asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he is satisfied that the slaughter premium will help solve the problems of calf producers and store cattle owners in view of the fact that due to the increasing premium there is a tendency for those fattening cattle to postpone sale to obtain a higher premium.

71.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the steps he is taking to ensure that the intervention price and slaughter subsidy is passed on to farmers; and if he will ensure that the factories will take the cattle from the farmers.

72.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the steps he has taken to ensure some relationship between the price paid for beef at meat factories and the intervention price.

73.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the up-to-date position regarding the reception of cattle at meat factories; and if he expects any improvement in the near future.

74.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he is satisfied that meat factories, which are selling a high percentage of beef into intervention, are paying farmers a fair price in view of the fact that, despite the slaughter subsidy, farmers are receiving a much lower price.

With the permission of the Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 70 to 74, inclusive, together.

The meat factories generally are working to capacity with all-time record slaughterings, but there is an excess of cattle offering at this peak stage of the season. I expect the position to improve in the months ahead as the peak season passes and having regard to factors such as the rising rate of minimum price assured by the meat factories to the end of January, the increase in the EEC slaughter premium up to the end of February and the steps being taken to assist farmers in the matter of feed supplies for over-wintering cattle.

Apart from the assured minimum prices which I have referred to, the prices at which cattle are bought by meat factories is a matter for settlement between the factories and the sellers.

The purpose of the EEC slaughter premium is to encourage the orderly marketing of slaughter cattle. My Department requires proof from the factories and home slaughterers, through which the scheme is operated, that the premium has been paid to the sellers in addition to the market price.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that some factories are paying to the farmers a slaughter premium of 24p to 26p per lb. and are then putting all the cattle into intervention at 35p a lb? Would he not agree that they are thereby making exorbitant profits? I am aware that the factories are making a profit of up to £50 per head in respect of every beast killed in the factories.

I do not follow the Deputy because if a farmer qualifies for the slaughter premium he can hardly qualify for the intervention premium.

The factories are putting the beef into intervention.

There is no evidence that that is the position but if the deputy or anybody else has further information to this effect the Department would be pleased to hear from them.

It is something that is known to every farmer and the Department are aware of it, too.

I am not aware of it.

The Parliamentary Secretary would not be aware of it since he knows nothing.

It is the aim of the Department that in so far as possible the benefits go to the producer and every assistance is given to the producer to ensure that he gets everything to which he is entitled.

If the Parliamentary Secretary will peruse the official returns that were published in the papers a couple of weeks ago in relation to the percentage of the killings that went into intervention he will see that the figure was between 95 and 98 per cent. The farmers who supplied these cattle to the factories received only a slaughter premium of between 22p and 25p per lb. but all the beef went into intervention. Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the factories should have paid the intervention price for the cattle?

I have read in the papers and a number of Deputies have indicated that factories are making profits greater than what could be described as reasonable. However, the farmers' co-operatives own 45 per cent of the factories.

Nonsense. Do not try to mislead the House.

That leaves 55 per cent in the hands of private individuals. Farmers are very intelligent people and are well organised. Therefore I cannot accept that the factories are making a profit of £50 per head.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that that is not correct?

On October 17th the Minister met representatives of the meat exporters and since then he has had meetings with individual firms. It is not for the Department to dictate what prices should be paid for cattle.

The Department are operating the intervention price scheme.

The Minister is very anxious to ensure that benefits by way of intervention or from any other source go in a fair proportion to the producers.

That is not happening.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary——

Deputy Sheridan.

——arrange for a public inquiry to be held into the profits being made by the factories?

The Deputy has had his opportunity. He must resume his seat and allow another Deputy to put a question.

My question was to ask the Minister whether he would intervene in the present crisis that has arisen because of the factories refusing cattle. The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that the farmers control 45 per cent of the factories. That is of no significance. The factories are controlled by a crowd of what I would call new-breed dealers or the new FF—by that I do not mean Fianna Fáil but factory favourites. These are a crowd of gangsters. I know of one of them who took 15 cows from a local mart and put them into a factory and who boasted within a couple of days that his profit on the deal amounted to £450 or £30 per head.

The Deputy is making a statement.

It is a statement that I am prepared to stand by. It is not often that I lend my voice to the various topics that are being discussed here—be they mining or otherwise— but this is one occasion on which I must speak out. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that at present one might as well send a mad dog to a factory gate as to send a cattle producer. These factories are sending their agents to the marts. They are robbing the farmers.

The Deputy has made a series of statements.

There is no point in telling us about farmer control of factories. There is only one family factory in this country and that is owned by a decent family, the Lyons of Longford, and they are taking cattle from the producers. I am not against the decent man who acted as a dealer and who was satisfied with his few pounds. I have done that myself but I am against the robbers.

The Deputy is making a statement.

There is not much point in talking to the small farmer about the ACC or the banks when he is trying to find £6 in the week with which to buy his groceries. This has gone too far.

The Deputy may not continue to make statements.

Regarding Question No. 71, I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary was watching a TV programme the other night when it was admitted that only 80 per cent of the cattle offered at marts were purchased. Surely if the Department are administering the scheme, they should control it. We have no interest in hearing who owns the factories. The fact is that the producers are not being paid the intervention price.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware——

This must be the final supplementary on this question.

I have only asked one supplementary so far.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, in respect of a lot of the cattle that are being put into intervention in the factories, the subsidies are not being paid direct to the farmers?

Could we have a reply to that question?

I appreciate it is difficult for many farmers at present to get their cattle accepted in the marts, that there is an over-supply but by virtue of the changing rates——

We are not talking about that. We are talking about prices.

The Parliamentary Secretary should be allowed to reply.

I am answering questions asked by three Deputies.

The Parliamentary Secretary is not, he is dodging.

If Deputies will not allow the Parliamentary Secretary to reply the Chair will move on to the next question.

The position is that at present there is an over-supply of cattle to meat factories and they have had to refuse them. I anticipate, from the information at the Department's disposal and from the inquiries made by the Minister, that this position will phase out within a short period. When I say a short period I mean within three or four weeks. One big meat processing firm, who also own a mart, made it quite clear that they buy 20 per cent of their intake through the marts. The marts were set up by the farmers and it is the same ownership so far as the marts and the meat factory are concerned.

That is not so.

By and large it is.

That is not so.

They have made public statements that they buy 20 per cent of their cattle in the marts with a view to keeping the mart price——

With a view to getting cheap cattle.

Would Deputy Gibbons allow me to give my viewpoint? I am just as entitled to express my viewpoint as he is to express his.

We will move on to Question No. 75. The Chair is calling Question No. 75.

The factories are not doing their stuff or taking their medicine. I am appealing to the Parliamentary Secretary to stop the slaughter premiums going to them.

The appeal made by Deputy Sheridan will be closely examined.