Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Nov 1971

Vol. 256 No. 11

Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1971: Second Stage.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. J. Gibbons)

I move "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

The sole purpose of this Bill is to increase the ceiling of the contribution payable by county councils towards the finacing of county committees of agriculture. Section 1, sub-section (1), of the Bill is designed to give each county council the power to increase the contribution to its committee of agriculture for the service of agricultural schemes to a sum not exceeding 15 times the produce of a rate of 1p in the £, that is, a maximum of 15p in the £ or 3/-. The existing ceiling was fixed by legislation in March, 1970, at 2s 3d in the £.

Section 1, sub-section (2), of the Bill will enable arrangements validly to be made by county councils prior to 1st April, 1972, for the purpose of financing the committees of agriculture for the financial year 1972-73. Under section 2 the legislation will come into operation on 1st April next, which is the beginning of the local authorities' financial year.

The annual income at present available to the committees of agriculture consists of contributions from their respective county councils together with State grants related to the amounts of such local contributions. The State grant in each case normally approximates to the same amount as the local rates contribution by the county council but, in the case of the 12 committees of agriculture in the western small farm areas, further State assistance is granted by way of a contribution of 75 per cent instead of the normal 50 per cent towards the cost of employing adequate numbers of advisory staff. In the current year 13 of the 27 committees of agriculture obtained from their county councils contributions based on the existing maximum rate.

As in the case of other public bodies and organisations, the general expenditure of committees of agriculture has been increasing in recent years. Also, the progressive expansion in the county advisory service is reflected in the jump in expenditure from a total of £1.2 million in 1965-66 to £2.1 million in 1970-71. The increase is attributable mainly to the employment of more instructors as well as to increases in salaries and expenses of the advisory staffs. The extent of the salary increases granted during the past year, or so, which were necessary to give the advisory staffs increases corresponding to the increases given in the public service generally, could not have been foreseen when the existing maximum of county council contributions was fixed.

The most recent pay awards to instructors employed by committees of agriculture was recommended by a conciliation council which included representatives of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. A case for increases made by chief agricultural officers and deputy chief agricultural officers is at present awaiting determination by an arbitration board which recently heard the case.

Apart from salary costs, a number of other factors have contributed to the increased expenditure of committees of agriculture, namely, higher travelling and subsistence allowances to officers in respect of official duties, attendance at training courses, seminars and conferences both in this country and abroad. Increased allowances are also now payable for the attendance of members of county committees at meetings.

The educational and other agricultural services of the committees have also been expanding. These include new farm education centres, winter farm schools, the pilot areas schemes, the small farms (incentive bonus) scheme and the farm home management advisory scheme. Further advances in most of these areas are necessary if the farming community are to be adequately catered for in the advisory and educational work of the committees. The principal object of these educational courses is to train young adults on the farms to become proficient and to be leaders in good farming practice in their localities.

This Bill, I should explain, is basically an interim measure designed to enable the more hard-pressed committees of agriculture to pay their way in carrying on their very important work until such time as a final decision is reached on the whole future of the agricultural advisory and educational service which, as Deputies know, has been under comprehensive review. The new maximum rate will meet the needs of those county committees which in the immediate future cannot carry on without a contribution in excess of the present permitted maximum. Otherwise, those committees would have to consider curtailing their schemes and possibly the numbers of their advisory staffs. Such a contingency would not only be highly undesirable but would be seriously detrimental to the interests of the farming community.

I am, therefore, suggesting in the Bill that the existing law be amended to empower county councils, where they so decide, to pay to committees of agriculture a contribution up to a maximum of 15 times the produce of 1p in the £, that is a total of 15p in the £, or 3s as compared with the existing maximum of 2s 3d. A number of committees will, I should point out, be able to continue meeting their needs in the immediate future from income derived from significantly lower rates than the maximum now being proposed. Contributions from the Department will, of course, continue to be made on the same pro rata basis as hitherto.

I recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Creed

On behalf of the Fine Gael Party, I should like to welcome this Bill. It is very necessary at this stage to give an increased allocation of money to county committees of agriculture. I would ask the Minister, when he is replying, to be more specific as to what will be the future role of the county committees in the context of the reorganisation of local authorities. We believe that the county committees of agriculture have played a very important part in the improvement of farm incomes and of the services provided for the farming community. It is very important at this stage, prior to entry into the EEC, that the county committee of agriculture would be retained and that county boundaries would be maintained in relation to the county committees of agriculture. Rather than reduce their powers, I would strengthen the functions of county committees of agriculture. They have proved to be effective and efficient in the administration of services provided for the benefit of the agricultural community. We must anticipate a great deal of change and we must examine the future activities and the role of the county committees of agriculture. I would be in favour of bringing within the ambit of the county committees of agriculture many schemes not now administered by them. For example, land project schemes could be operated much more effectively by county committees of agriculture than they are at present by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. In the case of a land project scheme, the person concerned is involved in a considerable amount of work and is subject to visits from departmental inspectors to ensure that the scheme is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Department. Very often there is considerable delay which causes frustration in the matter of grant applications.

For five or six years I have been a member of a county committee of agriculture and have taken a very keen interest in the working of that committee. To my knowledge, a good number of people avail of the facilities provided at the office and use it as an information centre. Anybody involved in a scheme administered by that county committee of agriculture can go to the county hall if he is in any difficulty and there meet the CEO or deputy CEO or one of the staff so as to get the necessary advice. Therefore, I say that particularly at this point in time, where change is indicated, the powers of county committees of agriculture should be strengthened rather than reduced.

The only criticism that I have of the provisions of this Bill is that I doubt if they are sufficient. In his introductory statement the Minister referred to the agricultural advisory service. I should like to pay tribute to that service. Great advice has been given by that service to the agricultural community. This matter represents the greatest drain on the financial resources of county committees.

There is one point which I took up with the Minister's predecessor in connection with the small farm incentive bonus scheme. This is a very desirable scheme which has brought benefit to some of our smaller farmers. It is true to say, however, particularly in regard to Cork, and the south generally, that the office dealing with the scheme is understaffed and that in order to deal with the flood of applications the staff must be increased. This would involve increased financial commitment. Therefore, I have doubts as to whether the provision made in the Bill will be sufficient to meet the increased costs resulting from the increased services that will be demanded in future and the increased cost of administration.

In my view there will be increased demand on the agricultural advisory service, particularly in view of the change in planning and programming of farming generally. Advice is being sought to a greater extent than ever. This will involve increased costs for the county committees of agriculture in excess of the contribution that this Bill will enable them to get from the county council.

In relation to the agricultural advisory service, there is an increasing backlog of work, particularly in Cork. They find it difficult to meet the demands made on them in relation to soil testing. Soil testing is important. It determines the application of lime and fertilisers for the production of top quality grass, which is a vital factor in farm income. Silage is regarded as a very important winter feed. In the county committee of agriculture there are not sufficient instructors to meet the demand.

While reorganisation may be necessary, it is absolutely essential that there should be a long, hard look at the workings of county committees of agriculture at this stage. The county committees have themselves studied this matter for quite a long time with a view to making recommendations and having the necessary changes made. The present structure where each of the 27 committees provide an agricultural advisory service has been in existence since 1931. It will be generally accepted and conceded that these services have a lasting effect on farming progress to keep in line with the changes that will be demanded on our entry to the EEC. For that reason the functions of the advisory service should be examined so as to avoid overlapping in the functions of the county committees of agriculture. For example, if instead of county councils being in charge of slaughterhouse inspection, sheep dipping, and so on, all these things could be administered by the county committees of agriculture, there would be much more efficient administration from the point of view of the farming community.

I shall be brief on the Second Reading of this Bill in view of the fact that the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will be before us in a week or two, when I shall have some more to say. I welcome the Bill. It is very necessary. I want to assure the Minister that the Bill will have the full support of the members of this party.

Mr. Meaney

I, like the last speaker, would like to welcome the Bill and to refer to the important role that county committees of agriculture play in the existing agricultural set-up. They employ many instructors in the various fields and they see that the whole system by which farmers can better themselves is made to function properly. I notice here that in the western small farm areas the State will be paying a contribution of 75 per cent instead of the normal 50 per cent towards the cost of employing adequate numbers of advisory staff. That is a good thing, and I would hope the Minister would go even further to help out those areas. It may be said that the rates are paid for those people under £20 valuation, but many of them have to pay very high rates on their buildings and dwelling houses. The people with small holdings deserve all the help we can possibly give them. It is often difficult for the county councils to pay large sums for them, and I would ask the Minister to consider going the whole way by giving a 100 per cent contribution to the 12 committees of agriculture in the western small farm areas.

It is a good thing that the county committees of agriculture can avail of the conciliation council which deals with rates of pay and conditions of employment for instructors. Some people have the idea that the different committees of agriculture should be sorting out these matters themselves, but it is desirable to have a uniform system for the whole country. In regard to the appointment of agricultural instructors, I often think it is very degrading for somebody who has been educated to the stage where he gains an agricultural science degree to have to ask us for our votes, and very often people do not know for whom they are voting. A selection board should be set up by each committee of agriculture for the purpose of selecting instructors. However, that subject can be discussed further when the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture comes before the House.

Deputy Creed mentioned the matter of soil testing. It is very important that the backlog in relation to soil testing should be cleared off so that everyone, whether he is growing grass, grain or root crops will know what to apply to the soil. The agricultural instructor of today has a great deal more to do than the instructor of 15, 20 or 25 years ago. He has to be well versed in pilot area schemes, small farm schemes, home management advisory services and so on. It is vital for our farming community that the best men should be appointed to these jobs. They are not overpaid and whenever an increase in their remuneration is due the committees of agriculture should be in a position to meet it and also to increase the number of instructors as required in the different counties.

There is not very much criticism one can make on this Bill, and I think it is a measure which will be welcomed generally.

Mr. Bruton

As well as accounting for the changeover to decimalisation this Bill provides an increase in the permissive limit of support for the county committees of agriculture from the county councils and as such it will be welcomed and, indeed, has been welcomed by all sides of the House.

There are a few points I wish to raise in relation to the county committees. There should be some form of guaranteed minimum representation on the county committees for rural organisations, particularly farming organisations. They have a part to play alongside the democratically-elected public representatives in shaping agricultural policy in the locality, and I hope the Minister will consider such a provision.

There is often danger that the activities of the county committees of agriculture tend to get an unrepresentative Press. Very often what gets the publicity are the sensational statements which are made by certain members of county committees and which are not truly representative of the good, solid work being done without publicity by the committees. This is unfortunate, because I think it is fair to say that most committees are doing very good, methodical work which is not rewarded in terms of publicity but is rewarded in terms of results for their own areas.

In looking at the county committees we tend to see them in their advisory roles and not in their educational role. County committees have played a very significant role in providing scholarships for various types of education for young people who are interested in farming in their areas. This is something for which there is considerable room for expansion.

It is important also that the county committees should be integrated into the overall scheme of regional development which is taking place at the moment. There are these regional development boards which have recently been set up by the Department of Local Government on which county councils are represented, as are port and docks boards and a number of other bodies who have an interest in regional development. There is an equally strong case for the representation of county committees of agriculture on these regional development boards, because they have just as much interest in regional development, in the development of regional services and regional infrastructure, as many of the bodies are at present represented.

It is important that the advisers in their ordinary work should be perfectly free to turn to any quarter for advice which they feel is necessary in order to give the farmers the best service. There should not be any attempt to channel all inquiries from county committee advisers to the Department of Agriculture experts. The instructors should be free to get in touch with whoever they believe is able to give them the information they want in a hurry. In any organisation there is a tendency to empire-building and no one organisation should have a monopoly in advising and helping the advisers. One of the ideas behind the Mansholt proposals, in addition to the technical agricultural advice, is the development of socio-economic advice. I must confess to being a little vague as to what this means. The idea is that farmers should be advised in the more general financial farm management as distinct from strictly farming matters, and they should be advised of their rights under the Health Acts and in regard to matters affecting their financial position and family welfare. The agricultural advisers should be in a position to give this advice or, alternatively, there should be specialist advisers to give farmers such advice. I am not sure that the setting up of such a service for this purpose would be wise at all. Very often the agricultural adviser is the only adviser of any description, agricultural or otherwise, to visit a particular house from one end of the year to another. It is important that he should be qualified to give advice over a wider area than the strictly agricultural. There might be a case for short courses for agricultural advisers in the general field of social legislation and other areas which might be of help—for instance, matters in relation to financial management and so on.

The Minister referred to the small farm incentive bonus scheme. This scheme is administered by the county committees at the moment. It is fair to say that the basic principle of this scheme is completely in line with the principles laid down in the Mansholt proposals. There is this idea of an overall target for the farm, which should reach a particular limit within a planned period. Perhaps the main objection to the operation of the present small farm incentive bonus scheme is that it is so limited. It is limited to a certain category of farmer. There are many farmers who could not reach the limits and who do not qualify. In addition, there are a number of farmers whose starting point is too high to enable them to enter into the scheme. It is fair to say that the whole idea of development planning over a five-year period which lies behind the small farm incentive bonus scheme is something which can be of benefit to farmers starting off at a point above the limit at present covered by this scheme. If we are to be in line with the proposals advocated by the EEC we should consider the extension of the scope of this scheme and the application of its very sensible principles to a much wider range of farm enterprises.

One of the main problems in the county committees at the moment is the fact that agricultural advisers find it difficult to obtain promotion opportunities without having to leave their own counties. If figures are examined on this point, it will be found that the rate of movement of advisers from one county to another is high. This is not a good development in one way. While what one learns at university is useful, what one learns about the specific conditions in the county in which one is working is probably even more valuable as a source of advice to the farmers whom the adviser is meeting. The accumulation of specific local knowledge is severely disrupted if the adviser is moved from one county to another in quick succession.

The reason why an adviser moves is that he finds that the prospects for promotion are not good in the county in which he is employed. There are not many grades within the advisory service. There are the grades of adviser, deputy CAO and CAO. The adviser may find that if he wants to become a CAO he may often be forced to move. If a young man is appointed as CAO an adviser in the same age group in the same county knows that he can never achieve that rank in that county because the young man will be in that position for many years to come. Instead of remaining in the county where he has gathered much local experience he has an incentive to move to some other county where his chances of becoming a CAO are better. This is not a desirable development. A man might move from Meath, where the farming is of a particular type, down to the west or south of Ireland where the farming is quite different. He has then to learn about the conditions in the new area.

There is a need for a career structure within the advisory service which would give an incentive to men to stay in the areas in which they are working. There are a number of possible approaches to this problem. A special increment should be given to a man for each year he stays in a particular place. A man could be given more money for staying ten years in a particular place even though his grade remains the same. Perhaps another grade, intermediate between that of adviser and CAO, could be created— possibly some sort of specialist grade for a man providing specialist information to the advisers. There is also the question of integrating the advisory service with the administrative service, namely, the service of inspectors for the various local land projects, farm buildings schemes, and other schemes. It might not be desirable to do this. There might be some way of creating new grades which would provide opportunities of promotion. This is something which should be examined. I am not going to make a categorical recommendation about this, because there may be some difficulty. A man might be doing an inspection job which would involve criticising a farmer for something he has done, and then find that he is visiting him on a later date in his capacity as adviser, coaxing him to do something he wants him to do. This might create difficulty.

Last year Deputy Hogan mentioned the seeds subsidy scheme, which at present is administered by the county council, and said that the scheme should be administered by the county committees of agriculture. I would have thought that this Bill would be an appropriate one in which to make this rather obvious change. I ask the Minister to consider this matter carefully.

I would recommend this Bill to the House. It at least involves the possibility of giving more money to the county committees of agriculture for the valuable work they are doing.

Mr. J. O'Leary

It is gratifying to note that it is proposed to allow the county councils to increase their contributions to the county committees of agriculture from a maximum level of 2s 3d in the £ to 3s in the £. This will enable the county committees to expand their services and to do more work. At the same time it will mean that their estimates of expenses for the coming year will be higher. This will attract a higher State grant as well for the county committees. In other words, more money will be spent by each county committees of agriculture as a result of this Bill because the councils will be in a position to increase their contributions as a result of the increased State grants. I believe that certain proposals and suggestions which have been made from time to time to have county committees of agriculture abolished should not be entertained. The county committees of agriculture should be maintained.

You cannot beat the county spirit in any effort. Whatever we may say about regionalisation it is necessary in many fields but matters relating to agricultural advisory services should be operated entirely on a county basis because the size of holdings, the method of farming and the method of deriving income from agriculture varies from county to county.

I would like to avail of this opportunity to congratulate the agricultural instructors throughout the country who are doing such an excellent job on behalf of the county committees of agriculture. These men work very hard and often under difficult circumstances to assist farmers and they are available at all times to advise them. They are doing a very useful job indeed.

I would like to see certain other services integrated with the advisory service at present carried out by the county committees of agriculture. I see no reason why the land project offices could not be amalgamated with the county committee of agriculture. I also believe that certain operations carried out locally by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries could be carried out by the local instructors, such as the farm buildings scheme. Generally speaking one officer should be in a position to advise the farmer about the development of his holding or about land drainage. The fact that one man is offering advice on different matters should not in any way conflict with his duties in regard to recommending the payment of grants under the land project scheme.

The same applies to farm buildings. I cannot see how the duties of an agricultural instructor, in his capacity as adviser, could conflict with his duties as an officer advising on buildings, recommending agricultural grants and recommending the payment of grants afterwards, if these duties were assigned to one man. This proposal should be investigated fully.

I believe the county committees of agriculture should be allowed to operate model farms. County committees of agriculture could have model farms in different parts of a county representing the average size of a holding in that particular county. For example, in certain parts of a sheep area you could have a model sheep farm, a model small farm and a model large farm. You could also have a model farm based on beef and a model farm based on milk. The county committees of agriculture should be allowed to develop such model farms.

I do not agree with the suggestion made here that the majority of the members of the county committees of agriculture should be nominated by bodies; all members of county committees of agriculture should be elected. It is very desirable that members representing the agricultural community should be elected to those committees. The only exception I would make would be in the case of co-option if a vacancy occurred during the term of office of that county committee of agriculture.

I would like, in conclusion, to pay tribute again to the Minister for bringing in this Bill which enables the councils and ultimately the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the State to pay more money to improve the agricultural advisory service and to carry on this important work until such time as a final decision is taken on the whole future of the agricultural advisory and educational service.

Mr. Governey

I join with the previous speakers in welcoming this Bill. I am pleased to note that the Minister stated in his speech:

This Bill is, I should explain, basically an interim measure designed to enable the more hard-pressed committees of agriculture to pay their way in carrying out their very important work until such time as a final decision is reached on the whole future of the agricultural advisory and educational service which, as Deputies know, has been under comprehensive review.

I hope that it will not take too long to reach finality in this respect.

With regard to the Bill itself I am glad to see from it that the maximum rate from county councils is to be increased. As far as I know we have reached the maximum rate in Carlow County Council. Anything that can be done to increase the advisory services of these county committees of agriculture is certainly very welcome. I should like to pay a tribute to the staff of the county committee of agriculture in my own county. The previous speaker asked that we do not abolish county committees of agriculture. I think that what he was really thinking about was their reorganisation. I believe county boundaries should be maintained. Problems differ from county to county. In Carlow the problems would be different from those obtaining in Laois, Kilkenny or Kildare. It is imperative that county boundaries should be maintained.

I hold the view that the members of local authorities elected to these agricultural committees should be people with an interest in agriculture, people experienced in agriculture and with a knowledge of agriculture. Members should not be elected because of party affiliations. This is a pet theory of mine. I have been a member of Carlow County Council for 23 or 24 years now and I have never offered to go forward as a member of the agricultural community, because I believed there were councillors who had much more experience of agriculture than I had and, in the interests of the agricultural community, only those councillors versed in agriculture should be elected to the agricultural committees.

The more the services of these committees can be expanded the better it will be. I have paid tribute to the work done by the agricultural advisers. Anything that can be done to expand these services will be very welcome indeed. This is an interim measure. I trust that future measures will be designed in the interests of the agricultural community, that community which is, as has been so truly said, the backbone of the country.

It was stated here that a number of committees will be able to continue meeting their needs in the immediate future from income derived from significantly lower rates than the maximum now being proposed. I would like the Minister to tell us the number. Where grants are concerned, such as grants for farm building schemes and water supply schemes, payment is very slow.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would not arise at this stage.

Mr. Governey

Perhaps I am out of order, but I would draw the Minister's attention to the delay in the payment of these. I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Taylor

I, too, welcome this Bill. It proposes to raise the ceiling in the case of the contribution requisite for financing the administration of committees of agriculture. It would be a negative approach for anyone in Opposition to oppose a Bill just because he is in Opposition and it would be wrong for anybody in an agricultural country like ours to refrain from giving encouragement to an industry which, now that we are going into Europe, will require all the backing it can get to help it to adjust. That is particularly true in the case of small farmers.

Agricultural committees have been in operation for many years. Their work has been very successful and has resulted in a rich harvest. There is appreciation of their activities and their energies. The best evidence of their work was displayed in the pilot schemes on the west coast. The agricultural instructors, the officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the officials of the Land Commission and the officials of the land project scheme all combined to increase productivity in these pilot areas. The work was magnificent and the achievements in Clare were particularly noteworthy. First of all, the Land Commission set out to divide estates and to enlarge small holdings; the land project officials drained those holdings and Department of Agriculture and Fisheries officials advised on farm improvements, erection of new out-offices, dairies and all buildings necessary on a farm. That was one of the most intelligent schemes of the Department and if a lesson is to be learned from the information gained in that activity now is the time to apply it all over the country. There must be co-operation and proper understanding between all officers engaged in improving agriculture. That is vital.

The small farm bonus incentive scheme has been very successful but some people are debarred because their valuation is too high and I think it is necessary to raise the limit to allow a greater number of farmers to qualify for inclusion in the scheme. If we must have larger farms under Common Market conditions now is the time to consider raising the valuation limit.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is outside the scope of this Bill which deals only with committees of agriculture and the provision of money for them.

Mr. Taylor

I am making a suggestion which I think will come within the activities of committees of agriculture and which I suggest should come from those committees. These committees could give some thought to this matter and make a recommendation to the Minister.

I am familiar with the work of all these officials in every capacity—the instructors, horticultural instructors and home management instructresses —and with the way in which they have built up contacts in their districts. It is good policy to encourage young men or women from particular areas to go back and work in those areas. They are familiar with the territory and have contact with the people and therefore I believe they are the best people to advise and would be better received in their own areas. Home management instructresses, who do an excellent job, should be permitted when they marry to return to their employment especially in view of the valuable contacts they have made in their work areas. It would take a long time for others to build up the goodwill they have established and it is worth while maintaining continuity.

There is a suggestion of better concessions and travelling allowances being made to members of these committees. I think if the Minister permitted representation from farm organisations such as the NFA, ICMSA and the ICA, they could make a valuable contribution. They have grassroots knowledge of the problems and there is no sound reason why a committee of agriculture should not acknowledge the valuable contribution such people could make. That would be much preferable to what exists in some cases, one party representation. Whether it is entirely Fianna Fáil or entirely Fine Gael or entirely Labour it is undemocratic and such a type of structure in a committee of agriculture should not be encouraged in any county. It does not make for good relationships.

In the 12 western counties where perhaps a greater contribution is made— about 75 per cent instead of the normal 50 per cent—towards the cost of employing instructors and an advisory service, it seems that if the much talked of "Save the West" campaign which has hit the headlines over the years is to be really effective, committees of agriculture must be given much greater power and much more State finance must be injected through these committees into the small holdings of the western counties.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a matter of general policy. This Bill is concerned with allowing county councils to increase the amount of their contributions to committees of agriculture.

Mr. Taylor

I am suggesting to the Minister that he should give committees of agriculture in the 12 western counties a rate higher than the suggested rate of 75 per cent. If adopted, that suggestion would, I think, show results.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not contesting the Deputy's point of view but is pointing out that this Bill is solely concerned with permission to raise the rate that can be paid.

Mr. Taylor

I see that, but I am suggesting further increases.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Estimate for Agriculture would be the appropriate occasion for that.

Mr. Taylor

Yes, but I see nothing wrong in making my recommendation since it has been stated by the Minister that 75 per cent was allocated. I am suggesting that if we are to further development in the western counties a greater injection of finance is now necessary and on that note I end my contribution.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am glad there is to be an increase in the amount of money available to committees of agriculture. We are all aware that the value of money has depreciated and many committees of agriculture are in strait jackets. They cannot afford to employ agricultural advisers or to increase their services. I beleive that even more money should be spent on agriculture, that we are only scratching the surface. The amount of money that has been contributed within the last few years—the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is uneasy?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is uneasy.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I should like to have you at your ease before I start off.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has already pointed out to other Deputies that this Bill is solely confined to allowing county councils to increase their contributions to committees of agriculture.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I thought I was skirting that fairly well.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not indulge in a debate on agriculture or agricultural policy.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am not dealing with that. If I were, I would start on a different note. I hope to keep within the bounds you have set for me.

This extra money that is to be given by the county councils to the committees of agriculture is very badly needed. We in Cork county had serious difficulties and at various times we asked the powers that be for consent to get an increase in this amount. The western part of Cork county should be treated like other parts of the west. We did not get that concession. Even though it is coming now it is a bit late and a bit too small. However, it is better late than never. There is plenty of room to spend this little extra contribution.

I have been a member of Cork County Committee of Agriculture for many years. There is no doubt that many great advances have been made. I remember when we had only eight or nine instructors in our advisory service in Cork; now we have about 29. We need a large amount of money to provide for these services. It is the feeling of the farming community down there that, especially with the approach of the Common Market, we should be making even greater progress. There are several services we are still not able to give. I shall confine myself to one aspect which I have discussed with the Minister on various occasions—getting rid of disease in sheep. We have been tinkering for years with sheep scab and various other diseases which other countries have got rid of in a very short time. We have not the money to do the job. Our sheep dipping stations are badly in need of repair. We are looking to the county councils to do that for us. We asked for help from the Department, financial and otherwise, to deal with disease in sheep but we did not succeed in getting it. I hope the Minister will take steps to see that money is provided for these things that are so badly in need of being done.

We have made some progress in regard to dairying. We are working within financial limits and we badly need more money. We would need more inspectors for the inspection of slaughter houses. I hope the Minister will refer to this when replying. If we go into the EEC our meat factories and their products will have to be first quality and in order to have that we must have inspectors going around to the factories and keeping them on their toes to see that what they produce is first class and fit to be sent to any country in the world.

The advisory service is probably the most important service the farmers have and, while improvement was rapid for a number of years, I think at present more advisers in each county would pay very well. The amount that has been granted here, up to 15p in the £, is still on the small side. I am sure the Minister, as a practical farmer and as a member of a committee of agriculture for a number of years himself, will realise that. If he consulted the committees of agriculture before deciding on this small increase they would probably ask him for something considerably more. The Minister should keep in close touch with the committees of agriculture. They are in touch with the grassroots and would be able to inform him just as well as some of his senior advisers who were themselves in that position many years ago. I would prefer if the county councils were to give at least another 1p in the £ more to agriculture. I do not think there is any better way in which we could spend any extra money we have. It would be in the interests not alone of the agricultural community but of the whole country if we geared up our advisory and other services to the greatest extent we possibly can in the short time at our disposal.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. J. Gibbons)

I should like to thank the Deputies from Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil—we had no contribution, as far as I know, from the Labour Party—who welcomed this Bill. Certain features stand out in the debate. One is the consciousness of the fact that, while we are all very grateful for and appreciative of the yeoman service that has been given to us down through the years by the advisory services, it is time the service was reorganised and improved. As I said in my opening address, this small amendment Bill is an interim measure until such time as a new and better service is provided. Deputy Creed, Deputy Meaney, Deputy O'Leary and Deputy Bruton referred to the desirability of linking up the advisory service with other farm services such as the farm buildings scheme and the land project. This is a logical and sensible suggestion. I would rather have a type of farm development service which would embrace the provision of buildings, the drainage of land, soil testing and other ancillary services of that kind than the present advisory service where a farmer merely gets advice on specific matters. Those Deputies who spoke seem to share this view.

One of the Deputies referred to the desirability of expanding and improving the small farm bonus incentive scheme. I should like to see this development take place because it is a very important part of the service as administered at present by committees of agriculture.

Deputy Bruton and another Deputy referred to the desirability of the representation of farm organisations on county committees. I agree with this. My colleague from Carlow-Kilkenny, Deputy Governey, said it was one of his per aversions that people get places on committees of agriculture for purely narrow, political reasons. I share Deputy Governey's point of view that this is plainly destructive and obstructive. It is of no political value whatever, which is the main interest of politicians but worse than that it tends to produce a committee who are less useful than they ought to be. I agree with those Deputies who said that such county committees should be manned by people who have practical experience and knowledge of the requirements of farming.

Deputy Bruton referred to the promotional opportunities and their limitations in the matter of advisory staff and as far as I can see this is true. I hope that a reconstructed and centralised advisory service will provide somewhat more mobility and certainly more opportunities for promotion for staff. I am sure rural Deputies are familiar with advisers who are specialists in some particular field—it may be animal breeding, animal nutrition, cereal production or something of that kind. Occasionally one comes across an adviser who has specialist knowledge in one of these fields and his service should be available to farmers other than those in his own county. A service that would provide the necessary mobility for such a person is desirable.

Deputy Bruton, Deputy Creed and Deputy O'Sullivan referred to sheep dipping, although they were out of order in doing so. I agree that sheep are not being dipped adequately at present. In the last couple of weeks I have been discussing this problem with officers of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. In my own area there have been some outbreaks of sheep scab in recent times. This arises from the fact that statutory dippings are not being given. Something will have to be done about this, but, as I say, we were all a little out of order in talking about that but I am sure the Chair will forgive us because it is an important matter.

Deputy Bruton also referred to the educational functions of the committees of agriculture. I want to pay a great tribute to the unselfish and devoted way in which advisers all over the country have gone out winter after winter to little, cold, drafty rural halls to conduct lectures and give instructions to young farmers and farmers who are not so young, which have been of great assistance to them. I would like to see the farming community in general look upon the advisory service as something which is there for their benefit. The main function of an advisory service is not so much a kind of spot treatment for an acute condition but the evolution for each farmer, looking for a service, of a long-term farm production plan which would involve the baring of his financial soul, the examination of his soil, the preparation of a long-term farm plan, the keeping of records and books and their periodic examination by a farmer, his adviser, possibly his bank manager and the ACC as well. This is the type of development we shall have to get. The jog-along type of farm instruction that farmers give their sons—and we who are farmers will be familiar with this—will not be adequate in the future. We want to begin thinking about specific agricultural instruction for young men entering farming in future, but that again is a little beside the point. I want to thank those Deputies who contributed to the debate on the Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages today.