for a greater price. The co-operative movement has been set up by the farmers themselves and they have the total running of that movement. It is natural that the farmers would look after themselves. If they bought fertilisers earlier in the year at an increased price the fertilisers were sold at the price they were purchased for. That is good business and I am proud to be involved in that business. The co-operative movement purchased fertilisers at a rate that the farmers were able to pay. We were able to sell it at a low rate.

I am also involved in the processing end of the agricultural business. Agriculture accounts for 19 per cent of the gross national product. We should compare that with 9 per cent in Italy and 3 per cent in the UK. Agriculture is twice as important to us in the national economy as it is in Italy, and six or seven times as important as it is in the UK. Irish agriculture is an export orientated industry, about 50 per cent of our total output being exported. If we gear ourselves, this 50 per cent can be increased still further. If we produce more we will be able to sell more in the export market. Every ounce of extra produce can be exported and help the balance of payments. I would encourage farmers to interest themselves in producing more per acre. Agriculture accounts for 40 per cent of all our exports.

While industry grew at the annual rate of 6.3 per cent between 1958 and 1971 agriculture grew by only 2.2 per cent in the same period. Since 1973, agriculture has improved from 2.2 per cent to more than 4.5 per cent this year. All this is due to the farmers and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries' representatives and to the Minister, who has been castigated here today.

Since our entry into the EEC, agriculture has been stimulated by the advantages of extra finance which the farmer receives for his produce. It is natural that when a person receives more for a product that person will be more interested in producing more because he benefits from it. Irish agriculture is essentially a grassland-based industry. Eighty per cent of productive acreage is under pasture— cattle, milk, lamb and so on are produced in this pasture. Due to our favourable climate, only a minimum of grain is being fed. This gives a good advantage over other EEC member States and we should use that advantage in the best possible way.

I will, although not totally, confine myself to the dairying industry. I am involved deeply in that industry and I have only 20 minutes to speak. The dairying industry since 1973 has advanced beyond recognition. The development has taken place rapidly. Amalgamations have taken place and the farmers will benefit through those amalgamations. We have centres of production in this country where 50 million gallons of milk are manufactured into cheese, powder, butter and other dairy products. In 1974 when people were crying out that there was a fall in agricultural production, skim powder production increased by 5 per cent from 101.4 thousand tons to 106.9 thousand tons. I got this figure from The Dairy News produced by Bord Bainne, No. 136 3rd May, 1975.

It was also stated that the numbers of cattle increased in 1974. I would like to refer those people who would question that to the Dairy News, No. 127 of 21st February, 1975. The statistics in the Central Statistics Office show that the total number of cattle in December, 1974 was 6,499,600. In 1973 the figure was 6,408,000—an increase of 91,600. It is an untruth that there has been a reduction in the cattle population in this country in 1974.

Mr. Killilea

Quote the document of May 10th.

Mr. Butler

I have quoted this one. The Senator can quote his one when he is speaking. I am comparing December, 1974 with December, 1973. I would also like to congratulate the farmers in the west who took over the milk powder plant in Ballaghaderreen. This has been an achievement. It shows us and all people who are concerned with the west and industry as a whole that there is confidence in agriculture and in the dairying industry. This confidence has been shown by the Mid-West Farmers' Co-op., Kiltogher Farmers' Co-op and North Connacht Farmers' Co-op. For 1973, the total intake in those three co-ops. was 34.8 million gallons. In May, 1974, if it is compared with the corresponding period in the previous year, the amount increased by more than 10 per cent. The decision taken was the right one and it has resulted in increased production. I wish the Shannonside Co-op all the success it deserves.

The production of milk for the period from 1st January to 4th May has increased throughout the country. It has increased in Munster by 10 per cent; in Leinster by 60 per cent; in Connacht by 10 per cent and in the three counties of Ulster—Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Butler

Before we adjourned I referred to the national increase in the production of milk being in the region of 10 per cent in 1975 over 1974. If this trend continues it will give us an extra 57 million gallons of milk to be processed. The production of milk delivered to creameries in 1974 was approximately 570 million gallons and 10 per cent, which would be 57 million gallons, gives us a production of 627 million gallons for 1975. It is likely that this trend will continue.

Farmers have an interest in the production. Knowing that the price which will obtain for milk in 1975 will average 30p per gallon for 3.6 per cent butter fat, compared with 25p per gallon for 1974, an increase of 5p per gallon. There will also be a further increase in October. That 627 million gallons of milk, calculated at 30p a gallon, will amount to £188 million. In 1974 the value of milk produced by farmers amounted to £142 million. This is an extra £46 million.

We all know that the Minister from time to time impressed upon the producers to produce more milk. I would agree entirely with his sentiments. The capacity to process this milk is there. The capacity to process up to 1,000 million gallons of milk is there, or will be there when that milk is ready for processing. My advice to the farmers is to produce more milk. If we have the milk we can give more employment.

Fifty per cent or a little less of that £188 million is used here. The rest, processed and exported, thereby increases in value. That £100 million would be valued after the processing and help our balance of payments to the extent of £150 million. This is a good reason why farmers should interest themselves in the production of milk. The advice is there. We have agricultural officers. We have the creamery managers who have daily contact with the farmers. We ask them to listen to the advice of the Minister.

I would like to mention another matter. In regard to prices paid at markets, the price paid for beef at the moment is £26 per cwt. That is not bad. It should give confidence to the farmers who produce beef. The average price paid for heavy cattle is £23 a cwt. The average price paid for beef heifers was £23 per cwt. The average price paid for store bullocks was £21 per cwt. The average price paid for lambs ranged from £14 to £23. They are not bad prices.

We, on this side of the House know that the Minister is working hard to remove the French guillotine. He has confidence in the Irish Farmers' Association who are also working hard to remove this guillotine. We know a promise has been made that a common agricultural policy will be introduced for lambs. In the near future we will have free entry to European markets. We thank the Minister for all he has done in this regard.

Mr. Cowen

When an agriculture motion comes before either House of the Oireachtas it is of paramount importance, especially when one considers that we are naturally and basically an agricultural economy. We in public life should ensure that a proper and detailed debate takes place when an issue, as we have before the House today, comes into question. While I welcome this belated opportunity to discuss the motion, I have to point out that this motion was on the Order Paper for a number of months. When one recaps on our agricultural economy, particularly in the past 12 months, one would say that both the Minister and the Government have failed to realise the real plight of the agricultural community.

This is belated to the extent that one has to go back to last August when cattle prices started to decline. When this motion was tabled it should have stated "that Seanad Éireann notes the disastrous plight of those engaged in agriculture". There is a tendency to think in terms of the average farmer when one is trying to illustrate how the farming community are progressing, particularly now that we are involved within the EEC. One must consider that 65 per cent of our farming community who are now classified as transitional, will have no identification after 19th April, 1977. If that section of the farming community want to get across to the Minister that they had been deprived of their livelihood, it is very easy to explain how and when it happened.

A small farmer living in any part of Ireland—I do not like pronouncing individual parts of the country when classifying small farmers—is the man with the lowest income in any section of the community, irrespective of whether he lives in the midlands— which I represent—in the west, where the land is poorer still, in parts of southern Ireland, or even in the North, where I imagine there is the poorest land in the country.

What livelihood has the small farmer? He farms land in the region of from 10 to 40 acres. He has not enough land or finance to rear cattle and bring them to the point where they would be ready for slaughter. He rears his few cattle and sells them at store level. In 1974 there was a very serious decline in store cattle prices. Those small farmers had to take their cattle to the marts or sell them at home for something like £5 to £10 per cwt. The previous year that beast, perhaps it was a yearling or a year-and-a-half, would have cost on average £50 to £60. It was worth that much one-and-a-half years ago.

I have a fair knowledge of cattle rearing. I know what a store beast can weigh after one year or a year-and-a-half. In one part of the country a yearling could weigh as much as a beast a year-and-a-half in a different part of the country. A beast at that age would want to be properly reared and fed to weigh anything in the region of five to six cwt and after that time that would bring that beast to something like £40 at the maximum. This is what happened last year. I doubt very much if the Minister or the Government took that into account.

It is reported that the small farmers' income was cut by 50 per cent. It was not. If you take into consideration that a calf worth about £50 was sold at £48 there was no such thing as a cut. The man's livelihood was wiped out. This is where we on this side of the House feel that the Minister and the Government failed so miserably. No action whatsoever was taken. When one inquired what the Government were doing for the agricultural community there were no answers because whatever answers were given on an average basis. This cannot be illustrated clearly enough. The small farmer who will not be in existence in two years' time is the man we should study.

Government speakers know there are small farmers in their own areas who cannot carry on because they had to borrow money from the bank or the Agricultural Credit Corporation. If they borrowed from the banks they were pressed by their bank managers and had to give away their cattle, not sell them. Where do they stand today? What opportunity is there for them to get off the ground again? None whatever. This is where the Minister and the Government failed completely and miserably. I could not highlight this enough. When one talks about farming one takes the average income and nothing is said about the smaller and poorer sections of the farming community.

The Fianna Fáil Party brought a motion on farming incomes before the Dáil on 28th January, last. It came at a time when something positive could have been done. It was belated again but even at that stage something could have been done. As far as I can recollect, that debate took three to four hours. That was not very long. Was that significant enough to point out that the Government and the Minister were determined enough to do something for the small farmer? I doubt that very much. I feel quite certain that the Minister realises that. It came at a time when, even at that time, something could have been done.

However, that is past tense now. There is no use pointing out today's cattle prices to the small farmer. I know many small farmers in my own area who today find themselves without stock. When one recaps on the past 12 months, it is only fair to say that there is no future for the small farmer.

The farm modernisation scheme has been in operation for some time. Sixty-five per cent of the farmers I am talking about will not be classified or identified in two years' time. They are the people I am worried about and that most people should be worried about.

This disastrous deterioration in income came at a time when most sections of the community were receiving very large increases. It is reported that the average income of the average farmer was reduced 20 per cent. Some sections in the agricultural community did not lose out, particularly those involved in milk. They have regained their income. When you take into consideration the increased costs involved in milk productivity at that time, I doubt very much if their milk income was retained. It was reputed that it was retained but that I doubt very much.

The small farmer always maintained our cattle numbers. He reared the stock to a year or a year-and-a-half, then the medium and bigger farmers took over and brought the beasts to maturity until they were fit for slaughter. If that farmer is wiped out—and this is the position at the present time—I can see no future for our cattle numbers increasing. The existence of the small farmer is threatened. This is where the Minister and the Government failed totally. The large farmer benefited while the small farmer was lost.

Another point on which the Government and the Minister failed completely was in regard to intervention. We are well aware that intervention prices did not get to the producer. Intervention prices were there last September, October and November, when there was a glut of beef cattle, as is the case every year. Here again it was the small farmer who suffered most. I am talking about the man capable of producing so many stores and carrying an extra five or ten cattle to bring to maturity and to the point of slaughter. He brings those cattle out during the months of September, October and November for grass feeding. What position did he find himself in last year? He brought those mature cattle to the marts where he had to take something in the region of £9 or £10 per cwt for them. Here again there was a blatant omission of activity from the Minister and the Government.

That man was exploited when he had to take those miserable prices at that time. Was it not up to the Minister and the Government to ensure that the meat factories were working effectively to ensure that the producer got fair value for his beast? No, he was exploited again. The factory buyer or the cattle dealers who had meetings with people involved in the meat industry got the higher prices, again at the expense of the producer— the small and medium farmers.

Here again I feel that both the Minister and the Government failed. Surely in a case like that it would be up to the Minister and his Department, irrespective of the cost, to go around the meat factories to ensure that those cattle could be taken and that the producer would get the proper price for them.

There is no use saying to us that cattle prices today are high. I want to get across to the Minister that cattle prices today are no use to the small-and medium-sized farmers. They have not got the cattle to sell. The opportunity was there eight or nine months ago for the Minister and the Government to do something about this. They lost the initiative; they took no action and the small farmer is worse off today than ever before. There is no finance available to him. There is no use saying he can re-stock. The man has lost heart and that is why we put this motion before the House. Even at this stage I would ask the Minister to take into consideration the plight of the men and do something about it.

Mr. Ferris

The motion we are debating is: "That Seanad Éireann notes the serious plight of those engaged in agriculture". I am not quite sure from the movers of the motion whether they are concerned about the plight of those engaged in agriculture or those engaged in the administration of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Most of their remarks seem to be directed against the Minister. To analyse this motion, as it is worded, we must give consideration to the agricultural sector in its pre-EEC situation. When this very important section of the community, the backbone of our economy, was grant-aided and availed of subsidies from the national Government. This sheltered situation gave a sense of false security to our agricultural community. The Government of the day could be persuaded to take certain action by farming organisations by way of protests, marches and other demonstrations. Indeed, we still have vivid memories of such nationwide protests during the terms of office of the previous Government. However, as a result of our entry into EEC, these demonstrations at national Government level are no longer relevant. We may piously pass motions such as this but it is towards Europe that the protest of the farming community should be directed. Entry into Europe was, and rightly so, as the result of the campaign mounted by the agricultural sector at that time. Even those of us who were opposed to entry into Europe agreed that out of all our diversified industries only the agricultural sector could be assured of immediate improvement. This is particularly true of our milk and dairying industry.

Unfortunately other sectors of the agricultural community have only fractionally benefited by entry into the Common Market because, since entry, unfair competition has been allowed which was outside of the scope of the terms of entry or the Treaty of Rome, or even contrary to the principles of the Common Market. It has been placed there by members and by the EEC itself who have allowed imports of very important agricultural commodities from third countries, imports which have come directly into competition particularly with our agricultural products, because we are basically an exporting nation and as such we look to Britain and to Europe as a market for our agricultural produce. If the market allows itself to import cheap food from third countries, it is unfair competition for members.

Other actions have been taken by member states which have made it impossible for us to participate fully in these markets. France, in particular, is an offending nation, and has the ability to put up barriers against many of our exports at any time if it benefits her own farmers. That is also contrary to the principles of the Common Market.

Senator McGowan was not entirely honest or fair to the Minister when he described him as being a quiet man with no drive. I would remind Senator McGowan that he has not been in touch with Deputy Clinton's agricultural colleagues in Europe where they have referred to him as a tiger. He is often referred to in stronger terms than that. He has made more changes in the agricultural terms of entry for Ireland than that of any other member state since they got together as a common market. Some of these changes have created a ripple in the Common Market countries, particularly the hard battle to get the principle of the green £ accepted and implemented. It was objected to by the Germans who take up the tabs from most of the EEC subsidies to agriculture. The Minister's action in getting that through deserves a tribute from both sides of the House.

Reference was also made to the directives, many of which are coming from Europe. In another debate in this House last week I referred to the many problems of the implementation of these schemes because they are not applicable to Irish farming conditions. Perhaps we will have to change further to be able to comply with these recommendations and schemes. It is also true that, on a recent deputation by the executive of the General Council of Agricultural Committees, when these problems were made known to the Minister, his view—and I accepted his view because I was one of the most vocal in my opposition to some of these schemes—was that in order to allow the many applicants to these schemes to avail of the grants which are available under the scheme, we must initially implement them and then look for changes.

I think the Minister will concede that many changes are necessary. Indeed, he is arguing that some of these changes should be implemented. If we do not implement the schemes as they are now, farmers, who have many important works on hand currently, cannot avail of any other grants except the grants available to EEC members. I think we owe them some consideration in this respect. If they are applicants for a scheme and have works in progress, the least we can do is to ensure that they get ample compensation by way of EEC grants.

We would be naive if we were to think that there is not an unhappy situation in agriculture, particularly in certain sections which have not benefited. One looks at the price of dropped calves, calves which will either be the backbone of our dairy industry or of our beef industry in two-and-a-half or three years' time. It is almost impossible to comprehend the lack of confidence by the farmers themselves in the value of these calves when one realises the tremendous asset they will be to our economy in a couple of years time.

I do not know what causes this lack of confidence. Because of the milk structure price it is probably more economical not to rear a calf than to allow him to be sold for practically nothing; the milk structure price would not allow a farmer to avail of the return of skim milk which is the cheapest form of protein available to calves. Perhaps the reason is that if he holds on to a calf it costs him about £1 or £1.25 per day to keep him, and that has to be related to the price he gets for milk or milk powder for skim. It is a tragedy that we should be mindful of, and we should ensure, whether by way of subsidy or otherwise, that these calves are not sacrificed or allowed to die for the lack of medical treatment or proper feeding.

Reference has been made to the pig industry. I am not sure if the pig industry has suffered in the area of the mover of the motion. In our area, through rationalisation and otherwise, the pig industry is booming, whether it be at co-operative fattening level or whether it be at large-scale pig unit level owned by farmers. From our knowledge of the bacon industry, we have not a sufficient supply of bacon to fulfil our markets overseas. This situation has ensured that the commodity price of bacon and pigs to the pig producers is showing a welcome trend.

It is common knowledge that factories made excessive profits last year at the expense of the farming community, who could ill afford it. The farming community were on their knees at the time and the factories played the situation for every penny it was worth. As had been said before, they made colossal profits at the farmer's expense.

I was very vocal with the Minister about actions he should have taken, not alone in connection with the application of the intervention system, but also in connection with the price payable for canning cows, whether they be canning cows for economic reasons or whether they be canning cows under the voluntary brucellosis eradication scheme. I said that the factories were being most unfair to the farmers. The Minister readily admitted that these factories were in this situation, but he also reminded me that these factories were owned and run by farmers or by private enterprise. Much as he would like to act, the Minister had no power and was unable to do anything except bring them in to discuss the situation and request them to overcome some of their problems. They were not geared for this large kill of animals last year; they were chock-a-block. Farmers could ring up ten factories and be unable to get cattle in, and then jobber lorry drivers could get them in readily at the right price, and the farming community suffered as a result. We have learned many lessons from last year's episodes. The factories will find it much more difficult to deal with farmers this year.

Were it not for this breakdown at factory level and the breakdown in the prices available to farmers, 1974 would have been an excellent year for farmers. It was a particularly good year in the milk sector. I hope 1975 will prove a good year for the sugar beet industry, the milk industry and the pig industry.

Farmers do not make enough use of land they have available for tillage. Farmers with 50 and 60 acres often do not till even one acre for the production of the necessities of life. It is sad to find farmers with vast amounts of land which is capable of producing vegetables at very little cost to them competing with urban dwellers for vegetables which they should have produced themselves. There are complaints about the cost of vegetables to the housewife. It is not surprising because very few people grow vegetables. I would advocate that they grow what they use themselves.

We should have the courage like other member countries to break some of these rules. Admittedly we are a small nation and it might be a dangerous thing to do. If we want to focus attention on some of the problems which have arisen for us by other nations breaking rules, we should have the courage at times to rattle the sabre, whether by veto or otherwise and ensure that our farmers are protected. They have looked to Europe for their destiny. I hope they will not be disappointed. I have the utmost confidence that the Minister is capable of taking any steps necessary to ensure that agriculture in future will be protected and have its rightful place within the Common Market.

Mr. Killilea

This debate is very welcome. People in urban areas have now realised that our major industry and way of life is agriculture. Agriculture suffered much last year. Perhaps the exercise was a severe one but it left people with a realisation that agriculture is our prime industry and must be looked after properly.

The Coalition have been using the wrong tactics in helping their Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in the onerous task he has. He has the responsibility to steer this complicated sector of our industry, but instead of the members of the Government parties helping and instructing the Minister to the best of their ability they have done nothing but throw sugar on him and say he is such a good fellow. They should have been more constructive and given more strength to the Minister and the Department in the negotiating rooms in Europe where strength is needed. They should have said: "This is what we want, Minister. This is the way we want it done, and this is the result we need. Use your own intelligence after that and bring back to us the best deal possible." But the Minister has not had that support.

There have been failures. There will always be failures. If there are not failures we will never learn. Failures in agriculture are more obvious than in any other sector. On the recent agreement of allowing Israel special concessions in the EEC, I do not think that ten people in the country realise that Israel is one of the most highly productive agricultural countries in the world. The unit per cow milk return in Israel is the highest in the world—1,800 gallons of milk per annum. Israel have the highest tonnage of fruit, soft and otherwise, and are the highest producers of veal and young beef in the world. We are allowing Israel—and perhaps rightly so—a special concession in the EEC without the Irish agricultural sector knowing whether we are creating a more difficult situation in a market that is already overflowing with agricultural produce. It is a point that has been forgotten by the Irish. I do not assume that it has been forgotten by the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Why have the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries not told the nation of this fact? Today we gave the Minister an opportunity of explaining in toto this situation regarding Israel and the Common Market. It is time that both those Ministers told the people that the consequences of this new concession could be grave.

There has been talk about allowing in beef from third countries. If we have closed our eyes to the continuance of this situation and hail it as a progressive step without explanation to the nation, I hope the Minister will indicate exactly what this will mean to Irish agriculture, if, in fact, it is of great significance, as I assume it is.

Now we come to our own problem. There is no doubt but that mistakes have been made. The biggest mistake of all—it was not the Minister's own mistake; it was the mistake of the people outside who made representations to the Minister—was on the question of price control on fertilisers. That does not excuse the Minister from doing something to curb the appalling inflation in regard to a product that is so vital to the veins of agriculture.

Senator Butler said that he is a member of a co-operative who bought fertilisers at £50 and sold them at £50 to some of their members when they were costing £105 elsewhere. The co-operative movement is not as strong as it should be. There are thousands of farmers who could not afford to buy the fertilisers at £50. They had to dig deep into their pockets to try and get money to pay for this fertiliser at an inflationary rate and an uncontrolled price. Somebody in the fertiliser industry has made millions of profit, just as they have in the meat industry.

I ask the Minister at this late stage to use his authority to bring about a stabilisation in this particular part of agriculture. It is time that the Minister grasped this nettle tightly. I assume there are millions of pounds made on this transaction. Last year we saw them exporting nitrogen at a high price when it was almost impossible to get nitrogen in this country. I think it was Senator Ferris who said that the General Council of the County Committees of Agriculture asked that some scheme similar to the voucher scheme should be brought in for the purchase of fertilisers by farmers. The fertiliser problem brought terrible pressure upon other sections as well. I know of numerous farmers who on this very day are finding it almost impossible to meet commitments they made to the ACC and the banks. The farmers are left in debt to those bodies. Were it not for the fact that the ACC and some of the bank managers had patience with some of the farmers a great number of them would be driven on to the road.

In his own Department the Minister can see the small amount of grants that were paid last year. On the other hand, in the milk industry—right across the board—the AI stations increased their price to £3 for the service of the bulls, and the suck calves coming from those cows fetched the ridiculous price of 50p or £1. I contradict what Senator Butler said. In page 2 of a document of May 10th, 1975, issued by the Irish Creamery Managers Association and Bord Bainne on milk production, it is stated that production in Ireland in 1974 showed a 5 per cent decline from a year earlier. Several factors contributed to this decline. Wet ground conditions at the beginning of the year and poor conditions during harvesting time have restricted grass growth and led to a lack of winter feed. This condition was further aggravated by the high level of fertiliser price.

Furthermore the December, 1974, livestock count showed a 3.2 per cent fall in the number of dairy cows to 1,344,300 head from the total of a year earlier of 1,389,400 head. What on earth was Senator Butler trying to impress upon us here when he said that our cow and cattle herds had increased? Our cow herds are the most precious commodities available to Irish agriculture and we must nourish them. We can see the milk utilisation from those cow herds.

I want the Minister to consider a factor that I think could alleviate the problem of the suckling calf. It is a known fact that the milk replacer price has gone astronomically high. From statistics available to me this milk powder is going to be a mounting problem in Europe soon. We are a nation depending basically on beef and we are slaughtering our calves because of the bad prices for them. We are letting our calves die for lack of medicine because a vet would charge £2, £3 or £4 to make a call to an animal that is worth 50p or £.

Here, I think, could be the key to the relief of this problem, subsidisation of milk powder to rear the calves. In the very near future—six, 12 or 18 months —a milk powder mountain will be created in Europe while the calves that need this powder are dying in Ireland. This is a very valid point and one which the Minister should utilise with urgency. The sucklers situation has not been a good one. The cost of feeding those cows over the winter has increased enormously but there was no increase in any incentive for them. I would like if this, too, got special consideration.

We saw the fluctuating cattle prices. I listened to Senator Butler on this point and I think the marts he was at yesterday are not in the Republic at all. I sold last Tuesday in Tuam mart 921b. weight lambs at £13.80p, and his lowest price yesterday was £14. How can he expect me to believe that a quality lamb would fetch £20 yesterday in this market. It is not correct.

The IFA's proposal on today's paper is not, in my opinion, a legitimate one, but it shows the frustration of the Irish people and the Irish sheep producer in this situation where the French people are trying to by-pass the Treaty of Rome by every angle and insinuation. It is not whether they will win or lose on the point they are making; it is necessary that they make that point. If the Minister accepts this situation an organisation here must show its teeth.

Senator Ferris referred to the Minister as the tiger of Europe. In the sheepbreeders' eyes he is the tiger of Europe but he has got no teeth. We have seen what has happened in regard to pig production. Last November we had to order ham for Christmas, the scarcity was so great; along with that, the price of turkeys was inflated.

We see what happened in County Galway, where the best breeding ewes are produced. Last summer the ewes were effectively stolen from the marts; breeding ewes of the highest quality were sold for £2 and £3. The Minister and his Department did not make any move, within the EEC or otherwise, to help the farmers. We will soon have a problem in sheep production because the situation is fluctuating so much.

For too long we have suffered from an inferiority complex. The farmers are always being advised to "go into" this or that; into beef or into milk production and next day, the scheme collapses. This was a fatal mistake and now is the time to remedy the situation. The farmers should now take the opportunity of going back to mixed farming which could be the best system for the individual operating it. We have seen the position of the sugar factory in Tuam which has suffered the greatest agony of any industry. It is time for the Minister to act.

I thought, until I heard Senator McGowan speak, that the farm modernisation scheme in County Galway was in the worst condition possible but it seems it is not as bad as in his county. We have a situation in County Galway where the Minister and his Department could act. The people have come round to the idea of growing beet because the price is reasonably right. I would ask the Minister, taking into account the situation existing in County Galway, where the average holding is only 26 acres, to apply a production bonus to the price of beet in order that the industry would be made more stable. When I asked the former Minister, Deputy Blaney for this five years ago he thought it was a good idea but it was not acted on. However, the time is now ripe for this production bonus because the beet is being grown in Galway. This bonus should be given on a tonnage rather than an acreage basis because the man who will produce the best crop will be the one to get the return. This is the way, through the production bonus scheme, for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, through the EEC or FEOGA, to assist the sugar industry in Connaught. This scheme could also be applied to potato production. Our situation in Galway is different from that existing anywhere else. There has been an outcry recently about where all the money received from the EEC has gone but here is a practical way in which Connaught can be helped to adopt mixed farming. I would ask the Minister to give these two industries his due consideration and so benefit the people of Connaught.

Mr. McCartin

The first observation I should like to make on this motion which asks us to take note of the plight of people engaged in agriculture is that most people engaged in agriculture, at some stage in their lives, made a conscious decision to be farmers. Most farmers, when talking about their prospects and making plans will always include the condition "taking the good year with the bad". Those people who express utter amazement at what has happened to a section of farmers in the past year are making more of a fuss than the actual farmers concerned. All farmers know the hazards connected with farming and if these people wanted to engage in farming —they could possibly have taken up some other profession or trade or even emigrated—they decided, despite the risks involved, to become farmers; as a result, they were not so shocked at the difficult year as some Members were.

At the time this motion was put down, there was a large section of the farming community experiencing some difficulty, particularly in the west where a large number of farmers were engaged in single suckling. Years ago, when the beef incentive scheme was introduced, I remember the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Blaney, saying, quite correctly, that he did not want the small farmer to go in for that scheme. That scheme was originally intended for the farmers with big acreages but instead the reverse happened and it was the small farmers who availed of the scheme. I have heard the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries advise the small farmers against the hazards of single suckling and the fluctuating market prices and also against the situation where it is difficult to get a return from an acre of ground on which a cow is kept for the sole purpose of producing a calf. In the past year, anybody who found he was in this situation, received a very bad income.

We often discuss the question of where the intervention system went wrong. I distinctly remember the Minister recognising the grave situation which existed six or eight months ago. He called on the organised farmers and anybody who was concerned to offer suggestions as to how this problem could be solved. The Minister admitted that he had not found a satisfactory solution. All the brains engaged in Irish agriculture and those watching the situation failed to come up at that time with a satisfactory method by which the intervention price or the slaughter premium could be paid directly to the farmer. This is now all in the past and the Minister has set up a special commission to inquire into this matter. He has admitted that it is a difficult problem but we hope that some solution will be found. I am sure the Minister is still prepared to consider any solution proposed.

We bemoan the position of the farmers who sold their beef to the factory and did not get the intervention price but that might not be the worst situation. They were very lucky, considering the situation in which they might have found themselves, if there had not been intervention at that time.

We must remember that if we had not intervention at that time we would have done what was done in Australia—we would have buried our beef or thrown it away. The farmer who sold his beef to the factory then bought cattle from the store producer. The farmer made profits which he did not expect to make. A large segment of the farming community sold cattle to the factories and bought cattle at give-away prices. They made big profits and did not go back to the store producer to share them. Factories are owned, to a large extent, by farmers and they failed to find a solution to the problem. We had a difficult situation and when this resolution was put down there was cause for concern for one section of our community.

I cannot accept complete condemnation of agricultural policy by speakers of the Opposition when I heard one Senator say he went to an IFA meeting in Donegal and his only concern was that Mr. T.J. Maher did not condemn our Minister for Agriculture's policy. Senator McGowan came away from that meeting most disappointed and concluded that the IFA was not interested in the welfare of farmers. I do not think Senator McGowan need have the slightest concern about the attitude of the IFA. The IFA have done a good job in representing the farming community over a number of years and they recognise in the present Minister for Agriculture a man who has been doing his best. He knows the subject very well and is always prepared to listen to the point of view of organised farmers.

The Minister has pushed his case in Brussels as far as any responsible statesman could push a case. When the former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Gibbons, spoke last week about the veto power of Irish delegates, he described this as the sort of weapon that must be considered and used like the atomic bomb. While this was going very far, Deputy Gibbons was responsible in making this comparison because he meant that this is the very last tactic we ought to use. The Irish nation have already got too much out of the agricultural policy to seek to use the atomic bomb on it. The Irish people, apart from farmers, have got too much out of the EEC agricultural policy for our Minister to behave in any irresponsible way towards this.

The farm modernisation scheme and the percentage of people who did not qualify as development farmers have been talked about during the last six or eight months. The farm modernisation scheme was not all that many of us hoped it would be. Those of us who are in agriculture do not know when we can say we have enough: when that day comes we will be all very surprised. It is true that a small percentage of Irish farmers will qualify for the development category but I was on a farm with an agricultural instructor last week and he was preparing a plan for this particular farm with a view to having it classified for the purpose of obtaining grants. The farmer concerned kept referring to development. The instructor told him not to be concerned about development. The instructor knew the farmers and the area and what they had to gain whether "development" or "transitional".

Mr. Killilea

You must have appointed him.

Mr. McCartin

I did not. He has brothers in the Fianna Fáil Party. The agricultural instructor is a responsible adviser, well qualified in every sense and works in one of our less fortunate areas and he insisted that there was nothing to worry about, whether "development" or "transitional", and this is true. Take the farmers of County Galway or County Leitrim, and calculate what the difference would mean to them, whether they be transitional or development——

Mr. Killilea

How much land would they get from the Land Commission?

Mr. McCartin

That question does not arise. They will get land from the Land Commission. If the instructor says that land from the Land Commission can bring them into a development class then they will get it even where it was acquired under the pension scheme. If only 2 per cent of the farmers in Galway are in the development field, there is no question of competition between transitional and development farmers because development farmers are not there and the land must be given to the transitional farmers.

There is another factor that has been lost sight of here—that we fight for a higher income for farmers. The farmer ought to be as well off as the average industrial worker—I think he should be better off. He works harder hours and he has acquired more skill. We are saying it is too much to expect this man to set a target for £36 a week for last year or £37 a week for this year: it is not too much, and we would be making little of the farming community if we told them to set their sights on a lower income than £36, but that is what is being said. I know a transitional farmer. In the past few months he has been classified, he has done some work and he is getting a grant of £1,700 for work done. I have estimated what he would have got under the old system and it would be £550. There is no good reason to complain. For meal storage which would cost about £540, the old grant would have been £33.60. Under the new grant that farmer would get £181. For a milking parlour the maximum under the old scheme was £150 and now the maximum could be £3,000 or £4,000. For land reclamation we had a fixed figure in the past. We now have a figure which is related to cost. I would opt in modern times for a figure that is related to cost. I am not saying that improvements cannot be made in the farm modernisation scheme. I would improve it if I had free rein and unlimited amounts of money. Nevertheless, I see the farm modernisation scheme as a step along the road towards the development of farms and one that should not be complained about in the sense that it has been complained about there today.

In the past year far too many people complained about the state of agriculture, the pig industry and the cattle industry. We have resources in this country and people who can compete with farmers anywhere. I was inspired when Senator Killilea mentioned the situation in Israel and the cow that produces 1,800 gallons of milk. I found that most inspiring. I am not saying there are not cows in Ireland that have produced 1,800 gallons of milk but, on average, it takes quite a few cows in Ireland to produce 1,800 gallons of milk. If the average cow in Ireland produced 1,800 gallons of milk, and the average herd in Ireland is about 11 cows, the average farmer would have an income from milk of £6,600 on 11 cows. That could be done on 11 acres. When Senator Killilea mentioned what can be achieved in Israel I thought it was most inspiring and I would like to hear more about it. When you have this situation in the most unfortunate— from an agricultural point of view —country in the world and compare it with Ireland which has the most fortunate climate and conditions to produce milk, there is a lot to be learned there.

There is a massive job to be done in educating farmers, not in telling them there is no future in this or in that, not in telling them to sit there and wait until the Government subsidises every product and makes it possible for every man to sell and to live whether he be lazy or hardworking, whether he be efficient or careless. That is not the attitude we should adopt. We must tell the farmers that farming is a business like anything else. When you set yourself up to produce pigs or to carry out dairying or produce cattle you must, naturally enough, look at the situation in the world around and in the country, but, above all, you must be prepared to say to yourself: "I am going to tackle this business. I am going to do it in such a manner that I will produce when all the inefficient fellows are gone." I have never seen that theory fail and I have seen it work in the different walks of life. Even when milk production was bad business the efficient farmer got a good living. The efficient farmer in dairying even on a small acreage—even with 30 acres —can reach development status and has done it. Even in the poorer and less developed areas it can be done.

Certainly, in the pig industry which was complained about, we had a situation where the price of meal went up. The same people began lamenting and crying that they could not survive, but at no stage in the whole crisis—and it was bad—from the day the sow was put to the boar until the day the pigs were fattened, did that pig lose money. Any farmer who had patience, who was determined to live with it, could have lived through it. You had the situation where the people who were not efficient, who were not committed, were run out of the pig trade during that period. But those who stayed and accepted a situation of non-profit—or near that—for three or four months found themselves in a situation where they more than made good their losses by staying on. There is no point in any farmer setting himself up in any industry, whether it be dairying or cattle or pigs, if he is going to run out of that industry as soon as the first cold wind blows. He must set himself up so that he will be there while all the inefficient people go. If he is able to do that he will reap the reward and will get the profits that he lost in the worst time.

It is regrettable that the price of manure is what it is. We asked the Minister to have something done about it. We asked him to ask the producer to subsidise it. This was very difficult; I do not think we seriously believed it could be done. But I would say to the farmers of Ireland that there are more units of useful fertiliser lost in the drains and ditches and rivers here than would do a massive job on the fertilisation of our land. More than subsidies and premiums quality is what counts.

It is true a calf can be sold for £1 in the mart and beside him a calf for £50. The calf that is sold at £1 is not worth bringing home. Quality counts more in that field than ever before. It is much more important to the farmer, who talks about the subsidy— even in the disadvantaged areas where he expects £10 to £12 a head per beast —to consider carefully the bull that he breeds, the cow that he uses for breeding than that £10 or £12, because to my mind that sum makes very little difference compared with the asset the well-bred animal, well-cared-for animal will be to him.

I do not accept this motion that farmers are really in a serious plight. During the past 12 months there was one section that were really hard hit in the west of Ireland. On the other hand, on behalf of the farmers of County Leitrim I want to thank the Minister for his voucher scheme, which provided £200,000 to the right people at the right time in County Leitrim. We did not have the thousands of cattle dying that were expected. The farmers survived and when it came to the spring they saw things in a new light. We need not be as concerned as some of the speakers on the far side want us to be about the plight of farmers.

Mr. Keegan

I shall be very brief. I support this motion. It was put down in late autumn and it is extraordinary that we did not have an opportunity of discussing it until now. When that motion was put the whole agricultural industry was in a chaotic condition. We had one of the worst farm crises which the farming community had known for many years. But since then things have improved somewhat. We have had an improvement in the cattle trade; we have had movement of cattle and an upward trend in cattle prices. But we have also had the continuing increase in farm costs. That completely eroded any benefits which the farmer could hope to gain from the increase in the prices of cattle, milk and milk products. Therefore, I feel that farmers will not forget the latter half of 1974 for many years to come. They will need a great deal of reassurance from the Minister and the Government and from Brussels if they are to have confidence in their ability to farm in the future, if they are to have confidence in agriculture as a means of living.

It is important that farm prices be not only maintained during the coming year but that they keep pace with wage rises, because it has been freely admitted that this year we can expect a 28-30 per cent increase in the cost of living. Can the Minister for Agriculture honestly say here today that farm prices will increase by 30 per cent this year?

I said in the past that the farming community always responded to any incentive which would come their way. They always responded when they were asked to increase production. When they were asked to improve the quality of their herds they made a determined attempt to do so. When they were asked to increase stock numbers, they did so, with the result that in 1974, they discovered that they had not a market for the thousands and thousands of additional cattle which were on the farms throughout the country.

Assurances and guarantees that markets will be available during the coming year and that farming will continue to be a profitable means of livelihood are needed now. The farmers are worried. There was a drop in purchases of fertiliser this year because of the high price of fertiliser. We should have come to the aid of the stricken farmers and subsidised fertilisers. If that had been done to a greater extent more fertilisers would have been used and the land would be in better heart and the high rate of fertility would be evident.

With regard to the milk and dairy industry, I feel that it is the only section that can really be assured of a guaranteed monthly cheque. Milk prices have been fixed for another six to eight months, so farmers know what they can hope to get for their milk during the coming year. They are not tied to limited gallonage. The more milk they produce the more they can sell and the higher the income for the farmer, for his staff and his family. I am worried in case we arrive at a situation where we will have a butter mountain again not alone in this country but throughout Europe.

As I said earlier, the farming community will never forget the latter half of 1974, nor will they forget all the talk about the beef mountain in Europe. Let the agricultural Ministers in Europe and our Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, who is directly responsible to the Irish farmers, ensure that there will be no milk or butter crisis at the end of this year because of the increase in milk production which has taken place. The reason for that increase is that it would appear to be the only outlet the farmer had of guaranteeing himself an income during this year. If a person is a member of a co-op, as most farmers are and has a reasonable cow herd, he can get geared for the milk industry and he can enjoy the benefits of the monthly cheque.

The livestock farmer was in a different position. He was depending on the whim of the consumers and the Governments in other countries. Therefore it is important that we have a policy of planned disposal of beef from here. I think our meat factories became overdependent on intervention last year. The whole system was wide open to abuse. While the meat factories made millions, the farmers lost millions. We must have some alternatives to intervention. I think intervention is no solution. It may be a short-term one but it is not a long-term one for the agricultural problems and the problems facing the beef producers. We will continue to produce an abundance of beef in this country. But the amount of beef produced in Ireland, when compared with the huge potential outlets is insignificant. Therefore we must have some type of selling agency that will be working entirely on behalf of the beef producers, establishing markets for the beef surplus which the Irish farmer will have available for the markets not only of Europe but of the Third World. I understand some efforts are being made to channel some of our surplus into the Third World countries. It would appear at the moment that they are the only countries that have no balance of payments problems because of the increase they demanded for oil last year. Because of that, they held the whip hand. Oil is important to the entire community and is important to the farmer in the present system of farming with all the modern equipment which the farmers have to use in order to achieve any type of a reasonable farm income.

With regard to tuberculosis testing and the brucellosis eradication scheme, I would like an assurance from the Minister as to where the farming community are going in this direction. In my county there appears to be a slowdown in testing. I know of cases where farmers have requested tests and they have been re-issued with the blue card without any additional testing being done. In other words, they were told to carry on. The brucellosis eradication scheme played havoc with many valuable herds; it put many farmers out of business because of the difficulty in getting stocked up again after herds had been cleared under the scheme. No amount of compensation for infected reactors within herds adequately compensates them for the loss of the calf as well as the heifer or the cow. That scheme has not been operating throughout the whole country. It has been operated mostly in the midlands and north-eastern areas.

I do not know how much money the scheme will cost when it is applied to all Ireland. We have still got reactors coming up at different periods all over the place and sometime somebody must get down to the business of finding new ways of treating that disease. In bygone days they treated animals that aborted and the result was that animals were perfect after that. The only eradication method we seem to employ these days is to have animals slaughtered. The farming community will need assurances on the future of those schemes and how they are expected to participate in them.

It is important that the Minister should do everything possible to create confidence within the farming community. I could go on and on but I will not delay the House on the various aspects of agriculture and agricultural production.

The pig industry has been going at a slow pace in recent years because it was not economical for the farming community to go into pig production on an intensive scale. The result was the smaller pig producer went out of pig feeding completely because it was not economical and we are left with a few large-scale pig fattening units and bonham producing units. For years the economy of the small farmer was based on having a few pigs at regular intervals for the market in order to ensure a livelihood for himself and his family.

Last year we were told a great deal about the fodder voucher scheme. While it helped the recipients, that scheme was wide open to abuse. People have boasted to me that they bought coal with the money they received from the fodder vouchers. I do not know what action the Minister can take with regard to people who misuse the money made available to them under the scheme. We had the small farmer with the off-farm job being denied those vouchers. The only reason any small farmer has an off-farm job is to supplement the income which he derives from his small holding. All who took up part-time jobs discovered that they were being refused their fodder vouchers although they had considerable numbers of livestock. Worse still, some people working, for instance, with ESB or Bord na Móna or Westmeath County Council, discovered that their workmates were successful in getting fodder vouchers while they themselves were refused, although one might be a better small farmer than the other.

If that scheme is ever reintroduced I would ask that a more equitable method be adopted. The yard-stick for deciding who should qualify and who should not will have to be more liberally implemented. Nothing causes greater confusion among people in any community than to discover that Jimmy X was a part-time worker with Bord na Móna and he got the fodder vouchers. But Joe on this side who was also a part-time worker with Bord na Móna discovered that he could not get them. They are the little things that can cause dissension and confusion in the minds of the people. I agree that for those people who used them properly and who purchased meal with them the scheme was of some benefit, but some people got the vouchers but did not buy the meal. They got receipts for half tons of coal or something else.

These are some of the immediate problems that effect the agricultural community, but what is most important is reassurance for the future. The farmer needs reassurance in the same way as the worker needs job assurance. The difficulty as between the farmer and the worker is that if farm incomes drop, the farmer has nowhere to turn. He cannot go over to pay-related benefit schemes, he cannot go over to unemployment benefits, although the smaller farmers are in receipt of unemployment assistance. The vast majority of farmers have no other means of support than the income derived from their farms. Therefore, they need assurances that markets will be made available to them and that they can hope to obtain a reasonable standard of living from farming, at least equal to that being enjoyed by the white-collar worker, the industrial worker, the professional or the businessman.

The day is long gone when the farmer can be looked upon as a second-class citizen. The farmer was regarded as just a man who participated in the heavy labouring exercise of trying to work and till and live on a farm. Farming has become a highly organised profession and it is high time that those engaged in that profession were recognised for the service they are giving to the nation.

Mr. A. O'Brien

My experience is that there is widespread appreciation in the farming community of the efforts being made on their behalf by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Even in the relatively bad times referred to at the end of last year, when farmers in parts of the country were facing a difficult fodder situation, there was appreciation of the efforts made by the Minister in Europe, on their behalf.

The leaders of farmers' organisations have not been slow to express that appreciation. On the radio I heard various tributes to the work of our Minister by, for instance, leaders of the Ulster Farmers' Union. The Minister has to contend with great difficulties. They are not difficulties that he can clear away overnight. there is a conflict of interest between member nations of the EEC who want cheap food and the food producing countries who want a better price for their food. We are satisfied that the Minister has put forward the best possible case. Agriculture has benefitted as a result of the efficacy of the case he presented. I should like to have it on record that that appreciation exists—that nobody is more dedicated to working towards raising the standard of living of the farming community and that by his efforts and advice he is doing all a man can do. It is only right that tribute should be paid to the Minister for his willingness at all times to hear points put forward by representatives of the different farming organisations and to use their recommendations when necessary and when applicable, to supplement his own arguments on behalf of the farmers.

Mr. Codd

I am glad to get this opportunity to express my views on this important motion. Whenever agriculture is discussed, wide-ranging views are expressed by everyone. Agriculture is so important to this country that we are practically dependent on it—if agriculture is not prospering the country is not prospering.

I was surprised to hear the proposer and seconder of this motion saying that this country is doomed and that agriculture is doomed. Our Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has done a wonderful job since he took up office. He has fought hard with his counterparts in Brussels and won many concessions for us. The cattle trade is booming. We had a depressed cattle trade some months ago but that was outside the Minister's control. Unfortunately at that time some of our factories made huge profits at the expense of the farmer. The Minister was not able to do anything regarding that situation at that time. We are getting high prices for milk and we have the highest price paid in Europe for our beef.

I am not too happy with the sheep trade which has been disappointing and needs encouragement. Many of the sheep farmers are disappointed. They had to take bad prices last year for their hogget ewes. I should like to see something done to get better markets and to instil confidence in those involved in sheep production.

Unfortunately many people are getting away from the land. It is very difficult to get skilled workers on the land. I should like to see some type of training set up for farm workers. I can foresee the day when it will be impossible to get skilled men. They have to be skilled now to work in Irish agriculture. When some of the older people retire who are working the machinery today there will not be anyone to replace them. The youth today are more inclined to move to industry and to get away from the land. Even if they are working on the land they have no interest in it and they are not dedicated. Some incentive must be given to those people.

I was glad earlier today to see the Bill for extra holidays for our farm workers. Agricultural work is hard, laborious work and those who are engaged in it are entitled to the same holidays as any other type of worker.

Higher production is most important in agriculture. If one looks round the country one sees the large acreage of land that is not in production—the amount of land that is not arable which could be made arable. In my county we had a large backlog of land reclamation work which has been cleared. I should like to see a national reclamation scheme on the lines of one carried out in the days when James Dillon was Minister for Agriculture. In County Wicklow alone there is a large amount of land covered with furze which will not be touched by the farmers themselves, The Government paid for the cost of the work and the farmers paid a nominal figure.

I should like to see Ireland follow the example of Holland where not one inch of waste land exists and where the main drainage scheme is maintained by the Government. There are thousands of acres of fields in Ireland suitable for production. Perhaps the Minister would have a serious look at this. I compliment him on doing a fine job. He has come up against many problems but he has fought hard bargains for the Irish farmers. Things are good in agriculture but we would like to see them better. I should like to see an improvement in stability, to see confidence restored in the sheep trade. I do not think the outlook is as bleak as is painted in this motion. We look forward to good days in 1975 and the years ahead.

Mr. Markey

One must have a certain amount of sympathy for the movers of this motion. It comes at the wrong time as far as they are concerned. If the debate on this had taken place six months ago they could have expected a good day for themselves at the expense of the Minister and the Government.

It is only fair that if the Minister is to be the subject of criticism at any time he also has to be the subject of praise when the occasion arises. Farmers had a bad time during 1974 but they survived it and now find themselves in a much more encouraging and profitable situation. The credit for this must go to the Minister. The Opposition may criticise the Minister but, even at the worst time in 1974, I was not aware of any criticism being laid at the Minister's door by the farming community. They had the height of praise for the manner in which he tried to achieve the best that could be obtained for them from Brussels. It may not be a very profitable exercise to look back to mid-winter when things were bad, but we may learn some lessons from it which will benefit us in the future.

This is very true in the case of intervention. Were it not for our membership of the EEC the situation which faced Irish farmers would have been a lot worse than it was. Were it not for intervention, which took 500,000 head of cattle off the fields, the situation would have been a lot worse. If the benefits of the intervention system did not work their way back to farmers and producers this was not the fault of the Minister. He advocated time and time again that there should have been a far greater degree of co-operation than was evident. It was through no fault of his that there were certain cautionary words and directions given from Brussels in regard to the future operation of intervention schemes.

The fodder voucher scheme introduced by the Government was a tremendous boon to hard-pressed farmers. It amounted to approximately £3 million to farmers by direct grant. Eighty-five per cent of applications originated from small farmers in the west of Ireland and they are particularly grateful for the assistance given by the Government. The loan scheme has been extended for a further six months and £6 million was provided in this year's Estimate to hill and handicapped areas to supplement the EEC schemes.

During 1974 the Minister continually advised farmers to have a long-term outlook and to have confidence in the future. He foresaw that the bad times would only be of temporary duration. He has been proved correct. If he was not the recipient of any criticism from the IFA or any farming community during 1974 I am equally certain he will today get much praise from these organisations. The Central Bank Report states:

It now seems likely that agricultural prices will be up around 30 per cent on average. Milk prices should rise to something over 30 per cent. The rise in cattle and beef prices should be greater and could exceed 35 per cent for the year as a whole.

It concludes:

There will be an improvement in income arising in agriculture of about 40 per cent for 1975.

This is a most optimistic and encouraging picture for our farmers, one which will compensate in no uncertain manner for the bad year in 1974.

This motion gave us an opportunity to give the Government credit for what they have done in agriculture. I look forward to 1975 being a very good year for the farmers, one which could well be the forerunner of more prosperous years to come.

Mr. Whyte

I am glad of the opportunity this motion gives us to have a look at agriculture and see how this important industry has been handled by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. I compliment him on the magnificent job he has done in the last few years.

A Minister for Agriculture's role now, in EEC membership, is very different from that played by such Ministers in the past. He had to start off with a new set of rules. He set off as the ambassador of those engaged in agriculture within the EEC. Not alone did he have to ensure that people engaged in agriculture, directly and indirectly, got a fair return for their work but he had also to ensure, as a Government Minister, that the returns to farmers and people engaged in agriculture were fair within the national context.

The flight from the land was one of the most important headings under which the Opposition condemned the Minister. In the years 1961 to 1971, 11,000 people per year left the land; in the past two years that number has been reduced to 6,000 per year. Therefore the case made by the Opposition falls down completely. I am disappointed with the poor case they put up. I was hopeful that some useful points be made.

The Opposition and many others have been making great play about the farm modernisation scheme over the last couple of years. If there is anything wrong with this scheme we ought to ask ourselves how it started. If my memory serves me right, this scheme was implemented under an EEC directive. This directive was accepted completely by the Minister's predecessor. So the present Minister has to work within the terms laid down by the Minister of a previous Government. If this scheme is wrong—and I do not agree that it is—the Opposition must accept most of the blame. Within that narrow limit the Minister has been doing a good job.

I do not accept that the figure mentioned for a development farmer is too high. It is a fair comment that people engaged in the agricultural industry should aim to be paid at least as much as people in other walks of life. If there were people who did not attain that level and did not get any help, there might be a case to be made by the Opposition. No matter at what level people are engaged in agriculture, the grants applicable to them are far greater than they were under any previous scheme implemented by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

There was a time when we were free to draw up any scheme we liked to help agriculture. There was no restraint from outside the country. We are not free anymore. We must work within the European context. While the Minister is in charge of that industry here, he must make the best case he can for our people in the EEC. He has a much more difficult job to do than any of his predecessors and, in my opinion, he is doing it quite well.

The number of people at this stage who will qualify as development farmers is not great; but it is much bigger than has been said by many people, both politicians and people who purport to represent farmers outside of the country. They conveniently forget that even farmers who do not measure up to that standard are entitled to grants greater than ever before. It is only reasonable to hope that, as the years go on and as people engaged in agriculture become better off and better educated and use the modern techniques available, a bigger proportion of our farmers will qualify. This is the aim of the Minister and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. It ought to be the aim of everybody engaged in agriculture and who has the interests of the industry at heart.

Many complaints have been made about the poor price for small cattle at the end of last year. In the glut situation we had at that time there was very little anyone could do. While some farmers lost a considerable amount of money it is only fair to say that there were other farmers who made a gain because of the recession in small cattle.

Do the Opposition seriously suggest that the Minister ought to go into farms all over the country and dictate a certain price for stock at this, that and the next level? Should he ask the farmer who needs the year-and-a-half beast to pay so much to his neighbour who has a smaller one? We must look at this realistically. These matters must find their own level. If the people concerned were in the position—and many of them were not in the position, unfortunately—to accept the Minister's advice and hold on to their stock longer, they would have benefited by the increases. I am not blaming the farmer or the Minister for that situation.

We must look back at the lack of agricultural policy over the years. This was deplorable. We had in the past the beef incentive scheme. This was an encouragement to farmers to produce more calves. It is right for a farmer with a large acreage to produce calves or cattle and hope to make a reasonable living with the finished product. It never was in the past, or never will be in the future, a reasonably economic proposition for a farmer—a small farmer in particular—to hope to make a reasonable living out of beef alone. The Minister would be ill-advised to recommend farmers to do that. He has at all times pointed out that people on small farms ought to concentrate more on dairying and tillage. His remarks have proved to be correct.

We had the unfortunate situation not too long ago where people who produced milk were being penalised if they went over a certain number of gallons. This was responsible for a large number of people restricting the expansion of their dairy herds. Indeed, the Minister's advice was contrary to EEC directives at that time. I remember a directive coming from the EEC—the Minister had to make it available to the people here—that a farmer would be paid roughly about £100 per cow in order to get out of cows and go into dry cattle.

The Minister made that scheme available to the farmers but he said that he did not advise farmers to use it. If I recall correctly, he said he did not believe there was any future for farmers with small acreage in beef. His advice was not to avail of the scheme, but if anybody wanted to avail of it he was prepared to implement it. Within the EEC context the Minister had to do that. His advice was very sound and I am sorry it was not taken by more farmers. If they are to look to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries or the EEC for the curing of all their ailments, they will always have problems. It is not possible for the man with the small acreage to make a living out of beef farming because of the poor return from beef, unless it is on a very large scale. It may be more common in the future that the farmer can get on to this intensive rearing of beef in sheds with concentrated foods. Up to now that has not proved very profitable but it may be in the future. Our Department will be aware of those things as they develop. It has been pointed out from time to time that small farmers should be engaged in dairying and tillage.

Farmers must make the best use of their land and be less dependent upon aids. It is one thing for the English farmers to look to their Government for large subsidies—they are an importing country of agricultural produce. People engaged in agriculture constitute about 3 per cent of their population. They are finding it difficult at present, and will also in the future, to subsidise their own farmers to produce food eaten at home. There is a large number of people to subsidise a small number of people, so the impact on the Exchequer is not nearly so great as it would be here.

Nearly 30 per cent of our people are directly engaged in agriculture. About 80 per cent of our agricultural goods are exported. Do we seriously consider that, as a small nation, we should place the taxpayer in the position of subsidising 80 per cent of our exported agricultural goods to subsidise the 30 per cent of our people engaged in agriculture? This would mean channelling farming operations the wrong way. It would lend itself to encouraging farmers to go in for beef production alone. The labour content in that is not nearly so great as it is in dairying or tillage. This would be a bad national policy and would be a very expensive one. If we produce the type of agricultural goods which can be sold competitively on the European market, then the more we get for those goods the better for the nation.

All of us must depend upon our exports. Up to now they have been largely agricultural. The more we get for those goods the better it will help our balance of payments. I accept that if prices for agricultural goods are high then the prices which people must pay for them will be higher too. It is better that our people pay the economic cost of those goods to the farmers and so ensure that they will not have to pay subsidies or increased taxation to aid that industry. I am convinced that our agriculture is able to hold its own in Europe, provided it is operated in a way best suited to our conditions. All the Minister's advice up to now has been in that direction.

I accept that a suggestion that the beef incentive scheme may not be carried on may not be popular with some people in the short term. If the industry is to be put on a sound financial and economic basic then these remarks have to be made. The Minister has not been slow to say unpopular things at times when he is looking at the overall picture he must do that if he is an honest Minister for Agriculture, and seemingly he is.

We have had a lot of criticism also of the beef intervention scheme. We will ask anyone on the Opposition benches what would the price of cattle have been if the beef intervention scheme was not in operation at the end of last year. Would it have been possible to get out of cattle? It would not.

Mr. McGowan

No, they would be given away.

Mr. Whyte

If the Minister did not exert himself to ensure that storage facilities were available in every way possible to take this beef off the market, what would the position have been? There would have been an absolute collapse. The prices obtaining for beef at that time were not great but they were not too bad; prices obtaining for store cattle were very bad.

Mr. Killilea

It was the tanglers who were making the money, not the farmers.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McCartin)

Senator Whyte, without interruption.

Mr. Whyte

If you want to bring that to its logical conclusion you can accuse the farmers of being tanglers because more than half of the processing factories are owned by the farmers.

Mr. Killilea

I am glad you said it.

Mr. Whyte

I am saying it without any contradiction or making excuses to anybody.

Acting Chairman

Please allow the Senator to continue.

Mr. Whyte

If there was anything wrong in the meat factories—and I am not prepared to say there was not —then the farmers should look to the people who were responsible. In very many cases it was the farmers as well. I do not want to see too many regulations being made in the industry but I want the public to know where the fault lies. I do not believe that the fault lay with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries at that time. I accept that there were many tanglers who made a good thing out of it. I accept that the factories made more than they were entitled to make; but those were the conditions obtaining at that time. Within the Minister's jurisdiction at that time he was not slow to point out that fact.

It is amazing at this stage that people stand up and blame the Minister because he has asked those factories to restrict the amount of meat coming into the factories. It was a very wise decision to have taken, even if he did not get a push from the EEC. He may have got that, but it was not necessary because he understood, as I do and I am sure some of the Senators on the other side who know anything about agriculture also understood, that at this time of the year we have the smallest number of cattle coming on the market as beef. In a few months time we will have a large number of cattle coming on the market as beef and if the storage areas are still full at that stage we will have a big problem.

I should like to see this scheme being fully implemented if possible. The EEC are pointing to Ireland at present as one of the very few nations who have been abusing the system, abusing it in the sense that it was never intended that all meat should go through intervention. Intervention was only meant to be used if there was a glut on the market which it would take up for whatever length of time was necessary and release it to the market when a shortage would arise. It was never meant that all meat from this country, or any other country, should be channelled through intervention but this was what was happening.

Mr. Killilea

Intervention must be suiting the Germans. They are not complaining.

Mr. Whyte

Germany is in the same position as England because she is an importer of agricultural goods. There is no harm in pointing to the beef industry at present. Prices for beef have practically doubled over the last 12 months. Any Minister who has been in charge at this time should be proud of his achievements in that area.

Reference has also been made to the voucher scheme. This was a scheme which was of very considerable aid to many farmers. It was brought in at short notice. When it appeared that the moneys were not available, the Minister made a further £3 million available for it.

The Minister's policy with regard to agriculture has been a sound and sensible one. The position should never arise. Farmers should try to ensure that there will not be shortage of fodder at the end of the year. It is only sound agricultural policy to ensure, as far as possible, that 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the fodder produced on a farm during the summer season be preserved for the end of the year. We ought to preach sound agricultural policy rather than gimmicks, rather than coming into the Seanad and trying to discredit a Minister who has done a better job for agriculture in the last two years than was done since the foundation of the State.

Mr. Killilea

It is assumed that the Minister is not limited to 20 minutes?

Acting Chairman

That is correct.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Clinton)

It is right and proper that this House should consider the present situation in agriculture, our most important industry. I have no criticism to make of that point. It is right also to say that agriculture, not only in Ireland but in many other countries, has had to face difficult international problems during 1974. These problems, it will be acknowledged, are due to the fact that prices for agricultural commodities generally had reached a point where they had far exceeded, due to shortages, the EEC support price. We cannot hope to isolate Irish farmers from worldwide factors, such as the energy crisis and the depression in the beef industry which occurred exceptionally during that period. But we have managed to cushion the farmers effectively against these unusual circumstances. I am glad to be able to say that the industry today is in a strong and healthy position, although there are one or two areas where we are not making the most of our opportunities.

One Senator said it was rather unfortunate for the people who put down the motion that the circumstances have completely changed. I have to admit that, but I hope they are also prepared to admit that circumstances have completely changed.

Mr. McGowan

Not for the better.

Mr. Clinton

I am glad to be able to acknowledge at this stage that there have been many interesting and constructive contributions in the course of this discussion. I was extremely disappointed at the contributions made both by the proposer and the seconder of the motion. In the course of their contributions everything was condemned and we did not hear a single constructive proposal. If they made a constructive proposal, I was not able to recognise it. We heard the farmers organisations, the co-ops and the processors condemned. We heard the Minister totally condemned. I do not resent that because this is not a kid-glove game. The farm modernisation scheme was completely condemned. Where will these condemnations stop?

I was glad that Senator Whyte cleared the air about the modernisation scheme. I am, and was blamed for this scheme on numerous occasions. I repeatedly said that I had no responsibility for it. Indeed, I acknowledge that my predecessor had not responsibility for the directive. It should be known by Members of the Opposition that the directive was there eight months before we joined. Yet, I get all the discredit for the faults and failings associated with it, as if I could go over, bang the desk and, with one stroke of a pen, decide that this was something I or my predecessor should never have accepted as part of our accession treaty.

We are one small member State in nine and cannot get all we consider useful and suitable for us. We have used the discretionary provision in the directive to suit our requirements to the extent that it was possible for us to do this. This is particularly evident in the system of aids available to farmers. There is no more attractive system operating in any of the other member States. If there is, I would like to hear about it. We are now getting experience of the scheme; and of course the operation of the scheme was held up due to circumstances outside my control. Now it is operating and we are having an opportunity to look at it. We are seeing some of the shortcomings in the scheme and we are doing everything possible to assess the scheme fairly and squarely so as to be able to go back to Brussels, say we have operated this scheme for approximately 12 months and that we found these faults when operating the scheme. I said it more than once that I am only too prepared to do this. We are building up all the information we can get in relation to the scheme. As soon as we feel the time is ripe, we will proceed to have the scheme amended, if possible.

It is not true that farmers over 55 years of age get no grants. They can, of course, if they are development or commercial farmers. In fact, they get the same grants as commercial farmers—20 per cent for fixed assets and 40 per cent for land improvement. It is ridiculous to say they get no grants over 55 years of age. They have options open to them now that they never had before but nobody is pushing them in any direction.

Senator McGowan said that in Donegal, after all this time, only 24 people were assessed. My information is that over 1,000 County Donegal farmers have applied for the scheme and almost 560 of these have already been determined as eligible. I do not know what to believe when I hear these statements made here. I am sure Senator McGowan does not want to misrepresent the picture but I do not know where he is getting his information.

Mr. McGowan

Direct from the CAO at a public meeting on Monday.

Mr. Clinton

Immediately these farmers are declared eligible they can go ahead, get grants and start work.

Mr. Killilea

In what classes?

Mr. Clinton

In whatever classes they belong to. I cannot put them into any class that the directive does not allow.

Mr. Killilea

That is the point.

Mr. Clinton

I am extremely anxious to qualify the maximum number of these people. When we talk about the state of the agricultural industry we have to be very concerned about the cattle industry. It was the cattle industry that upset the position completely last year. Everybody knows this. Forty per cent of our total agricultural output is accounted for by cattle and beef; perhaps that is too high a percentage. In my view, it is much too high a percentage for the west. But that is the system of farming they have been encouraged to get into. That is an extremely unfortunate situation. You cannot act and farm like a rancher when you have not the ranch. That is, unfortunately, what the farmers in the west are doing—they are acting like ranchers.

Mr. McGowan

In what way?

Acting Chairman

Please allow the Minister to continue.

Mr. Clinton

I said the industry was in a healthy position at the moment. I will start with the cattle industry. If I may quote from "The Truth in the News"——

Mr. Killilea

"Pravda".

Mr. Clinton

——the Saturday Farming Independent, the veracity of this will not be challenged by the Opposition. It cannot, because we know where it comes from. It reads:

This was another good week in the cattle trade. Well fleshed Beef Bullocks sold extremely well and were making from £24 to over £26 per cwt. These top prices were paid for big lean bullocks of the Charolais and Freisian types.

Beef heifers too were in good demand and ranged in price from £21 to £23.10 per cwt.

Now we heard the criticism about the beef heifers.

Fat Cows made from £16 to £20.40 while Canning Cows ranged up to £15.

Is that not a wonderful range of prices?

Mr. Killilea

What about the rest?

Acting Chairman

Please allow the Minister to continue.

Mr. Clinton

I go to Elphin:

Very large mart, a great interest in store section. British buyers active and sellers satisfied. Bullocks: Herefords, 11-2-0, £296 or £25.70. Aberdeen Angus 10-3-0, £286 or £26.60.

The list goes on and on. I go to another part of the same paper that we must accept as being true—nobody over there can afford to contradict it. Under the heading "Liam", it reads:

No. of cattle on offer 1,800. This very large entry of Cattle met with a very good trade. The large number of Northern and Midland Buyers present ensured a complete clearance of all types of Cattle.

Mr. Killilea

On a point of information, I would like to inform the House that the man who sent that report in was a Fine Gael candidate in the last by-election.

Mr. Clinton

All I can say is that the editor of the Saturday Farming Independent was a Fianna Fáil candidate in a very recent Seanad election. It goes on:

Maynooth—A very good selling trade for cows. Milch cows and heifers £150.00 to £230.00; secondaries, £150.00 to £190.00.

Have I covered the full range or is there any more? I go to the British market on the same paper:

There has been a steady demand and at most British markets this week for quality stores. Buyers are now keen to buy strong cattle that are available because there is more grass around.

Therefore we have the situation where everything is where we want it at last in the cattle trade. There is also a weekly market intelligence bulletin. This is a CBF production and I learn on page 2 of this that we have exported well in excess of half a million cattle in the past four months. Surely this is a performance unequalled in the history of the country.

I have been told by the Opposition that I have been doing nothing. I have gone to a lot of trouble with the Italians to get them interested in buying Irish cattle. I am not one of the people who has ever advocated exporting calves or young cattle, because looked at nationally it is not good. But in circumstances where we have to create competition it is necessary to have this side working well. Last year we sent 10,000 cattle to Italy. In the first few months of this year already we have sent out 27,000 cattle to Italy. If that is not trying to do something for the cattle trade, I do not know what is.

In addition to this, there was all sorts of criticism about the whole intervention set-up last year. I would say that the performance last year in taking well in excess of a half million cattle into intervention, and since intervention started, 700,000 cattle, has been nothing short of miraculous. Again we have been criticised because we put it into tugs and ships all round our coast. This is the sort of thing that destroys us in Brussels. This is the sort of publicity that will ruin Irish farming. Indeed it has been helped on at times by a lot of publicity. We are condemned for putting it into ships, condemned for finding storage for it, even though the only possible way to help farmers is to take this enormous quantity of beef off the market. We have taken 700,000 cattle off the market by putting them into intervention. I ask, in the world conditions in which we found ourselves, what would be the state of the cattle industry and the beef industry if it was not possible for us to do this and if we did not make extreme efforts to do this?

The farmers here have acknowledged freely the success of the effort in getting this amount of beef into intervention. They have acknowledged the fact that we all owe the officials in the Department a deep debt of gratitude because they worked long hours and overtime trying to ensure that this worked efficiently and effectively, and it did. An immense amount of credit goes to them for the success of this scheme.

Here and there we have had some spots of bother with intervention. This has been highlighted everywhere. In fact, there have been quite untrue statements made about Irish intervention beef in Britain and elsewhere. We had to store this beef in ships of course, and that meat which we stored in these ships was very readily saleable in those forms, and we did get sale for it. We have also to store the bulk of it outside the country, in England and on the Continent. The people who make some of these criticisms have since withdrawn them as unfounded.

The remarkable thing is that we had to do such an enormous job in such a short time, that we have had so little trouble with a very small staff handling the whole operation. It is not generally realised that, for the first time ever, well in excess of one million cattle were processed last year in Irish factories. It has been said, and repeated again and again, that excessive profits were made by the processors. I have said this too. I thought it was rather unfortunate that at a time when the farmers were getting very poor prices the people processing their meat seemed to have been doing better than they should have been doing. But we should recall that in the heel of the hunt we got £3.5 million from the trade by one means or another, approximately £1.5 million of it voluntary and the remainder through the operation of VAT. That is £3.5 million that went back, in the main, to the poorer farmers here, the people that we all admit got terrible prices for small cattle. It was an effort to do something to assist them.

When we set out to criticise all the efforts and operations of all the organisations, we should be able to say in this House what we would put in their place, and say where a better scheme has been operated or where the job has been done differently elsewhere. We know that all over the Continent intervention was used. It was used to nothing like the same extent that we used it here, because we have got to have recourse to intervention here. We will always be forced into intervention because, although we are a small country we are by far the largest exporter of beef and cattle in Europe.

We have to export 85 per cent of our total production and find markets for it. I am extremely anxious to see the best possible job done in marketing. I have urged the processors on all occasions to do this. I have often been satisfied. I set about curtailing the amount of intervention beef that we would take from the processors in an effort to try and clear the stores so that when the normal oversupply period comes in the autumn we would have stores to put this beef into.

I was condemned for this by a lot of people, particularly the processors, who said that the price would be very substantially reduced as a result of this decision. We know that the reverse has happened. The prices have not been substantially reduced. While I require them to reduce intervention by 15 per cent from 65 per cent of total killed, they are now at a level of 32 per cent, and not as a result of compulsion by me. I do not know whether they know that or not. We are now able to find markets for that percentage of it. It is an extraordinary set-up.

I know that cattle are scarce on the market at the present time by comparison to what they were. There is not the same supply of fat or fit cattle. But one of the things I would like to keep saying to people is: if you have cattle nearly fit sell them. There is an unfortunate inclination on the part of many Irish farmers to keep cattle as long as they have grass, whether they are fit to market or not: "Keep them on; the grass is there and it must be eaten." That seems to be the attitude. I think it is a very unfortunate one. From what I know about the market situation in Europe and the world generally, if I was producing cattle myself and in the actual business of farming, I would keep selling them. At the end of June I would buy no more for the time being. I would put it into silage and fodder for the winter. Then I could not be caught on the wrong foot in the autumn, because I could keep the cattle over the winter.

That is where we are always being caught in this country. There is no use coming to me howling and saying: "Cattle will die for the want of feed and you are responsible." I am not responsible. The farmer is the one who runs his own business. I think that farmers in this country will have to get out of the habit of thinking that they can run to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and to the Minister whenever they get into trouble. We must get farmers out of this.

Some of the Senators who spoke today referred again and again to a lack of confidence in the industry. I could say to these same Senators that what is responsible for this lack of confidence is the wailing and moaning and groaning that is still going on when the industry is doing well. People who are supposed to be leading the people of the country should be saying: "The future is bright. Get in, produce and work hard." That is the only way: to work themselves out of this difficulty. This is not just an Irish difficulty, and everybody knows that. I know it is good politics to have a rap at the Minister and blame him for everything that goes wrong and give him no credit for things that go right. I suppose I did some of that myself. That is the way the job works.

Mr. Killilea

You are getting sugar now instead.

Mr. Clinton

Somebody talked about sugar. I think it was Senator Killilea himself. He said that there should be a special incentive for the people in the west to grow beet.

Mr. Killilea

No. I said there should be a production bonus.

Mr. Clinton

A production bonus as I see it is a special incentive for the people of the west. He put £1.50 per ton on it. When the price of the beet to the farmers rises to £18 per ton and when there is no country in Europe anywhere near that price, is it not a terrible thing to hear Senator Killilea wailing and saying that the farmers in the west of Ireland cannot grow beet until they get another £1.50. per ton? That is the type of thing that keeps people from getting into tillage. If the western farmer cannot grow beet at £18 per ton nothing will make him do it. I do not see how we can continue at that price. If you do not mind me saying so, I think that the price is too high. That is a campaign that went on too long and secured too much in the circumstances. I am the last person to say that farmers get too much because they got far too little for far too long.

Mr. Killilea

On a point of information. About ten minutes ago the Minister said that the western farmer was ranching when he had not got the land. I will give him a way out of it which I think is fair. I do not think the Minister understood clearly what I said.

Mr. Clinton

I do not want to misunderstand or misquote the Senator. Senator Killilea was concerned about an agreement that was reached with Israel. The agreement that was made between the Community and Israel, which is due to come into effect on 1st July, does not grant any concessions for Israel's exports to the Community of beef or dairy products. I would like him to know that. As we know, Israel is a useful outlet for Irish beef and the Community are exploring the possibility of concluding a long-term contract with Israel for beef. This is most important for us.

Mr. Killilea

I know it is. It is time the Minister said it.

Mr. Clinton

Senator Killilea has as much access to a lot of this as I have. I did not conclude the agreement. The main agricultural concessions applied to citrus fruits, early vegetables, and fruit and vegetable juices. From a consumer viewpoint we will gain significantly under the agreement. Imports from Israel of products covered by the agreement amount to about £2,500,000 annually. Concessions have been granted by Israel mainly in the industrial sector, and there have also been some concessions in respect of imports from the Community of certain processed agricultural products. I hope that that disposes of the Israel point.

There has been considerable comment about the decision of the EEC to allow 50,000 tons of beef in from third countries and 78,000 young cattle. I have spoken about this before in other places. For the 50,000 tons of beef that are imported the importer must export a similar quantity, so that the net position is the same. It is done for trading considerations. The young cattle are going to Italy. Again it has been said by Senator Dolan that we sat back and did nothing about this, made no protest, made no objection, and I think he was supported in that by Senator McGowan. He also said that Italy protested so strongly that they walked out to make it really spectacular. The fact is that Italy did not vote against it. How could they, since there was the import of the young cattle to Italy coupled with 50,000 tons of beef? We pushed it to a vote and the only countries who voted against it were France and Ireland.

This is not a case where we can use a veto. It is a Commission decision. It can only be changed by a qualified majority, and we did put it to the vote. People should not make statements like this because these are the things that discourage farmers. These are the things that give them no confidence in the industry, as if we were not trying to protect them in every possible way.

I have dealt with the cattle sector in a reasonably comprehensive way. But I asked recently in the EEC what was the supply position at present and what were the prospects for the future. There is no doubt but that we all got misleading information and misleading advice a few years ago, when we were told that as far as they could see, in four years ahead, at least, the market was going to be first class in cattle and beef. Now, less than a year later, we have this terrible slump. I have continually agitated to have a section set up in the Commission that would be able to give reliable advice on assessing the market situation and forecasting it and they are setting about doing this.

But the present supply position is that it is at 100.7 of consumption in the EEC. I inquired further into this. It does not take into account the enormous quantity of beef still in intervention stores in the Community. There is 266,000 to 270,000 tons of beef still in intervention. Neither did it take into account the 67,000 or 68,000 cattle the Italians are allowed to bring in. That is one of the reasons I say to farmers who have cattle nearly ready to sell them as soon as they see that the price is good. They can buy younger or leaner cattle again if they want to and get rid of them also as fast as possible, because it ensures that one gets the price while the price is there. It also ensures that one has a fairly even flow of cattle through the processing factory, and one gets greater efficiency in this way in the processing and more competition for cattle. Competition is eliminated when it comes to the fall of the year when the over-supply situation arrives. We had that position all last year. There was no competition.

While I have set up an expert group to review the situation to see how we could make the intervention and the slaughter premium arrangements work more satisfactorily and to try to get a more equitable share of this back to the various levels of production in the country, I cannot say that I am extremely optimistic about the outcome of this, because I know of no country where it has worked. I know that in all of the EEC countries they are completely dissatisfied with the fact that the middle people in the industry have got more than they feel they are entitled to. They are concerned to rectify it and I hope we will be able to find a way because the man at the end of the line is the man who suffers the most. He suffered very heavy losses.

My only regret is that he has ever been in the position where that is the type of farming he carries on. I would hate to feel that there are too many people totally relying on this type of ranch production on a small farm. It never worked and it never will work. Unless we can get these people back into milk, back into pigs or back into something where they can intensify their operations and make better use of their labour and resources, they cannot possibly hope to get an acceptable standard of living from the limited acres they have.

In the case of milk, the producer has an assured market for his output and there are adequate processing facilities in the country now. This is extremely important because at least this ensures that there will be competition for milk if there is none for cattle. Perhaps it does not cheapen processing costs where there is this sort of spare capacity, but it does ensure to the producer that there is going to be competition for milk, and I am glad this is the case. Milk is an enterprise which makes better use of the basic factors of production—land, labour and cattle. I have said on many occasions that more of our farmers, and particularly our smaller farmers, should be in milk where it is practicable. This remains true today.

The outlook today is very promising and I look forward to a substantial increase in output this year. At the moment we are running at 13 per cent up on last year's production. This is very encouraging. It was extremely disappointing that the supply went down last year. I think it went because of the cost of feedingstuffs, which went very high. People rather foolishly decided not to feed as much as they did previously, when in fact it would have paid them to do it. The same goes in relation to fertiliser usage.

I regret to see the price of fertiliser as high as it is. I do not accept that if we had this back completely under the Prices Commission the present price would be very different. While they are no longer responsible for agreeing the price rises, they are continually monitoring what is happening there and have promised that if anything unusual happened which they could not justify they would immediately bring it to our notice. They have not done so. All the various sections of the community are represented on the Prices Commission.

Creamery milk prices, in 1974, increased by 19 per cent. In 1975 they are forecast to increase by a further 25 per cent. Producer prices should therefore reach a record of over 30p per gallon in 1975. Milk production is a very good business at this sort of figure. To realise this price efficiently at all levels of the industry, production and processing, marketing is called for. Are people to go on saying: "We had a mountain of butter before; are we going to get a mountain of butter again? The farmers are afraid?" Farmers used not be afraid. They went on producing in the hope and expectation that things were going to be good at the end.

Mr. Killilea

Last year frightened them.

Mr. Clinton

Of course last year frightened them, but it is not the first time they have been frightened. As long as I remember farmers have been frightened by ups and downs in prices, and indeed in very much worse situations than existed last year. I would argue that with people for a long time. There is a difficulty in the milk sector in so far as there is a very big stock of milk powder. But milk powder is a good product to store. Not long ago I remember when there was a similar situation and people were almost panicking about it, but in less than six months they had not sufficient milk powder in stock to meet the requirements for food aid and other needs they had for milk powder.

I agree with Senator Killilea that, if we could get a subsidy on denaturing this for animal feed, it would be well worth getting. The present position in Europe is that every country is so concerned about the FEOGA budget that it is almost an impossibility to get something extra because the Commission is so tied to the budget. Countries like Germany have no system whereby they can have a supplementary budget. That is where we ran into trouble with the disadvantaged areas scheme. The German Minister for Agriculture could not move off 25 per cent. That was the amount they had decided previously. We could not do anything about it. We had to have an unanimous decision to change the situation.

The pig industry is now recovering. I admit that it has gone through a difficult period. We must also admit that the pig industry only went through a difficult period for six months. In that six months we had wholesale slaughter of sows. I have never seen as bad a situation before. During that period the efficient producers continued to make money. In answer to Senator Dolan, a very large pig producer in his own county made money throughout that period. He was using whey imported from the North of Ireland. This was a big advantage to him. Efficient producers continued to make money during that period. I would say that they are now making very substantial profits. I am pleased that they are.

Mr. Dolan

Yes, but the small farmer is put out of business and the millionaires remain.

Mr. Clinton

We continue saying that the small farmer is being put out of business. Who put him out? It should not be said in such a way as to mean that it was an Irish Minister for Agriculture that was responsible.

Mr. Killilea

Costs, neglect.

Mr. Clinton

I would like to see this spelled out. Where was the neglect that put them out?

Mr. Killilea

Increases in foodstuffs in the pig industry in the last year. That is a well-known fact.

Mr. Clinton

There is quite a percentage of the provender business in farmers' hands and I am glad that they are keeping the prices at quite a low level. They are keeping prices down through competition. We have keener prices than those in Britain.

Mr. Killilea

Why did farmers go out of pigs?

Mr. Clinton

Because for a period of six months they were losing money. Unfortunately, they killed their breeding stock even though they were advised to hold on to their breeding stock, as the situation was only temporary.

Mr. McCartin

No serious professional producer went out of pigs. It was the side-line farmers, who were not committed, who gave them up.

Mr. Clinton

I know a farmer not very far from here and when the depression was at its worst he was expanding. That is the sort of man we want, one who has confidence in the future.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Clinton

I know a man who is not living ten miles from Senator Dolan who made plenty of money on pigs and is still surviving.

Mr. Dolan

A tour of Longford and Cavan would show just how many pig producers there are at present.

An Cathaoirleach

Standing Orders provide 20 minutes for each Senator. They allow no interruptions. The Minister to continue on the motion.

Mr. Clinton

Prices of bacon pigs have increased in recent months and are now at over £33 per cwt. The farmers who got out of pigs were warned that this type of thing would happen. Senator McGowan will say they were put out of pigs. I will not accept that. They were advised to stay in pig production. The prospects are there and I want to see more and more of the smaller farmers going in for pigs. There is no point in going in for them on a small scale with, say, three sows; they will let go immediately the wind blows cold. Ten sows would be the minimum number to start off with and then work up to 20 or 25 sows and rear the progeny.

The pig meal processing firms should be encouraging people. It is not generally known and accepted that grants are available, starting with ten sows and working to 20. A grant will be available, when 20 sows are reached, for the original effort.

Mr. Dolan

On a point of information——

An Cathaoirleach

Might I point out that rising on a point of information is disorderly? The point of information can be made at the end of a speech. When the Minister has concluded his speech if there are specific, brief questions, he will be prepared to answer them.

Mr. Clinton

I want to give all the encouragement possible to people to go in for pigs on that scale. People on small farms or poorer soil will make far more money out of pigs than they will out of any other type of farming. Milk and pigs is the business I would recommend to small farmers.

Mr. Dolan

Well, I respectfully suggest that the starting-off target is too high as regards the number of sows.

Mr. Clinton

But I said already that it is possible to graduate into that. A start of ten can be built up to 20 and then they can qualify for the grant. It should not be beyond the powers of the processing people to find ways and means of financing well-selected people. They need special help to get started.

Mr. Killilea

It would have cost a lot less to keep them in last year than to bring them back now.

Mr. Clinton

What the Senator is saying is that the Government should provide money when the cold wind blows and say: "We will help you over the stile."

Mr. Killilea

It is cheaper—

Mr. Clinton

This is wrong advice. At present much money is being made in pigs. What we should be advising people to do is to build up a fund to cushion them against this valley period. This is the advice I give them. It is the only way to stay in pig production. As far back as I can remember it has been like this—good and bad periods. It will continue to be like that.

Mr. Killilea

I am glad the Minister said that. It is what I was asking him to do—to cushion it.

Mr. Clinton

It should not have to be cushioned by taxpayers' money, by other sections of the community.

Mr. Killilea

It is a semi-State organisation under the Minister for Finance. The taxpayers' money is going back into it.

Mr. Clinton

Are you talking about the ACC?

Mr. Killilea

I am talking about the Irish Sugar Company.

Mr. Clinton

The ACC never did as much to accommodate people. The Irish Sugar Company have strained themselves beyond the limits by providing farmers with £18 a ton. In no place in Europe is the price at that level. If Senator Killilea says that the west of Ireland cannot grow beet unless they get £1.50 more than this, then I think they can forget about growing beet.

Mr. Killilea

Senator Killilea did not say that.

Mr. Clinton

I would like to say a few words on sheep. Sheep slaughterings in 1975 have so far maintained the level reached in 1974. During 1975 markets for mutton and lamb are expected to open up in North Africa and the Middle East. On the question of live exports, to relieve the situation, to improve the price and particularly to improve the price of cast-off ewes and wethers—there has been some criticism of the price of ewes—we have kept the export to the Middle East open. I am hoping to keep it open as long as the weather conditions will allow us to do it. Our main difficulties are well known. Senator Killilea said the best price for lamb in his part of the country was £13. I could quote from "Truth in the News" to indicate that returns over the country gave a better price——

Mr. Killilea

I told the Minister what I got.

Mr. Clinton

The Senator must have a bad sort of lambs. He must have had bad land.

The French market is open again. We have to pay quite a substantial levy going into the French market but I do not want to be blamed for this situation. I have done everything possible to convince the French Minister for Agriculture that he should keep the market open. One Minister did it for me for the whole of 1973. The present Minister has not done it. We have made all our own investigations as to whether or not the French are breaking the law in not allowing us to have an open market into France at all times. The sort of advice that I am getting indicates that we have a case but I cannot be certain.

We shall push it to the limit. The IFA know this: they know we have been working on it for some time but it is something that I would do as a last resort because the French have been good supporters of ours in the agricultural field. We do not want an open conflict with the French if another way out can be found. Unfortunately, I think we have reached the point where another way cannot be found. They are inclined to meet us in ways that I think are inadequate. I intend to pursue this matter all the way because I realise that there is far too much uncertainty and we are largely dependent on the French market.

We have been promised on a number of occasions that the Commission would have proposals for a common organisation of the market for sheep needs. So far they have not done this. The last explanation offered was that there was no point in doing it while there was an uncertainty about whether Britain would stay in the market. Britain are the largest producers and consumers in Europe of sheep and lamb. He has again promised us proposals within the next couple of months. We are making our own plans if these proposals do not come and I hope to be able to apply the necessary pressure.

I should like to say a word about tillage. In so far as crop production is concerned it is too early to forecast the level of acreage which will be planted this year. All the indications that we have from seed sold and so on is that there will be an increase in tillage in the present year. The signs are encouraging. We have spoken about the situation in regard to sugar beet. We all know that it has improved dramatically this year. Farmers have applied to the sugar company for contracts in excess of 80,000 acres. Last year I think it was in the region of 60,000 to 61,000 acres. This represents a very substantial response to the sharply-increased prices for beet. The price of beet this year will be £18 per ton at 16 per cent sugar content, which represents a very substantial increase over the price last year. I hope that farmers will continue to grow beet in this country because not only will it give us the necessary supply of sugar here but in many other ways it is also a valuable crop for feed for animals, both from the tops and beet pulp point of view.

The glasshouse industry is another part of the agricultural scene that has been through a rather rough time. The Government have provided £½ million assistance here which I recognise as not being adequate to meet the situation. It is the best they can do in circumstances of financial stringency that we all have to face and recognise.

Considerable progress has been made in recent times in the implementation of the farm modernisation scheme. Farmers are beginning to understand it. In the advisory service in the Department those who are responsible for administering the scheme are now able to work much faster than at the outset. The backlog of applicants is being shortened at considerable speed. When we have built up sufficient experience of the working of the scheme and sufficient evidence to warrant a change we will certainly do what we can to change it.

I think I have covered possibly most of the points raised by the speakers. If I have missed anything, I am sorry. I have said enough to indicate that there are no grounds for going ahead with the motion. I am quite surprised that the motion, in the changed circumstances, was not withdrawn. I am glad to be able to say that there is now no serious plight of the people engaged in agriculture. I reject this motion completely in the circumstances of the present time.

Mr. McGowan

The Minister has finished on the note on which Senator Butler began—that there was really no need for this motion at all. The Minister and the other speakers from the Government side would give the impression that everything is lovely and that the farmers never had it so good. We have more cattle, pigs, tillage, better prices and the outlook never was so good. The quantity, quality and price for beet and wheat was never better—this is the slogan from the Government side. I would not like to be the vehicle by which that message was conveyed to the farmers. I know I would not get a good reception in some cases. Today we are dealing with a fairly intelligent type of farmer.

I am glad that the Minister welcomed the opportunity in his opening remarks to have the discussion. Senator Butler said there was no need for a discussion, that the number of people leaving the land under the previous Government was 11,000 per year and that it has now slowed down to 6,000 per year. You can argue and play about with these figures but the reality of the plight of the farmers is very much to be seen.

Senator Whyte said we are getting better grants now than ever before and that there are no difficult times in agriculture. He is convinced that things are going well. I had hoped that there would have been a realistic approach from the Government side and that they would have used the opportunity here of spelling out to the Minister the true situation and the hard, down-to-earth problems in the farming industry. Instead of that they ran for cover and hid the facts. They said the farmers are doing well. I think this is a negative approach and certainly one that only somebody who is as little concerned as the present Government are would be expected to take.

Senator O'Brien said that the IFA have paid many tributes to the present Minister and the Department of Agriculture. I would not expect anything else from the leadership of the IFA at the present time. The President of the IFA is totally in the pocket of the Minister. One of the uncomplimentary remarks that the President of the IFA made—he whispered it—was that it took us 12 months to get the Government to understand what the green £ was.

Mr. Clinton

I had intended dealing with the matter but I forgot about it.

Mr. McGowan

There was a lot more that the Minister did not deal with and I would not ask him to deal with it if he was going to continue to give the impression that the farmer's lot was a happy one at the present time. The Minister says the farming industry was never as strong and everybody should look to the future with hope and that we should not criticise him or any of the functions of the Department but that we should be clapping him on the back and saying he is the greatest Minister we have ever had; that if we would all row in behind him things would be much easier. Is that the picture we should take back? I would find it difficult to convince people that was the correct picture.

The Minister has indicated that he has had to accept the farm modernisation package. The Minister is admitting that he knows little of the needs of the people and what would suit them. The Minister refers to the farm modernisation scheme and disagrees with my figures given earlier about the position in County Donegal. I said that the number of applicants is 1,024 as given by a chief agricultural officer at a county committee of agriculture meeting on Monday last and questioned by me. The number accepted for consideration after 12 months is 600 but the number approved is 24. I am very definite about this. The Minister can get as much information as he likes but I am not waffling about my information; it is definite and clear. That shows that the Minister's scheme is not working in County Donegal, where there were 1,024 applications and 24 are accepted. That is a miserable failure. It is no credit to the Minister, to me or to anyone who is interested in agriculture. Fianna Fáil built up the farmers to a point where they could stand on their own feet and face the other sections of the community but, the present Government have put them back on the ground again.

The Minister has accused the farmers in the west of Ireland of trying to act like ranchers. The only thing I would accuse them of is trying to survive at a time when it is on the cards that survival would not be possible. I am surprised at the number who have survived and I would not pay any tributes to the Minister for that.

The Minister referred to the number of cattle we have in storage and how serious it would have been otherwise. The Minister cannot take any credit for introducing the intervention scheme or for the fact that the beef bought into intervention put any great amount of money into producers' pockets. Without intervention the situation would have been disastrous and what happened the cattle industry would have happened the pig industry. The lifebelt was just as much one for the Minister and his Department as it was for those engaged in the cattle industry.

The Minister nicely skipped over the question of the slaughter premium. I do not believe, even after what I have said today, that the Minister has grasped what has happened—that people have made £ millions out of the slaughtering of cattle while the farmers took the hammering and barely survived. It is typical of the attitude which one would expect when Senator Ferris said that we were not honest in our criticism of the Minister. He said the Minister is known as the "The Tiger" in Europe. I would think he is as much of a tiger as he is a good Minister for Agriculture.

The Minister is setting up a commission to look into the cattle industry. The most important announcements we get from the Minister and his Department are those saying that he is going to set up a body or do something. This is the extent of the action from the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. We have had quite a number of these announcements. I am waiting for the results but I do not see any.

The Minister would give us to understand that the pig industry has a bright future. I should like to bring the Minister on a tour to see the number of piggeries which were built, not just for three sows but for more than ten, and there is now no difficulty in getting space for pigs because the grass is growing in them and the birds are building their nests in them. Those people went out of the pig business under the Minister's Administration and with, or without, the Minister's knowledge.

The Minister allowed the industry to go flat. He had no control over it. To say now that the future is bright for the pig industry is small comfort to the hundreds that have finished with the pig industry. They are hardly likely to accept that the future is great. I would ask the Minister to send out his Departmental officials and find out how many closed piggeries there are. The Minister will then scarcely come into the Seanad and tell us that it is our job to know the facts and to inform him.

When we questioned the Minister's total neglect on the question of fertilisers he made a flimsy reference to the Prices Commission having a responsibility and that he is satisfied the job is being done well. This is an unacceptable answer. I will give the Minister details of one fertiliser product which rose by 100 per cent and he did nothing about it.

Mr. Clinton

Rock phosphate rose 300 per cent.

Mr. McGowan

10-10-20 rose by 100 per cent or more from September to March. This is the fertiliser most commonly used. I do not think the Minister's attitude here indicates that he will do anything about it. The same can be said of feeding stuffs and meal. Pig producers went out of business because the Minister neglected, despite the cries for help from those engaged in agriculture, to find out if there was truth in the allegations being made. The Minister stood by and let the people go out of business.

I could go on giving examples for a week. The price of ground limestone doubled in 12 months. The Minister did nothing about that. If the Minister is the tiger of agriculture he is the tamest tiger I have ever met.

Question put and declared lost.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Tuesday, 20th May, 1975.