Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jul 1974

Vol. 274 No. 5

Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1974: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

The sole purpose of this short Bill is to enable county councils to give increased contributions where necessary towards the financing of county committees of agriculture in the local financial year commencing 1st January, 1975.

The committees of agriculture are financed each year by means of contributions from their respective county councils together with State grants related to such contributions. The State grant normally approximates to the local rates contribution by the county councils, but in the case of the 12 committees of agriculture in the small farms areas of the west and north-west of the country, 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.

The existing statutory ceiling of county council contributions, which has been in operation since 1st April, 1972, is a sum not exceeding 15 times the produce of a rate of 1p in the £ in the area consisting of the county, exclusive of any urban areas therein. Under section 1 subsection (1) of this Bill, it is proposed to increase the ceiling to 40p in the £ with effect from 1st January, 1975. This maximum does not, of course, make it mandatory on county councils to reach it or, indeed, to meet the demands of committees of agriculture, unless they see fit.

Section 1 subsection (2) would enable county councils to make any necessary preliminary arrangements during the current financial year with a view to adopting a suitable rate contribution, within the proposed new maximum, in respect of the coming financial year.

Over the past decade there has been a considerable expansion in the agricultural advisory services, the total number of advisory staff under the committee has in that period almost doubled from 354 to 654. There is still a need, however, for further strengthening these services in most counties. In recent times I have approved of the creation by each of the 27 committees of agriculture of a post of deputy chief agricultural officer with special responsibility for educational matters. In addition, there will now be over 70 posts of senior instructor the holders of which will supervise, under the CAO, the work of all advisers in a particular advisory district. A significant development in recent years has been the provision of much needed headquarters for committees of agriculture, and also the provision of new agricultural education centres. To date 16 such centres have been provided at a total cost of some £415,000, and my Department have paid a total of £183,000 in grants towards the centres. A further seven centres are under construction. I have recently increased the maximum grant towards the cost of each approved centre from £15,000 to £20,000.

In the year 1973-74 ten committees were on a rate between 14.5p and 15p (maximum) in the £, while a further ten committees were in receipt of the produce of a rate between 12p and 14p in the £. Increased salaries have contributed to the deterioration in the finances of all committees, whose staff, in addition to having secured increased remuneration under conciliation and arbitration proceedings, have been granted the benefits of the national wage agreements, including the 15th round which was payable from 1st June of this year.

This Bill is required, and is, in fact, essential to ensure that those committees which in the immediate future cannot carry out their statutory functions on their present incomes, will be permitted to seek sufficient funds to enable them to do so. Some committees either now have or will have substantial deficits on 31st December next. Unless action is taken now the position will deteriorate further.

I would see an advantage in having the statutory upper limit abolished entirely, if only with a view to avoiding an over-frequent resort to amending legislation which is inevitable in present circumstances of undue restriction on the necessary contribution from the rates. I am advised, however, that the abolition of a maximum rate contribution as it exists would not be feasible unless it were substituted by other statutory amendments which would confer new powers on me thus limiting the activities and finances of the individual committees of agriculture. Because of the administrative and other difficulties this would involve and more particularly as it would remove from the committees and from the county councils a responsibility which desirably they would have, I consider that the present system should continue, but that the maximum rate contribution should be fixed at a sufficiently high level to permit committees of agriculture to perform their functions without an undue pre-occupation with trying to avoid deficits.

In the circumstances I consider that the existing maximum rate contribution of 15p in the £ should be increased to 40p in the £. Accordingly, I recommend the Bill to the House.

The Minister in his opening paragraph described this as a short Bill. He could have gone further and said that it is also quite an expensive Bill. By enacting it as legislation we will increase the contribution in many counties from the maximum of 15p, which it now is in ten counties, to 40p. The difference as far as County Limerick is concerned is something in the region of £125,000 a year on the ratepayers of that county. I accept that there is need for more money because the expenses of the county committees of agriculture are much greater now than ever before. The Minister said:

Increased salaries have contributed to a deterioration in the finances of all committees, whose staff, in addition to having secured increased remuneration under conciliation and arbitration proceedings, have been granted the benefits of the national wage agreements, including the 15th round which was payable from 1st June of this year.

I would not have expected any Minister of any Government to lay the blame for the poor finances of county committees of agriculture on the just rights of the employees of those committees. We all know that in years gone by the demands on the county committees of agriculture were small and few in comparison with what they now are. We have heard, those of us who are not old enough to have attended, about the old winter farm schools. This was one of the principal ways in which the agricultural instructor of the day communicated with the farming community. He went along, sometimes in his bicycle, and later when people became slightly more prosperous, in his car, to different parts of his area to communicate, to educate, to inform and discuss with those involved in agriculture and to do his best to help them in every way.

Things have changed considerably. There are now far greater demands on the system and I believe that it is the greater demands on the system rather than increase in the salaries of small numbers of people that has led to the deterioration of the financial resources of the committees. The days of the old winter farm classes are over. We now have demands for farm schools in the daytime where young people want to learn more about agricultural skills, to be fully briefed on machinery, its operation and maintenance. They want to be fully briefed in building and the mechanics of building so that in the present age of raging inflation if they have to build they want to be able to do it themselves. There are many more areas of operation in which these services are required. They should become much more involved with the farming community and give their technical and academic skills to the people who are looking for this information.

We know many of our voluntary farming organisations have good plans that could benefit the agricultural community. We know there is much more that has to be done, particularly in the small farm counties, where many of the young people who will take over family farms will not have the benefit of having spent a couple of years in an agricultural college and certainly will not be able to avail of agricultural studies at third level education. This is the principal reason why the extra money is needed, not for the reason the Minister stated. He devoted practically a full paragraph to the increased salaries. Of course, they have contributed but this is not the major reason for the increased money.

We all accept there will be much greater demands on our county committees of agriculture and our advisory services. Let us be very clear, as we are on this side of the House, that it is wrong of the Minister and the Government to think that the present system of financing these committees is a good one. It is not a good system in this day and age. I am very disappointed that the Minister did not come in here this morning and give us new methods of financing local committees of agriculture. As I said, the difference in income between 15p and 40p in the county of Limerick alone is £125,000. If the Minister or his officials think it is right that old age contributory pensioners, who must pay their rates, should be asked to pay more to provide services for the farming community, then I think something is wrong.

We know that these services have to be provided. Something should be done about the system. The Minister has a glorious opportunity to do something about it but he has again reneged on one of his responsibilities. In the latter part of his brief he said he considered the present system should continue. This can only be interpreted as proof of the Minister's intention to do nothing in the near future, or for however long he is Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, to relieve the burden on the rates when it comes to financing local committees of agriculture. We know from him that in certain circumstances and in special cases some committees do not have to pay the ordinary ratio, the Department putting up half the cost and the local county committee putting up the other half. This ratio is in operation in some counties. We had from the Minister this morning a statement that in certain counties, the western and north-western counties, the Department pay 75 per cent of the finances of the county committees of agriculture.

The fact that the Minister is increasing the limit of the maximum from 15p to 40p is an indication that he wants to do a clean-cut operation so that, as he says, he can get this job over with once and for all. It appears that having completed his job here today, he wants to put this extra burden particularly on poorer people who cannot afford to pay their rates, and to put this file into a drawer, lock it up and say that this job is out of the way for many years to come. Until such time as the maximum of the 40p is reached, he will not have to bother again. He feels he will not have to hit the ratepayers again as hard as he hit them today and perhaps when the next general election comes they will have forgotten that Deputy Mark Clinton, Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, came into the Dáil and, as far as County Limerick alone is concerned, hit the people for £125,000.

It is a great performance but it is untrue.

Not in the least. I would welcome, at this stage with the permission of the Chair, any interjection the Minister may make to prove that what I am saying is wrong. I know we cannot enter into a cross-examination on it but what I am saying is perfectly true. If the Minister tries glibly to suggest, through a brief interjection, that what I am saying is untrue then I say to him he is either not aware of the facts, is not fully briefed, is not accepting his brief from his advisers or is deliberately trying to mislead this House to say in a nice, friendly, smiling but glib way that what I am saying is untrue.

Let every Deputy work out what the difference in income will be in his own county when the maximum is increased from 15p to 40p. It is very easy to work that out because one penny on the rates in County Limerick will bring in £5,000. If the Minister wants me to do a multiplication sum for him I will do it but he can accept from me that it is a £125,000 increase in Limerick. I accept that more money is needed to provide more and more services but if these services are to be provided let us not cripple the urban people, those living in the villages and towns throughout the country, small shopkeepers struggling to eke out a living against the many supermarkets.

In this year and with our involvement in the European Economic Community agriculture should not be dependent on the rates. It is now a very big business and it is a very bad decision if rates, which are a form of taxation, are to be used to finance the county committees of agriculture in their operations.

If the Minister believes, as he professes to believe, in Government through consultation—he pays lip service to that principle as do many members of his party—I should like to know what consultation the Minister or the Government had with the ratepayers with regard to this new blow to them. I know for a fact that ratepayers, the roadworkers, shopkeepers living in towns and villages, will greatly resent the fact that they are being asked to finance a job which must be done when, in actual fact, the system is so old and so antiquated that one would have thought the Minister would have worked out a new system of financing the county committees of agriculture.

What control, if any, will the ratepayers have over the services given by the county committees of agriculture? What control will the county committees have over what is being done? Is it a fact that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries have far more control over the day-to-day operations of the county committees of agriculture than the Department of Local Government and the Minister have over the day-to-day operations of the county councils? New thinking is urgently required in this field.

Many farmers who are availing of services from the county committees of agriculture will not have to meet a fair share of the new demand on the ratepayers in the different counties because of agricultural rates relief. The Minister knows that. What I am trying to get across to the Minister, successfully I hope, is that the person who does not qualify for any rates relief and who is bordering on the subsistence line is being asked to contribute. There is something wrong there.

I know the Minister has a social conscience. Indeed, he had quite an active social conscience in Opposition. If he tries to justify what he is now asking us to do, and tries to get the country to believe, through this House, that what he is doing is the right thing, to my mind he will have completely lost whatever social conscience he had, even the one he had when he was in Opposition. If the Minister thinks it is right or fair that people in the urban areas, people who are dependent on small sweet shops, small cigarette shops, small grocery shops, roadworkers, should have to pay more tax to run a service which we know is needed, and which should be financed from the Central Fund, I am sure he will be able to enforce that system by marshalling his troops from the Labour and Fine Gael benches.

It is interesting that, when we are here today making a case against further demands on the rates which will affect poorer people in particular, there is not one member on the Labour Party benches even to listen to what is being said. That is a sad reflection on a party that purport to represent the labouring community and it could lead one to accept a suggestion which has been made that they are no longer interested and have been gobbled up by their big brothers, the big partners in the Labour-Fine Gael Government of the day.

I will not go into the day-to-day operations of the different committees of agriculture. I do not want to repeat myself, but every help and assistance must be given to them. If we are to be competitive, as we must be for survival, particularly now that we are a member of the European Nine, everything possible must be done to ensure that those involved in agricultural production are fully geared in every way for doing the job they have to do. No expense should be spared in giving the necessary education and advice to those on whom many of us depend because agriculture is the major industry.

It is now time that we had fresh thinking on and a new look at this system of financing. It is very wrong that the Minister of a Labour-Fine Gael Government should look for more money from the rates when he knows that the system of financing the county committees of agriculture, as it now is and particularly as we know it will be because of the greater demands on it, is so unfair and so unjust that, unless something is done about it very quickly, we will be making a very foolish mistake.

I was absent from this debate for some seven or eight minutes and, during my absence, the Opposition spokesman, Deputy Collins, referred to the fact that the Labour Party were not represented here during the discussion on this important matter. The Labour Party are represented here and the Labour Party are just as interested in all aspects of agricultural development as Deputy Collins is or any of his friends in Fianna Fáil. Since this is an important item, Deputy Collins would do well to ask some of his farming friends to support him on his own benches because the number present is——

There are five on this side and four on that.

We have more than you.

——not outstanding, I would say.

On a point of order, whose responsibility is it to provide a quorum for this debate?

That is not a point of order.

Business can only be in order if there is a quorum.

It is not a point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary must be allowed to speak without interruption.

What sort of a point is my question? Who is responsible for providing a quorum?

It is a point of information.

Thank you very much.

I did not anticipate that there would be any controversy regarding a measure such as this. Those of us like Deputy Meaney and myself who have served on committees of agriculture know that it is an advantage for a committee of agriculture to have the power to make a recommendation to a county council and the county council, in turn, have power to grant additional moneys if and when they are required for carrying out the important works and functions of the committee.

This is more or less an enabling Bill. It grants powers to county councils to increase their contributions, if they so desire, from the present maximum of 15p up to 40p. Everyone appreciates the dwindling value of money in recent years. Naturally, 15p will not do now what it used to do two, three, four or five years ago, and cognisance must be taken of that. As we all know, county committees of agriculture are mainly composed of members of county councils and any demands from a committee of agriculture to the parent body, the county council, would only be made if the majority opinion on the committee of agriculture is that the obtaining of this money from the county council is necessary for the carrying out of their functions. As the law stands, ten committees of the 27 in the country are at the maximum; the rate is 15p. Therefore, if they require additional funds it would serve no purpose to request the county council to grant such additional funds even though they might be essential, as the council have no power to do so. What the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is doing here today by bringing forward this Bill is to give the council the authority to make this money available if in their opinion—there is nothing mandatory about the Bill—the granting of such funds is necessary.

The Minister was pressured not too long ago by Deputy Collins, in particular, to create additional powers and to advance the status of people dealing with the agricultural industry, such as agricultural officers and so on, and rightly so. Everybody here recognises that agriculture is our main industry and as such deserves special attention and special credit. The Minister is only 15 or 16 months in office and he has made a lot of changes in the structure of our agricultural services. I am relating my remarks to advisory services first. Deputy Collins was not there but his predecessor, Deputy Gibbons, and the other Ministers that were in office in Fianna Fáil Governments down through the years, made little advance in regard to this question of restructuring the services, the appointment of deputy chief agricultural officers and also the appointment of senior agricultural officers. The Minister met very fairly the respresentations of the agricultural officers organisation, and I say without fear of contradiction that Deputy Collins of the Fianna Fáil Party did not help in solving that dispute——

——if you call it a dispute. Every available opportunity both outside the House and inside it was taken to ensure that it would be drawn out; untruthful statements were made so far as the Minister's desire and anxiety to bring the question to an amicable settlement was concerned.

Would the agricultural services say that?

Many of them would say that.

To the Parliamentary Secretary privately, of course.

Yes. Such occurences are unfortunate in a relatively small State like ours. Whether we represent Fine Gael or Labour, Fianna Fáil, or are here as Independent Deputies, I believe there is an obligation on all of us to pool our resources in order to find the best solution and the best settlement possible for these disputes which disrupt the life of our people. We have had the bus dispute, and goodness knows what other disputes we may have in time to come. It is unfortunate this country is bedevilled by such disputes and disagreements, with strikes and so on, which hinder our advancement and impair our economy. Our experience tells us that strikes are always around the corner. I hope that for the future we shall be relatively free of such disputes or differences. I was relating my remarks to the agricultural officers' dispute which fortunately has been settled amicably. Everything is moving again as it should move.

That is not strictly relevant to the Bill now under discussion.

I accept your ruling, but the Minister has stated here——

A passing reference, yes, but to go into detail on the matter would not be in order.

On a point of order, is the Parliamentary Secretary being just to the agricultural officers when he suggests they were on strike?

The Deputy will be afforded an opportunity if he wishes to comment on the Bill.

On the dispute?

The Chair is anxious that the dispute be kept separate. It is not relevant to the Bill.

Seeing that I have been accused of being very much involved, your late intervention is more than welcome. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would now come back to the Bill.

The Chair will decide these matters.

I suppose I was in the bus strike, too.

The Bill deals with the need for additional moneys and the granting of powers to county councils to make such moneys available from their resources for works which the county committees of agriculture regard as necessary and justified. I think everybody agrees that committees of agriculture have contributed, and I have no doubt will continue to contribute, a great deal to the development of our agricultural industry. Committees of agriculture are made up of people such as the Deputy I am looking at in one of the back seats of the Dáil, Deputy John Callanan, who in their own way have a great deal to offer from their knowledge and practical experience of farming.

Might I suggest that the Deputy would withdraw and leave the floor to Deputy Callanan?

Such interjections are quite unnecessary.

Deputy Callanan will get an opportunity of contributing to this discussion. In any case, I believe that the autonomy enjoyed by committees of agriculture should continue. Naturally if local committees are appointed from local representatives through local elections, then some of these charges must come from local revenue through rates. This Bill does not impose any additional taxation or any additional charges on county councils. It is purely a matter for each county council to decide whether or not in their opinion it is advisable to make additional moneys available.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary answer a question?

I do not know if I will be able to answer it.

Can he tell me whether or not a request from a committee to a county council for money is mandatory?

I would not say it is mandatory. It is a matter for the county council, which is a parent body, but I did mention earlier on——

It is not mandatory. That is the answer.

The Parliamentary Secretary is not sure.

The Deputy should not be so smart.

He said he did not think so.

But I did say earlier that in the main committees of agriculture are made up of county council membership, so that, in actual fact, Cork County Committee of Agriculture, for instance, constituted of 28 members, all of whom, with the exception of one or two, are members of the county council, are making a demand for the money more or less to themselves. The same applies in other areas, but everybody is, I think, clear that it is the function solely of the county council to determine whether or not the applications should be granted.

The Minister outlined the desirability of office improvement and the cost of such improvements. He said 16 centres are being provided at a cost of £415,000. It is, of course, highly desirable to have such centres, and to have them properly equipped to ensure the smooth running of the centres by enabling staffs to work efficiently. All this money will not be for advisory staffs only. Other essential services may require help and, as a result of this, county councils will be able to grant such assistance if they wish to do so. I think it was Deputy Collins who said this Bill could impose a charge of £125,000 on the ratepayers of County Limerick. I think that was the figure he mentioned. I do not know where he got it or whether he just pulled it out of the sky.

In the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary, I showed how it would come about.

The Minister has explained the reasons for putting the charge as high as 40p. It is done to avoid the necessity of bringing in a new Bill every year or every two or three years, which could happen if he were to peg the figure down to 20p or 25p. He has moved it up to the optimum to avoid the necessity for too frequent legislation of this kind.

On Deputy Collins' allegation that this will impose more burdens on ratepayers, the figures are there to prove the opposite. We have the record of this Government so far as relieving ratepayers of liability is concerned. The record is an exceptional one in the history of this State. We all know local revenue charges were increasing year in and year out and we had an annual outcry when it came to striking the rate to the effect that the burden was becoming too heavy on the local ratepayers.

It still is, and it will be again next year.

Examine the records. Having heard that allegation, I decided I would get the actual figures since speaking in general terms on a matter like this should be avoided if at all possible.

Are we going into a new field now?

Deputy Meaney should cease interrupting. He will be afforded an opportunity of speaking on this measure.

In answer to the Deputy's query, the answer is "no". I have said this Government's record where relieving the burden of rates is concerned is an exceptional one. In the two main fields of health and local authority housing, in the year 1972-73 local ratepayers were asked to contribute £43.2 million towards the cost of health services and local authority housing; in 1973-74, the first year of the National Coalition Government, the charge was reduced to £32.4 million and, in the current year, for the nine months from 1st April to 31st December next, the charge is reduced to £16.2 million. One group that must be thankful to the Government is the group pressuring for a reduction in the rates. Let not Deputy Collins try to tell me now that Fianna Fáil, had they been returned to office, would have removed rates altogether from housing. That was thought up only seven or eight days prior to the election on 28th February. It was thought up by the policy planners of the Deputy's party subsequent to the issue by the Deputy of his election advertisement.

As a matter of interest, when was the Parliamentary Secretary's 14-point plan thought out?

I think the Deputy suffered a little, but he was able to bear his suffering. This plan was born, as I said, subsequent to the time the Deputy issued his advertisement. Facts are facts. When it is asserted that this Bill will throw additional burdens on the ratepayers, it will only do so if the citizens' representatives on the local authorities so decide. The Minister will not command and neither will this Bill command any local authority to grant additional funds from local revenue unless the local authority so decide. I assume that any such decision will be taken by a majority of local councillors.

Cuckoo thinking.

The Minister has given all the relevant facts and the reason for introducing this legislation. I am sure Deputies on both sides will agree that it is only right that local authorities should have these additional powers and that the county committees of agriculture should have the power to make requests for additional money, knowing that the local authorities have the power to grant those requests.

This is a very disappointing Bill. I assumed that a Bill like this would have included many provisions beneficial to agriculture in general and to the advisory services. I took it the advisory services would have to be expanded more and more. When we are discussing advisory servises here it should be realised that we are talking of both men and women in these services.

I thought the Minister would have something to say about decentralisation and, secondly, about regionalisation of the services in general. We are moving into a new era. We have the farm organisation scheme and the Minister is depending on the agricultural advisers to work that scheme. Surely the whole country will not have to submit all their reports to the Department in Merrion Street. We were optimistic that regions would be set up. We believed the dairying region, for instance, would have its own headquarters; it would probably be comprised of the Munster counties and possibly part of Kilkenny. Then you would have the factory areas. The Minister could have defined the different regions with their own headquarters which could issue payments, make decisions and sanction various grants and loans. But that is not to be the set-up. That has not been mentioned. Apparently we are going to continue with the same old system, a system that has many flaws in it.

If a county committee of agriculture decide to raise the money to the maximum and make a demand on the local authority will it be mandatory on that local authority to grant that demand? Has this Bill got real teeth in it so far as the county committees of agriculture are concerned? I agree they must have more money and I welcome any measures which will help towards this end. I wish to point out the flaws in this Bill.

What will the Minister say if a county committee of agriculture meet, decide they want to pay extra, get their headquarters and rooms for their instructors to meet the people and make a demand on the county council for 40 pence in the £? Can the county council say that they will only give them 25p, 30p or 35p? The county committee of agriculture must have some say in this once they make the demands.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that this Bill will result in higher rates to the ratepayers. That is obvious under this system. When the Minister brought in this Bill I expected he would make it a condition that the ratepayer would not have to pay a penny extra for the advisory services but that the money would come from central funds and the present contributions from the ratepayers in each county would not be increased. The Government are boasting about what they are doing for the ratepayers. They say they are taking the health charges and housing charges off the rates.

The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about health and housing. If he looked at the roads, water and sewerage schemes in Cork he would see that nothing is being done there. No man will realise that more than he because he gets around. He knows every road there, be it narrow or wide. It is very strange that he did not mention them in his speech. When money was snatched from us last year and handed over to the county, the Parliamentary Secretary was as mute as a mouse. He never fought for us one way or another.

Kerry for the other Parliamentary Secretary and Meath for the Minister.

Those roads must have deteriorated over the last 12 months.

The Deputy does not know anything about those roads nor does he know what happened in Cork or how the money was taken from us. We did not have local improvement schemes——

(Interruptions.)

I am sorry to be irritating the Deputy but he knows nothing of what is happening in Cork. I hope in a few weeks time he will come down for a holiday and he will then understand what I am talking about.

It is now up to the committee when they increase their money and go to the county council, to get a greater share of the money they collect. In most areas 50 per cent will still go back and in the western areas the Government will pay 75 per cent. It is the ratepayer who will feel this. All parties have agreed that our rating system and collection of rates are unjust. It does not take into account the ability of the ratepayer to pay.

The Coalition Government stated that they are taking the health and housing charges off the rates. Yet the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries brings in a Bill which will put up the rates in any county which operate this scheme in full. What does one deduct from that? What can anybody say about it? Is one to take it that the Minister for Local Government is more powerful within the Cabinet? Or is it that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries cannot put his case? There are a number of people saying that he cannot put his case in Europe. It is bad if he cannot get the same concessions as the Minister for Local Government. If the Minister states in his reply that he will get this money from central funds, we will all back him to the hilt.

It is about time that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries was decentralised. Different areas should have their own regional headquarters. Agricultural schemes could be easily worked then. A large amount of money will be required in the years ahead to implement these schemes. Various instructors and instructresses throughout the counties will have to use a lot of common sense.

A new post of deputy chief agricultural officer with special responsibilities for educational matters has been created. That is very good. All our instructors were trained in a certain way but not every one of them was able to give down-to-earth advice to farmers. There is a great need for more classes throughout the towns, cities and small villages, for home management classes. The housewife should be educated to buy wisely. How many housewives can walk into a butcher's shop and know the value of different cuts of meat? These women are trying to raise families. They often buy the dearer cuts when the cheaper cuts would be just as nutritious. There is a grave lack of education in that sphere. I hope the deputy chief agricultural officer, when he takes over his responsibilities, will dwell on that matter.

The young farmer was under pressure to produce more and ignore cost. Competitions were organised over a number of years to find out who was the best young farmer of the year. He was judged on his output and not the actual profit. This was very bad. The Department and the agricultural officers should discourage this practice completely. What is the point of ploughing in £1 if the return was only 16s.? There was no point in that. It was based on a falsehood that the more one produced the more profit one had. That was not the case. Many a young man thought he could have his cattle out grazing in the early days of March. We should all remember that weather conditions can affect everything. We should face reality.

At the present inflated cost of fertilisers, people should learn to use them better. A few years ago agricultural instructors and others seemed to think that the pig slurry out of the silage pits was no good. Now the position is reversed. We should never allow such a situation to develop again.

I have a personal request to put to the Minister which I know the Parliamentary Secretary will oppose. Could the Minister include a clause with regard to the selection of temporary agricultural instructors or instructresses by the various committees of agriculture? I have been a member of such a committee for a few years. It is very sad that when a vacancy for a temporary position occurs and the names are put before the members of the different parties those boys and girls will have to canvass every one of those members. The applicants are depending on their votes to become temporary instructors or instructresses. It is very humiliating for parents who have educated their sons and daughters to have to go with cap in hand to every political member on the committee of agriculture to ask them to vote for their son or daughter. It is degrading and demeaning. It tears through our educational system. I raised this subject in the Cork Committee of Agriculture. Twenty-seven members voted. The Parliamentary Secretary voted against me. I had only four who supported me although that did not worry me. We will have to have some kind of selection board.

The applicants for other jobs in the county committee of agriculture come before a selection board and we do not have to vote for them. I do not see why it is necessary for the parents of any child who wishes to get a job in any committee of agriculture to belong to a political party. There are many people who do not take any part in political life, who vote quietly without telling everybody about it, but if their children wish to get a job in the county committee of agriculture they have not a chance. There will be somebody else in the area who has connections with Fine Gael, Labour or Fianna Fáil, or with the Independent Member, and they will be successful. Before money is spent by the committee of agriculture, the Minister should bring in some clause to rectify this situation. If he does that he will be doing a good day's work.

I welcome this Bill because it makes provision for the necessary expenditure incurred by county committees of agriculture. I should like to thank the Minister on behalf of the people of Clare, who will be contributing in rates, for the increased contribution he has made in the grant from 50 per cent to 75 per cent which will help small farms in the western counties.

This measure should have been introduced many years ago but it was left to the present Minister to do it. In his wisdom, the Minister decided that committees of agriculture should continue to function and to operate the service they have been giving during the years through the agricultural advisers and the home management and poultry instructresses. In fact, there are many more officers operating now than heretofore. This is necessary because educational facilities are much appreciated by young people who intend to make their living on the land.

I was very surprised when I heard some of the statements made by the shadow spokesman for agriculture. Usually he takes the trouble to get his facts right but on this occasion he made a few serious errors in his contribution. He spoke of his regret that the urban dweller will be saddled with the extra contribution in rates as a result of the measure to help the committees of agriculture. I am speaking subject to correction but it is my reading that they are excluded.

Is the Deputy saying that people in towns and villages will not have to pay increases in their rates which might be necessary as a result of raising the limit, as is set out in this Bill?

My interpretation is that the urban dwellers will not be asked to make that additional contribution.

Is the Deputy's interpretation of an urban dweller a person who resides within an area under the jurisdiction of an urban authority?

That is correct.

I think the Deputy should clarify that——

Acting Chairman

The Deputy should be allowed to make his speech. If it is correct it is correct, and if it is an error it is an error. He cannot be cross-examined on the matter during his speech.

There is genuine confusion in that what Deputy Taylor is saying might apply to an area where there is an urban council. There are many counties which do not have urban councils and, therefore, people living in these urban areas will have to pay in the normal way.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy in possession should be allowed to continue his speech. The Minister can clear up the matter in his reply.

Perhaps I might quote from the Minister's speech. It states:

The existing statutory ceiling of county council contributions, which had been in operation since 1st April, 1972, is a sum not exceeding 15 times the produce of a rate of 1p in the £ in the area consisting of the county, exclusive of any urban areas therein.

From that it appears to me that what I have said is correct.

I am afraid that is not so.

The Deputy is correct. Urban councils do not contribute.

If we take County Limerick where there is one county authority, every person who is eligible to pay rates in the county, whether he lives in rural Limerick or in the urban area, will have to pay the rates.

The Deputy is correct in that statement but I am referring specifically to the man who is within the jurisdiction of an urban authority. I am correct in what I said.

It is a case where both of us are correct.

Deputy Collins referred to the contribution of the old age pensioners. Within each county there is in operation a system that allows remission of rates for old age pensioners who are ratepayers. It is permitted that the council exercise their discretion in such matters.

There is some confusion here. What I said was that contributory old age pensioners who are obliged to pay rates will be saddled with the extra expense. Noncontributory old age pensioners normally are granted rates relief.

Acting Chairman

This cross-examination of the Deputy who is making his speech cannot continue.

It is for clarification purposes.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy is not in the witness box. He is trying to make his speech.

I am sure the Chair recognises that the Deputy has made serious allegations.

Acting Chairman

The Chair recognises he is making his speech.

I submit I am making an accurate statement about old age pensioners not being obliged to pay rates. In any county, the county manager has the right to make a rates remission for any old age pensioner whom he considers is not in a position to pay rates.

The Deputy is not familiar with the operation of the scheme.

As a member of a county council I am very familiar with the operation of the scheme. The county manager exercises his function. The Opposition need have no fears about the ratepayers. In fact, it is not mandatory that the committee of agriculture should reach its maximum of 40p in the £ with any specified limits. Also there is a rates remission on the first £20 of valuation to all farmers. Therefore, one can appreciate that people with low valuations will not be paying this additional sum if the committees of agriculture think it necessary to impose it. And additional sums must be needed because salaries have been increased in the 15th round. It is essential, therefore, to ensure that there is an all-round appreciation of the work of all of the agricultural officers who are part and parcel of the agricultural life of our country.

I agree wholeheartedly with Deputy Meaney when he suggests that the practice of making it a necessity for a young graduate to go around from district to district, personally or with his relatives, canvassing a member of a committee of agriculture to get that member's vote in order that he would be appointed to a post on a committee should be discontinued. I think it is a degrading practice to say the least of it. It is one which is rotten through and through and one which should have long since been eliminated from our public life because it is a sad fact but the truth, that in areas where particular parties have a majority, there is a tendency to give appointments to people and families who are known supporters of a particular party. This does not apply always but, when a party is in the majority, it can abuse its position. But, in some cases, we find that justice prevails.

Of course, had we a broad membership in committees of agriculture, such as representation from the Labour Party, the Fine Gael Party, the Fianna Fáil Party and the balance of Independents, we would probably have different thinking. In my own county, unfortunately, the Labour and Fine Gael Parties have not enjoyed the advantage of membership of the committee of agriculture, at least in my memory.

A Deputy

You have not that many councillors.

Within the number we have, their is the intelligence necessary for qualification and to enable them contribute towards the improvement of agriculture—and that is the important thing, to pull out the people who can make the contribution and who have something to offer.

Certainly I would support Deputy Meaney and I am sorry he is not in the House at the moment. I would appeal to the Minister to give further thought to introducing a commission or an interview board which would sit and determine who would be appointed to such posts in order to wipe out this rotten practice which has not improved our image in public life over the years.

No power sharing.

I am very pleased the Minister has made provision for committees to carry on their necessary functions and that we can foresee in the future a much greater interest in the activities of committees of agriculture. We shall welcome the Minister's initiative in the years ahead in introducing many new ideas into his Department which would be channelled down to our county committees.

In his opening paragraph the Minister states that the sole purpose of this short Bill is to enable county councils to give increased contributions, where necessary, towards the financing of county committees of agriculture in the local financial year commencing on 1st January, 1975.

I welcome the principle which the Minister endeavours to establish in trying to make more money available to county committees of agriculture but, like my colleagues who have spoken already, I am not happy with the manner in which the Minister proposes to have the moneys provided for the county committees of agriculture. We all appreciate the wonderful work done by them over a long period. Indeed, they have been severely handicapped over the years through lack of finance. In many instances it has prevented the degree of expansion which the committees would like to achieve. In my own county we have been lucky in that we had down through the years members who were enlightened and who wanted to see our agricultural programme expanding in a way relative to the type of agriculture being pursued in the county. As an example of that, I think we had the highest number of applications in the whole country under the small farm plan. We had something like 3,750 and this necessitated an increase in the number of advisers in the county.

Unfortunately, when our committee applied for an increased number of permanent officials—I think we asked for 24—we got sanction for 12 only. One of the reasons was that funds were not available to the committee in order to appoint the necessary officers to service this wonderful scheme which has now gone by the wayside as a result of the EEC programme. The advisers have done a tremendous job. They have managed to get down to talking with the farmers and explaining to them how farming can be approached in a businesslike manner. We had many schemes, such as the pilot area and home management schemes, where the advisers maintained close contact with the farmers. I suppose one could regard it as a personal service and the people concerned are to be commended on their wonderful work. But, as I have said, one of the snags which has persisted over the years has been that the committees have been handicapped through lack of finance.

The Minister suggests that we allow county councils to go from 15p to 40p in order to assist the county committees of agriculture. In county Mayo the rate is over £7 and this would mean that the county committee of agriculture in that county might be asking the ratepayer to contribute in the region of £3 if we accept the maximum increase. In a poor county like Mayo this would not be welcome. The effect would be that the committee of agriculture would not be able to expand to the satisfaction of the members. The members would be thinking of the ratepayers because the majority of them are county councillors and county councillors realise that their first duty is to the ratepayer, the person who elects them to the county council.

While we have a very progressive committee of agriculture in Mayo they would be very slow to ask the ratepayers to make any advance in the contribution towards a programme of expansion. One would have thought that the Minister would have been able to use some of the EEC savings or would have endeavoured to avail of some of the EEC funds in order to help in this matter of providing more funds for county committees of agriculture.

Another matter with which I do not agree is that this scheme will not operate until 1st January, 1975. The county committee of agriculture in Mayo are constantly in the red and this Bill is not going to bring them any consolation for this year. In his speech the Minister made reference to the number of extra posts which will be available because of the recent discussions with the advisory service. This is very welcome. We had a situation where the avenues for promotion were very limited but the additional staff will mean that those on the advisory service will have more room for specialisation, something which is tied up at present but which, with the advances in agriculture, is very necessary. I hope the advisory services will always have the best attention of the Minister. In my view the agricultural advisers are due a great deal of thanks from the nation for the wonderful work they have been doing.

The Minister should reconsider the question of imposing this provision on the ratepayers. It is all very well to say that there is no obligation on a county council to meet this extra demand but county committees of agriculture would be anxious to carry out the programmes and would find themselves in the position that they would have to go to the county council for the extra money necessary. They cannot have it both ways and we are leaving them in a position where the demand will have to be met by the ratepayers.

The Minister mentioned educational centers but in my view this programme is not going as speedily as it should. If this scheme means that the agricultural instructor in future will go to the educational centre, a departure from the traditional system under which the instructor provided night classes in local schools to the benefit of local farmers, I do not think it will be welcomed by the rural farmer. The traditional system should be continued because in this way the agricultural adviser maintains the closest contact with the farmer. He has built up this close contact with the farmers over a period of years.

The ratio of farmers to an adviser should be reduced. If one examines the figures for various counties one will see that even though advisers are doing an excellent job it is next to impossible for them to meet every farmer in their own area during a particular period. I accept that this again comes back to the question of the necessity for money for county committees of agriculture because it is all part of a plan to develop agriculture. We all appreciate that we must have a sound programme and policy with regard to agriculture because it is our main industry. If we have the situation in which agriculture is not going well the whole economy suffers.

Even though this Bill may seem to be small—it has been described as a short Bill—it can have a very important effect on the future of our agricultural industry. I welcome the Bill in principle but I ask the Minister to be more generous in his contributions from the Central Fund to county committees of agriculture. The Minister should try to avoid the situation where it would be necessary to impose higher rates on the ratepayers who are already finding it very hard to meet their commitments.

If this Bill was not before the House I, and many members of county committees of agriculture, would have been making represensations and approaches to the Minister in an effort to ensure that a large scale financial contribution would be made towards the financing of these committees. The three Members opposite I presume are members of committees of agriculture in their respective counties and I am sure they will agree that over the past number of years the situation has reached the point where committees of agriculture were working on a very limited budget. They were managing to exist on the contributions they were allowed to obtain from county councils. Committees of agriculture have found that they were being asked to work on a shoestring. The county committees of agriculture are the launching pads for all educational and working schemes in each county. They are the most important bodies throughout the country.

I have been here at Question Time on numerous afternoons and heard the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries being severely criticised for not making contributions to agriculture. He came in here today with a Bill which will lead to a large-scale injection of finance to our most important industry. We had Deputy Collins, Deputy Meaney and Deputy Gallagher agreeing in principle with the Bill but voicing doubts and reservations, saying they are not happy with the method of payment and so on. It is a serious duty of the Minister for Finance to ensure that the committees of agriculture are financed to meet the job that is at hand. I believe the farmers will realise that it is necessary to ensure that the committees of agriculture are properly financed. It is up to us as Members of Dáil Éireann and as members of committees of agriculture to ensure that the staffs of the committees work as hard as they can, which they are doing, and to their full potential.

Previous speakers have expressed some doubts in regard to the method of payment. It must be remembered that whatever sum is put up by the county council is met pound for pound by the Department. Agriculture needs this money at present and whether it comes from the Central Fund or from local funds we must ensure that agriculture is maintained as our foremost industry. In County Offaly in 1972-73 our rates were 5.187p in the pound and in 1973-74 they were 5.15p in the pound which was a reduction. This year is not a full calendar year but the rates are 4.28p in the pound. The money must be found to ensure that our farmers receive the very best advice that is available. It is unfair of Members opposite to have reservations about this Bill because if we want agriculture to continue as our foremost industry we must ensure that the money the Minister is looking for this morning is given with generosity.

The committees of agriculture are our means of bringing to farmers the most modern technique in all aspects of farming. Young boys and girls today attend schools, universities, colleges of technology in order to equip themselves for life but even after qualifying they need to keep up to date with educational matters because we are living in a changing world. This is even more important in the case of farming because methods and techniques are changing so rapidly. We must ensure that educational facilities are available for farmers in their own counties. I am happy to say this is happening in County Offaly. I am sure Deputy Callanan is ensuring that it is happening in his area too.

Committees of agriculture are basically educational but they have other functions too. They have a vast number of schemes in operation at present. There is the small farmers incentive bonus scheme and there are different pilot schemes. In Offaly we have an intensive system of cattle production and the Minister saw some farms in County Offaly last year and the excellent work that is being done there. There is a vast volume of work carried out by those committees.

There is one point the Minister did not mention in his speech and I think it is one of the main reasons why this Bill is before us. I refer to Directive 159 of the EEC. All Deputies are aware that this directive will increase the volume of work for county committees of agriculture. Deputies who are members of county councils have had to fill in some of the new application forms for grants and will be aware of the vast amount of information that is required when completing those forms. Under this directive there are three categories of grants— development, commercial and transitional. There are 30 per cent building grants available for development and transitional farmers, 50 per cent grants for land projects and land improvement works. It is the duty of committees of agriculture to ensure that our farmers benefit fully from the finance that is available from the EEC. Each farmer will have to carry out the scheme set out for him by his agricultural adviser. When this scheme is completed, he will obtain his benefits under the grant. This shows how much extra work will fall on the different agricultural instructors. Extra advisors will be needed to ensure these schemes are properly carried out. If those schemes are properly carried out, it will mean agricultural instructors will have to attend on a regular basis to ensure each particular farmer is carrying out his scheme and is doing everything in accordance with the regulations. It is important to ensure that the best services are provided for our farmers so that they can utilise the money available to them under Directive 159.

I want to speak now about some of the projects carried out by the county committee of agriculture in County Offaly, especially that on the Sliabh Bloom Mountains, which run between Counties Laois and Offaly. At the moment 40,000 acres of land in this area in County Offaly are available for development. There is a total area of approximately 100,000 acres available across the Sliabh Bloom Mountains in County Laois. I hope the county committees of agriculture in Counties Laois and Offaly will consult with each other to work out a development project for the benefit of farmers in this area. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries should see how this land can be utilised to the best for the farmers in the area.

Some farmers at the moment are utilising this land and they are carrying out schemes. Some of them have carried out ploughing, seeding, drainage and have even made some roads through it. This land is neither forestry nor grazing land at the moment. It is suitable for very little. There is very beautiful scenery in this area and I compliment the Department of Lands for making some roads through it. I believe in each constituency throughout the country there is a vast area of land which could be developed and utilised for the benefit of small farmers. Farmers' sons should be able to obtain these lands, get married and rear their families.

In the midlands different projects could be carried out by Bord na Móna. I refer particularly to the bogland areas. When the turf is cut away, excellent agricultural land is available in those areas. Some of this land in County Offaly is used by Bord na Móna at the moment. They have cattle on it. Bord na Móna have done quite a lot of research but they have also got aid from the county committees of agriculture in both Laois and Offaly. Around Ferbane and Banagher bogland is now available for vegetable production. The Minister should look at the situation in regard to this because I believe a decision will have to be taken about the land which is available after it is finished for turf production, whether or not Bord na Móna should enter into cattle rearing or vegetable production on these disused boglands. They originally purchased this land from farmers very cheaply. It could be handed over to the Department of Lands for division among small farmers or Bord na Móna could enter into vegetable production and cattle reating. A decision should be taken on this very soon. It is important and the potential is there. In each instance our horticultural instructors and our agricultural instructors have given great help and great service to Bord na Móna and have advised them on how to utilise this land to the best possible extent.

The Minister dealt with the question of different headquarters for committees of agriculture. It is pleasant to note that 16 have been provided and seven are under construction. Unfortunately, one has not been provided in Offaly. The committee of agriculture in Offaly have an office in the Courthouse in Tullamore. The chief agricultural officer, the deputy chief agricultural officer, the horticultural instructor, the home advisory service officer, the poultry instructress and approximately three typists all work in the same room. One can realise the chaos in the mornings when farmers leave in calls for the day.

There is a smaller office in the town but a suitable building will have to be provided in Offaly as soon as possible. I hope whatever difficulties there are will be ironed out immediately. Agriculture being the important industry it is, and Offaly being the important agricultural county it is, a suitable building must be provided for the county committee of agriculture in County Offaly. They will still need the office they have in Birr and in Edenderry. I hope the Department will co-operate fully with the Offaly County Committee of Agriculture in ensuring that a headquarters is provided as soon as possible.

A number of Deputies mentioned the decentralisation of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. In Offaly we have not got a departmental local office. County Offaly and County Laois are in close proximity to Dublin and both are important agricultural counties. If any further decision is being taken in regard to decentralisation, both counties are in need of a Government Department and we would be very happy if the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries would consider coming down to either county. There are excellent motorways between Laois and Offaly and Dublin. The telephone service is adequate. There is a local airport in Birr. We are in close touch with Dublin and we would welcome the Department to Laois or Offaly.

With respect, I consider it very relevant and very important. I want to say this as a member of a county committee of agriculture for quite a number of years. Since our entry into the EEC, our county committee of agriculture feel a bit remote from what is happening in the EEC. I am not criticising the different chief agricultural advisers who are making every effort to keep the committees of agriculture in touch. The Department are also endeavouring to keep members of the committees advised about what is happening in the EEC.

The Minister should consider some scheme under which at least one representative of each county committee of agriculture would be working in conjuction with his Department and would have some communication with Brussels on a six-monthly or 12-monthly basis. This would enable them to keep abreast with what is happening in Brussels. The Department find it very difficult to keep in touch with all the different aspects of changing legislation. Knowing the problems they are confronted with they can well realise the problems with which the committees of agriculture are faced. Each committee of agriculture should be able to send a representative to Brussels. This would prove advisable and worthwhile. If a proper scheme is devised, the different associations such as the IFA and Macra na Feirme would be pleased to be involved in it.

People might ask what would be the benefit of making one visit to Brussels, but the representatives of the committees could learn what is happening in Brussels. I say this without fear of contradiction. Our farmers are not as au fait with what is happening in Brussels as they would like to be. If the representatives of the county committees went to Brussels, on their return they could give first-hand information to the local farmers. If worked out on a proper basis, this could be an excellent project and it would not cost a great deal of money. We are a member of the EEC and it is up to us to make very effort to utilise the benefits available to us to the fullest extent. The county committees of agriculture are the voices of the farmers in each respective county, and the voices of the farmers could be heard in Brussels under such a scheme.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the serious effort he has made to ensure that our committees of agriculture are kept on a workable basis and on a sound financial footing with sound financial backing. I have been a member of the Offaly County Committee of Agriculture for seven years. At times we wondered whether we would have the necessary finance to continue and whether we would have the necessary capital to carry out schemes and projects. We have no doubt now that the Minister is fully behind us and that he intends to ensure that each committee of agriculture is fully financed to meet the challenges that lie ahead. He realises fully the importance of agriculture and he is ensuring that the necessary finances are made available for our farmers.

I do not intend to say very much on this Bill but I could not let the occasion pass without commenting on it. I welcome the measure but I share the reservations of other, particularly western, Deputies in connection with the huge increase that could fall on the rates. I admit we have been looking for this for a number of years but I thought we would be saving money on other subsidies from the EEC and that we should give an injection to the educational end of agriculture. I must pay a glowing tribute to the county committees of agriculture and to the staff of the Department for doing such a tremendous amount of work down through the years with very limited finance.

I was on a committee of agriculture many years ago—when I just had a vote; I am over 60 years of age now— and I was off it for a long time after that. At that time there were two agricultural instructors in County Galway and very few knew where they were. Unless somebody wanted a bag of seed oats cheap as an experiment, that is all the demands that were made on the agricultural instructor. I remember going to a man who was reared in County Galway—I think in the home of the present occupant of the Chair— a great friend of mine, Doctor Kennedy, who said we used to use grass seeds out of the hay manager at that time in Galway to re-seed the land.

Shortly after that time certain rural organisations were started with the whole-hearted support of the county committees and their advisory services. The whole face of the west has changed over a number of years. This was done with the co-operation of the advisory services. We knew the practical side of the business, but they were the people who knew the theoretical side. If they did not impart their knowledge to us, we could not get on as well as we did. There are now 26 instructors operating in County Galway. I have been pressing and pressing for sanction for the appointment of 6 more instructors because with all that has to be done under the farm organisation scheme we have not enough instructors at all. In regard to the amount required under this Bill, it must be remembered the agricultural areas will not be as well populated as they were. With people going to urban areas and engaging in other walks of life, I do not think we will get the 40 pence sought, even though I believe we would need that amount to provide the service that is needed, particularly in the western counties.

I agree with much of what Deputy Enright has said. However, I would like to draw attention to Directive 159 under which the instructor would be expected to tell the farmer what kind of production he should undertake. I think the job of the instructor is to tell the farmer the best method of doing whatever type of farming he is engaging in but not to tell him to switch over to this, that or the other. If something goes wrong with it the farmer immediately blames the agricultural adviser for putting him on the wrong track. There is also, as Deputy Meaney has said, tremendous emphasis on output.

If your outlay is so big when you increase your output that your net profit is not satisfactory, then increased output is not a good proposition. We all know what happened the experts in the last six or eight months, although I am not blaming anyone. I remember going to a sale in Bradford where wool was supposed to be "a great go", according to the experts. In six months it was down to half. While I agree there is a specialised type of farming in which the small farmer must engage, I do not agree that the instructor should go in and say to any farmer: "You must do this. If you do not do it on these lines, you will not qualify for the grant." I think instructors would be very slow, seeing the way things have backfired, to tell people to take up any particular line, and I do not think they should be asked to do that.

I am delighted that the dispute or disagreement in which the advisory officers were involved has been settled. I would not call it a strike, because they were simply not operating one particular scheme. However, now that the forms are ready to come up, my information is that the Department are not ready to receive them. I would like the Minister to contradict that if it is not true. It is a pity the scheme was held up for so long because many farmers are interested to know what category they come into. The Minister will say that the Department are putting up a substantial amount, 75 per cent, in respect of the western counties. I would like to remind the Minister that even though we are putting up only 25 per cent—and I do believe we should put up something—our rates in the £ are very high because we have not as much valuable land as they have in other counties. Mayo and then Galway have the highest amount of bad land in the country. Therefore, while I realise 40 pence is needed, I do not believe we will get it. I would not like to be looking for it from the county councils, because the vast majority of county councils have various other commitments, which I do not want to go into because it is not relevant, for which they will be looking for money. We will give 40p to the county committees of agriculture. I do not think this is a realistic figure and I am disappointed that some other sort of revenue could not be found. I approve of the educational centres. These are a great idea but they are moving too slowly. We have five of them in my county. I do not want to be parochial, but I think the idea an excellent one.

The Minister did not refer to the restructuring of the advisory services. The general council of county committees of agriculture have been studying this for a number of years and, while there was not outright agreement on everything, the general consensus was that there should be one central building in each county with the CEO as the co-ordinating officer. Everything connected with agriculture should be housed in that building. The Minister made no reference to any reorganisation of the advisory services and so on.

A farmer living in an urban area cannot at the moment avail of the advisory services even though he is paying rates. I admit the agricultural adviser obliges him. Farmers like this pay very high rates and they should be able to avail of all the services provided, but help can only be given at the discretion of the agricultural advisory officer.

We have no objection to this measure. Our ambition is to be constructive in our approach. There is no use putting something down on paper if that something cannot be given material effect. Is there a possibility that money could be got from any of the regional funds? The demand on the services of the agricultural advisers will become greater as time goes on. In this connection, there should be an interview board for the appointment of these officers. No one should have to canvass for support from the members of the local authority.

I pay tribute to the officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Voluntary organisations could never have succeeded as they have done were it not for the support they got from the Department. Every half-penny of this 40p will be needed to organise the system properly. The more complicated agriculture becomes the more advisers we will need. We have not got enough at the moment even. It will be a very big job to process every farmer in the country into one or other of the three categories. A huge injection of finance will be needed. I doubt if that finance will come from the ratepayers.

I hope that we will shortly have a complete reorganisation of the advisory services. I never had anything other than a national school education and anything I have learned over and above that was learned as a result of attending lectures and educating myself. The young people today are going on to secondary school and, if they are successful in the leaving certificate, they gravitate towards university. It is then quite impossible to get them back on the land. If these young people were sent to a vocational school and taught agricultural science, they would be prepared to stay on the land. With all the aids now available they should become excellent farmers.

I am not against giving a young man who wants a higher education the opportunity of availing of it but, if he is removed from farming, the danger is he will never return to it. No farmer would think of swapping his present activity even though it is a hard life, but the young man who is removed from it an an early age finds great difficulty in coming back. That is why I say it is imperative to provide proper educational facilities locally for young men. It is of vital importance to the farming community.

I want to make a few brief comments on this Bill. I welcome the increase towards the employment of adequate staff from 50 per cent to 75 per cent, especially in the western and north western areas which embrace my constituency. The importance of extra funds being made available to the county committees of agriculture cannot be sufficiently stressed. I was disappointed when I heard that the county council were expected to provide those funds as the Minister did not see fit to have even some of the money made available from the Central Fund.

It was suggested that each of the 27 county committees of agriculture create a new post of deputy chief agricultural officer with special responsibility for educational matters. Since our entry to the EEC it is important that each committee should have such an officer to give adequate information to farmers. When one takes into account the cost of production and development in farming, each committee of agriculture should consider creating a post the holder of which would be available to give advice to farmers on building and layout, taking into consideration the massive increases in costs.

Many farmers in my constituency embarked on very extensive projects for silage layout, cubical sheds with slots and with liquid manure tanks to cater for the store cattle trade. Farmers whose farms were not suitable for milk production in a dairy area might want to diversify in the hope of getting a greater return for their investment. People whose holdings were not combined or adjacent to each other went into store cattle production or sucklings. The costs for concreting and steel structuring have doubled in price. Therefore, it is very important that the committee of agriculture have an officer to advise in advance the amount of money needed and, if possible, the return for that money.

The Minister mentioned that over the past decade the number of instructors increased from 354 to 564. I am open to contradiction on this but I think in reply to a parliamentary question I was told that the ratio is one instructor to 500 farmers. With the advent of farm modernisation the number should be doubled if instructors are to cope with the expected number of applications. The Minister classified farms as development, transitional and commercial. It is a pity that the grant aids were withdrawn from all these categories at once. They could have been withdrawn from the development farmer and left to the smaller type farmers who found it hard to make up their minds about applying for the grants.

In my constituency many farmers come to me for advice on whether to build a byre or other structure. They may then discover that they will not be in a position to take this step until next year because they find it hard to make up their minds to apply for a grant.

Every committee of agriculture should provide a home advisory service for housewives. They could give advice, information and instruction to the housewives. They should be educated in the ways of buying food in bulk and using the deep freeze. This will help them to save money.

I welcome the conclusion of the dispute. It is important that persons representing the advisers and the committees of agriculture should have a hard look at working conditions and remuneration. Commercial firms advertise posts with attractive remuneration. It would be very sad if we were to lose some of our best brains in the advisory service to those commercial firms.

Appointments to county council posts should be taken out of the rough and tumble of the political arena especially as there will be such an increase in the number of these appointments. We should provide the best brains and the most highly qualified people for these posts.

Production and marketing should be considered together. We have found to our grief during the past year that while we can produce enough it is very important that it should be marketed in the best possible way and the returns should be related to the amount of money involved in the production.

I welcome some of the points in the Bill, but I think the Department should have provided additional money from the Central Fund.

I welcome this timely move by the Minister to increase the ceiling in order to provide extra finance and more room for manoeuvre on the part of county councils. Demands are being made on them in the light of modern agricultural techniques and because of the very fast moving world in which we now live, particularly with regard to know-how. Gone is the day of regarding the farmer as a hewer of wood and a drawer of water. He is every bit as much a businessman as any other type of businessman in any section of the economy. If a farmer makes a mistake, it is made for a minimum period of a year. Unlike the businessman, he cannot possibly reverse his decisions. He is tied by the Lord's design of the seasons and whatever decisions he makes he must make them in advance with careful thought.

We are living in a period where costings on the input side of agriculture are very high. While I am not detracting from the traditional knowledge of good farmers and the knowledge that present farmers have obtained from previous generations, the general consensus is that further education is required. Agriculture is moving very rapidly. We are in the EEC. We are exporting to a market of 253 million people and we have to complete not just with the British farmer whose climate and circumstances are somewhat like our own but we must also try to get to the market place earlier than our continental counterparts who possibly have more advantages in certain spheres of agriculture because of their different climate.

If mistakes are made the result can last for a minimum period of a year. Agriculture requires a considerable amount of finance. Heretofore the average farmer was not educated on financial matters. In the past farmers borrowed money from the bank or some other financial institutions. They bought stock or equipment for their farms and they thought things would work out all right providing the weather did not cause any damage. There is far more to it now than that. There are changing interest rates, rapidly changing markets and a high degree of competition in the market place. To cope with these circumstances, a farmer must have available to him, virtually on his doorstep, highly-skilled technical advice. We know it is not just a question of sowing seed and reaping the harvest. The market must be studied and it is necessary that the average farmer be given the proper advice.

The agricultural advisers attached to the local committees of agriculture and the officers in the county council have the facilities and the entrée to the necessary know-how, backed by institutions such as An Foras Talúntais and others of a like nature. All this requires money, a constant updating and making available the best advice. One speaker said that at the moment there was one instructor to 500 farmers. I do not know if that is correct but it is not really a guideline. There may be 500 small farmers, 500 large farmers or farmers with a particularly difficult area to farm. I instance one outstanding example that is known to everyone in the country, namely, the area known as the Macamores in my own county. In certain years farmers have a difficult battle to make any success of their year's work. It is largely an endemic problem and we hope that when the other countries in the EEC get together and see sense we will have a regional policy that will help such areas.

There is not much point in having money available for improvements in such an area unless there is first-class advice available. It is not enough to have the advice coming from Dublin or elsewhere. It must be from the man in the area who knows local conditions and this is where the local agricultural instructor scores above all others. He is aware of the local thinking, he knows the community, the way they live and farm, and their problems. Also, he has a pretty good idea of the financial strength and circumstances of each farmer. So far as the agricultural advisory service has worked in my county, the local advisers have closely identified themselves with the farmers. It is great to see this spirit. In many cases, successful co-operative groups have started and are working very well. This type of activity is very much in the thinking of the EEC. Co-operation among neighbouring farms can lower costings.

So far as the family farm is concerned, especially where there are teenagers, such a farmer is in an advantageous position because he has labour available. However, there are many farmers who have not this help and are not in a position to spend much money in paying agricultural workers. It is in those circumstances that the local co-operative groups are of tremendous assistance and are necessary.

My own knowledge of farming dates back to the time I was a member of the local young farmers' group in Gorey. In those days it was quite a different situation and it was regarded as rather a field day if you could get an agricultural instructor to talk to the young farmers. The position has greatly improved but from those days good crops have been harvested in the agricultural community in relation to know-how and the will to change and improve the lot of the farmers.

About 25 years ago there was a reluctance to accept anything new. It was thought that what was good for the previous generation was good enough for the present generation. It was more or less a universal rule, an attitude of mind. While one can learn from history and past experience, it is a common opinion in agriculture that one must avail of new knowledge and technique and take lessons from other countries. Certainly we are seeing it in relation to cattle breeding and other forms of stock breeding. In that regard I think An Foras Talúntais have done a great deal of good work. It is evident in my county and for my part as a representative of my constituency, I welcome this Bill.

First, I should like to express my appreciation of the contributions made by various Deputies from all sides of the House and, indeed, my appreciation of their interest in this short Bill. It was indicative from everything that was said, of a very wide appreciation of the value of the work being done by the county committees of agriculture and by their staffs. It is accepted that the advice to be given by the officers of these committees is indispensable if we are to have progressive and profitable farming in the future.

Deputy G. Collins more or less set the tone of the debate. This, I think, was a little unfortunate in so far as everybody welcomed what is proposed in this Bill, and that is, to enable county committees of agriculture to increase their rate in the £ from 15p to 40p. It is enabling legislation. For some time we were arguing across the House as to whether or not this was mandatory. If we take a look at section 1 (1) it is explained there:

"The council of a county shall, in the local financial year beginning on the 1st day of January, 1975, and every subsequent local financial year, make to the committee of agriculture for the county a contribution under this subsection of not less than the produce of a rate in the preceding local financial year of one new penny in the pound in the area consisting of the county exclusive of every (if any) urban district therein and not more than forty times such produce."

There it is indicated quite clearly that it is mandatory to pay one new penny and that the ceiling is 14 new pence. Therefore, this is beyond dispute. It is then up to the democratically elected people in the county council to decide what are the limits. The members of the county council and of the committee of agriculture would know the situation locally and they will decide what is justified by way of expenditure on these valuable services.

Deputy G. Collins stated that he doubted very much if there would not be very serious objection on the part of shopkeepers in towns and villages, and on the part of workers in County Limerick, in relation to the paying of any increase on the present level for agricultural advisory services. I was amazed to hear him making that statement because it is common knowledge that everybody considers that shopkeepers in rural Ireland depend, in the main, on the amount of money farmers are able to spend in their shops. As well as that, such an amount of the raw material produced by agriculture at the moment is processed in these towns that many workers in rural Ireland are also dependent on the success of farming. I was amazed to hear Deputy G. Collins express the view that these people would be reluctant to make any contribution towards the cost of the agricultural advisory services. As Deputy G. Collins knows, County Limerick has not reached the limit of 15p at the moment; they consider that 12.69p is sufficient to spend on agricultural advisory services. They have not yet reached the present limit and will not do so for some time. I hope that, when the need arises—and I am sure it arises now— to have an improved advisory service in County Limerick, and indeed throughout the country, members of county councils will have no hesitation in providing this extra money for these valuable services. I must say that if that has been the experience in County Limerick certainly it has not been my experience in County Dublin over many years, and there were many urban members on the county committee of agriculture and indeed on the county council itself. Never once did I hear an objection raised by the members of the committee to whatever was needed to run the agricultural advisory services effectively and efficiently. Therefore, I do not accept at all that any objection will be raised to the provision of whatever money is necessary at local level for these services which, as everybody who spoke said, are widely appreciated.

Deputy G. Collins made some play of the fact that I mentioned that, to some extent at least, the extra money required was due to the fact that increased salaries and expenses were paid to the advisory staffs of the county committees of agriculture. That is merely a statement of fact; nothing more and nothing less. There is nobody more pleased than I that satisfactory levels of salaries are being paid to advisory officers. If they succeed, through the machinery that they themselves have negotiated— conciliation and arbitration—in getting the better salaries, I will like it all the more. But it is simply a statement of fact because 70 per cent of the expenditure of the committees is on salaries. Therefore, it is a significant element and had to be mentioned. That was the only reason it was mentioned and Deputy G. Collins should know that.

In relation to the fact that small farmers will make no contribution I did not know whether Deputy G. Collins regretted this or welcomed it but he seemed to regret the fact that small farmers throughout the country were getting this service, free of charge, and that there was something wrong about this. I wonder did he really mean that because——

When the Minister gets the Official Report he can read it and will have no problem in deciding what I meant.

That is the impression that came over, that these small farmers would not have to pay and it was almost asked: Why? Was it right that they should be getting these services free or did they deserve this special attention?

Then Deputy G. Collins says, of course, that the Government should pay any extra cost involved in implementing more extensive advisory services. All I can say to him is that this is not the first time that a Bill of this kind has come before the House and that his party, when in Government, brought many such Bills before the House but they had no such bright idea, when introducing those Bills, that they had gone far enough in asking the ratepayers to provide this money. Deputy G. Collins described the Bill as being so unfair and unjust to provide better services for farmers at present.

No, I did not.

It is so unfair and so unjust to ask for an increased contribution when we know there have been substantial increases in farm incomes in the past two years. To a considerable extent this is as a result of the sound advice and progressive ideas given to farmers by the advisory services. They have played no small part. I am quite sure they appreciate this and would have no hesitation whatever in providing the extra money needed. Neither would the townspeople. I have never known townspeople begrudge it because they know how dependent they are also on the welfare and spending power of the farming community.

Deputies who spoke about the system of employing temporary staff for the advisory services deplore the fact that people who spend many years qualifying to become agricultural advisers have to go around to the various members of the committees with their caps in their hand seeking support for employment. I was never happy about the situation but the county committees of agriculture are free to set up interview boards and make their selections. Some of them have already done this. That system can be changed at the will of the county committees and it is not necessary to have any change in legislation to ensure that appointments are made by selection boards. I do not like this canvassing of members of county committees, county councils and political parties. I see a serious objection to it because it should never have been the way but that is the system which has existed for quite a long time.

Deputy G. Collins reminded me that instructors were no longer on their bicycles. However, it is right to pay a very special tribute to the men who had to use their bicycles, the men who laid the foundations of the advisory service that we have today. These men laid those foundations very well and they did an enormous amount of work against extreme difficulties and quite a lot of exposure. They did a first class job. Thank God we have passed on from the use of bicycles by instructors and that they are no longer required to get around on their bicycles. I am glad also that there are many more instructors available now to help the farming community.

Deputy Callanan, who always makes a valuable contribution to this sort of discussion, told the House that he remembered the time when there were two advisers in Galway. He went on to tell us that there are now 26 advisers in that county and remarked that this was not sufficient. He told us that a more intensive advisory service was needed in Galway. Of course, he is right because this is an on-going thing and the numbers have been increasing all the time. I am concerned that the service continues to improve and that is why in recent times I have tried to restructure the service and provide more promotional opportunities for the advisers. I hope that trend will continue.

Many Deputies who contributed to this debate referred to the value of the farm home advisory service. The impression seemed to be conveyed to the House that there was some restriction on the employment of farm home advisers or that such advisers were not available. Farm home advisers are available and it is up to the committees to decide how many of these advisers they wish to employ. Such advisers are there for employment. I agree they do extremely valuable work and I agree with the Member who stated that such advisers are needed even more in the cities and towns than they are in many of the rural areas. I hope this service will be expanded.

A Deputy regretted the fact that it was not possible for people in urban areas to get any service or any advice from the advisory service. I know there is a difficulty about this but there is nothing to prevent them from getting whatever services they require on an agency basis. I know that in Dublin this sort of service is provided in the horticultural sphere. It is that type of amenity horticultural advice that is required in the city suburbs and that was provided on an agency basis by the Dublin County Committee of Agriculture. I see no reason why it could not be provided throughout the country also.

Some Deputies said there was something wrong with the advice being given in that the advisers seemed to be concerned only about output and not about profit. It is generally accepted that one cannot increase profit unless output is increased. Of course, it must be economic output in the long run but the fertility of the land must be improved and the stocking rate increased before one can get increased profits. Perhaps this has not been sufficiently emphasised but any adviser worth his salt must all the time have profit in mind.

I disagreed with Deputy Callanan when he said he thought it was all wrong that it should be anybody's intention that advisers should go out and tell farmers what they are to do if they are to qualify for various grant aids. They are not telling farmers; they are advising farmers. In the last analysis it is the farmer who must make up his mind whether he is going to take that advice and whether he is going to follow the farm plan he is advised to follow by his instructor. In my view this is one of the best things that has ever come along. Advisers for the first time are now being put on their mettle. The advice they have given is now being tested. If the farmer fails to carry it out and to reach his target he has a share in the blame. This is one way that advisers will ensure that they will keep the profit motive very much in mind themselves and that they will be personally concerned about the outcome of the advice they are giving. In my view this is one of the great things about the EEC schemes and I hope it will work extremely well.

Another statement made by Deputy Callanan with which I must disagree was to the effect that the various forms were ready for submission but that the Department were not ready to accept them. I should like to state emphatically that this is completely wrong. The Department are ready to accept forms and are ready to act on them but it is solely the CAO's responsibility to look at the applications that have come in since 1st February and decide what category a particular farmer fits into and whether the farm plan is a realistic one. That is the CAO's responsibility and he has to do that before he sends it on to the Department. The Department are ready to receive any applications as fast as they come.

Deputy Gallagher complained about the fact that when 24 extra advisers were sought in Mayo only 12 were allowed. Mayo is one of the counties that was running up a pretty heavy deficit. The committee were allowed to employ six permanent and six temporary instructors until the financial difficulties were solved. As well as that they got a contribution from the Department of £25,000 to see them out of their trouble even though they are one of the counties who pay only 25 per cent of the total bill. It is difficult to see how this can be reduced much more without taking local responsibility away altogether. This 25 per cent is a very small part of the cost and the extra contribution was made by the Department. There is a feeling that the 12 extra instructors met the requirements at the time reasonably well. If that committee continue to insist that they need extra instructors and are prepared to pay the extra 25 per cent that will be seriously looked at by the Department.

Deputy Leonard spoke about the need in the advisory services for advice on building. He said this was extremely important because the cost of building had increased so much in recent times. I agree that this is a very important matter. I do not know how things work in County Monaghan but this service has certainly been available for some years in County Dublin and I know it is available in other counties too, through the vocational education committees. There were two farm building construction instructors in County Dublin where the need would not be nearly as great as it would be in other counties. The ideal situation would be if there was close co-operation between the agricultural advisory services and the vocational education committees in providing this type of building advice. The Deputy seemed to say that people were led up the garden path, that they went into the production of store cattle and beef cattle and that the outcome has been very unfortunate. All I can say is that they never got that advice from me. I have been consistently advising people who are on the type of farm he speaks of if they were in milk to expand and if they were not in it to get into it. That was not based on any special ability on my part to forecast the future. It was always obvious to anyone who was close to the scene that unless one had a farm of substantial size and pretty good land there was not an acceptable standard of living to be found in beef production alone and that people who are on farms smaller even than 100 acres would get a very poor living unless they were in something much more intensive than beef production. I continue to give this advice. If people in Monaghan have gone into beef production in the hope of getting a reasonable living from it I am quite surprised. I am sure it only applies to quite a small number of the people in County Monaghan because I know that their farming generally is much more intensive. Pig and poultry production is certainly one of the activities they go in for to a considerable extent in Monaghan. I am glad indeed that pig production has come back into a profit situation after a period of loss more than profit——

For everybody involved in the industry.

——in pig production over a short period, even though last year was the best year ever for pig producers. Then they got a few months when they were, I would say, losing money due to sudden and extraordinary increases in the cost of feeding stuffs and also due to a drop in consumption and a drop in the market price. These things have, to some extent at least, corrected themselves and now pig producers are back in a profit situation.

How many of them would be back in a profit situation?

All who are doing the job efficiently are back in a profit situation.

I think I have met all the objections that were raised and I am very pleased that it was the unanimous decision of all the people who spoke that it was right to provide additional money. The Department are prepared to match whatever additional moneys are made available at local level to provide a better and more expanding service throughout the country. I am glad that this Bill has received the more or less unanimous support of the people who have spoken.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share