Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Oct 1978

Vol. 308 No. 8

Agriculture (An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta) Bill, 1978: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. O'Donnell

Before questions I was endeavouring to express my views in regard to the role of agriculture and I expressed vigorous opposition to the decision of the Miniser to take the Agricultural Institute from under the umbrella of the new Agricultural Authority. In a country like this where agriculture is a vital national resource, the most important part of our economy, which offers the greatest potential for economic development and for employment, I cannot understand the logic of separating the Agricultural Institute from the proposed Agricultural Authority. It is a retrograde step and the reasons are purely political. There does not appear to be any credible or acceptable reason why the Minister should have made this decision.

Since its establishment the Agricultural Institute has done an immense amount of research but there is a problem here in relation to scientific research of all kinds. There is a great weakness in the whole area of scientific research, not only in agriculture but in other areas also, in that a number of research institutes have been engaged in scientific research but there has been only a feeble effort to convert the findings of such research into practical projects.

The setting up of the National Scientific Council was a step in the right direction towards attempting to harness the research function to economic development. I do not like to speak theoretically on these matters. During my period as Minister for the Gaeltacht I found that there was a vast amount of scientific research carried out not merely by the Agricultural Institute but also by the universities and other scientific bodies. It was highly impressive research well up to international standards. Many of our scientists have read scientific papers abroad and this applies to the Agricultural Institute. However, I was appalled at the very insignificant amount of work done in applied research. Much of the work of the Agricultural Institute has been translated into practical improvements on the farm but a vast volume of research has not been put into practical action. I look on agricultural research not merely from the point of view of translating the research work down to the work on the farm; it has a much broader dimension in the area of rural economy, into research into social problems, a rural and community development and, very importantly, research into food technology and food processing that are vital dimensions in the overall development and exploration of the potential of Irish agriculture. I cannot see how any Minister or Government can contemplate the formulation and implementation of a properly integrated, co-ordinated agricultural development programme without giving the research function an important and integrated role in it. In my opinion this is the weakness of the Bill before the House.

The integration and involvement of the research function via the Agricultural Institute and the university faculties of agriculture in the national agricultural development programme is vital. It works in two ways. The integration of research into an overall development programme will ensure that the people implementing the policy will have available to them the findings of the research worker. The other aspect is even more important. The people charged with the formulation and implementation of a national agricultural development programme will be able to channel their work into specific projects or areas that offer the best potential for development. The liaison which the Minister is proposing is not enough. I cannot accept that mere liaison between the agricultural authorities and the Agricultural Institute is sufficient. There is a vital need for an overall, comprehensive, integrated development programme involving all areas, research, training, education and advisory services and the farmers of Ireland.

Generally speaking I do not like to quote authorities or to base my view on what other people say. I am sure the Minister accepts the need for a vigorous, dynamic national agricultural development programme. I agree with this but I recognise the vital role that research can play and mere liaison between the development end and the research end is not enough. Research and development are complementary and it is vital that the two be integrated.

In a recent publication by the National Economic and Social Council there was an article headed: "Policies to accelerate agricultural development" by Dr. Séamus J. Sheehy and John J. O'Connell——

Mr. Gibbons

Does the Deputy accept it all?

Mr. O'Donnell

Obviously they accepted the fact that the Minister had made up his mind and was going to bring in this Bill now before the House. They recognised the need for the kind of co-ordination I have been talking about and they stated:

Specifically, we propose an Agricultural Development Council consisting of Department of Agriculture officials, representatives of the proposed agricultural training authority, representatives of An Foras Talúntais and representatives of the farming organisations.

In other words, they recognised the need for the proper co-ordination of efforts between the different elements that go to make up a national agricultural development programme.

Everyone knows that the rationalisation and reorganisation of the advisory services is long overdue. A continuous debate on the matter has gone on since 1957, since the Minister's predecessor scrapped the parish plan for agriculture. I make no apology for having expressed my conviction during the years that the parish plan was a unique idea. However, it was scrapped and since then debate has gone on about the matter and reports have been published about the need for reorganising the advisory services. The whole situation is ludicrous. The worse feature is the system of temporary appointments and the system of permanent appointments. I know that many people spend a large proportion of their time at a certain point in their careers attending interviews for permanent positions.

One of the most appalling aspects is where an instructor in a temporary capacity in a predominantly dairying area is appointed to an area which is a non-dairying area. One example of that was the appointment some years ago of a temporary instructor in County Limerick to the Midlands where the system of farming was entirely different. That man was an excellent instructor but, in order to avail of a permanent appointment, he had to move away into an entirely different environment. That has been the pattern and the time has now come when this diabolical system must be changed. I know instructors in temporary capacities who come up here to Dublin for interview after interview.

The worst example I came across personally was the case of a temporary instructor in County Limerick. He was a very progressive type and he initiated a unique experiment. He formed a small group of 12 farmers and that group met every week in a different house and planned a very excellent programme. This instructor won their confidence. He was not merely their scientific agricultural adviser but their adviser in every sense of the word. The project he initiated was showing every sign of success. Two or three years later he applied for a permanent appointment in Limerick. The committee and everyone else involved were most anxious that he should be appointed so that the project would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. What happened? He had to leave the area and the whole project fell through. It would have been unfair to except a young instructor coming in to have the same outlook, attitude and motivation.

There is no diminution in the service. A growing number of co-operatives are now employing agricultural advisers. Commercial firms employ agricultural advisers. Banking and other institutions are appointing agricultural advisers. To me, the most interesting development is in the growing number of co-operatives employing agricultural advisers. Now, it would be a great pity if any conflict of interests were to arise between these and the official advisory service. This is something that should be looked at very carefully. Human nature being what it is, inevitably conflict could arise. The terms of reference and the directives issued might be at variance. There must be proper co-ordination and all must be motivated towards achieving the same objective.

The Minister seems to have excluded the Faculty of Agriculture from this new authority. There is an important link between third level institutions catering for agriculture and the advisory services. The advice the local officer will give, the quality of that advice, his scientific and technological competence and his competence as an adviser per se will be determined largely by the type of course pursued in the university. Some years ago criticism was levelled at the course on the ground that it was too scientifically orientated. Last week I took the trouble to examine the syllabus of the agricultural science course in UCD and to compare it with that of seven or eight, or more, years ago. I was agreeably surprised to find it is now less scientifically orientated. There is a broader range of subjects of a practical nature. In second year, for example, the student is introduced to the basic principles of farm management and agricultural economics. That did not happen in the past.

Now, while some changes may be for the better, it inevitably happens that some changes are for the worse. Some years ago there was a change—I am not too sure whether or not this system still prevails—whereby at the end of the second year a student could opt for a specialised degree. One unfortunate student, who was quite brilliant, opted for such a degree in the field of animal nutrition. He received an honours degree but he could not get a job here even in the livestock section of the Minister's Department. These anomalies should not be tolerated.

There is not merely a direct relationship between agricultural research and agricultural development, but there is a very important relationship between third level education in agricultural science and the advisory service and agricultural development. Perhaps the Minister would rethink this whole area and, as Deputy D'Arcy said, think of the long-term rather than the short-term effects of divorcing de facto the Agricultural Institute from the mainstream of agricultural development. That decision could in the long run well prove to be a disastrous decision on the part of the Minister.

I believe there is an immense potential for the development of agriculture. Almost daily, and certainly weekly, new ideas and proposals are being put forward for the development of agriculture. I referred briefly to one to-day, but the Library is full of documents of this kind. The Agricultural Institute, the universities and the farming organisations are coming forward day after day with new ideas. The formulation and implementation of a comprehensive, integrated and co-ordinated national agricultural development programme is vital at this stage. In that programme, contrary to what the Minister proposes in this Bill, the Agricultural Institute has a vital role to play. Mere liaison between development and the institute is not enough.

Mr. Kenny

Somebody once said that to open the wound of the past tends to make us lose sight of the future. I do not intend to get involved too deeply with the wounds of the past. The Minister opposite has one of the most important portfolios and, sitting with the immense array of empty seats behind him, he should be aware of the tremendous political power he has. Our greatest resource is our people and our second greatest resource is the land. There is a distinct difference between agriculture as carried on in western areas and agriculture as carried on in other parts of the country.

The essential point in this Bill is that the Minister proposes to give the institute autonomous powers and to make it an independent body. I cannot see the logic in that. The impression of many hard-working farmers is that there are politicians in this House spending hours arguing over titles and words, with little real discussion as to the action which could result from those things. Do people really care what title is given to a Bill or what words are inserted in a Bill as long as the action and the effect resultant from that legislation are to their ultimate benefit? The former Bill introduced some time ago would provide the necessary benefit without all the quibbling and verbal infighting over titles and words within titles.

The Minister says that research needs a specific environment and I agree with that. Successful agriculture has become a highly sophisticated enterprise. The real need is for increased production in all aspects of agriculture. If sophisticated research is carried out by highly qualified people in an independent body, there is a possibility that the results of that research could be locked away in an ivory tower far from the practical experience of farmers carrying out the everyday work. The National Agricultural Authority is to be dissolved. It is quite simple to do that when the majority in this House is so large. I respect the intelligence of the people, their political opinions and their decision last year. I wonder what the cost was of introducing the former Bill. It was introduced at a time of extreme political pressure and many hot words were used during the debate. The real loss has been the time lag between the introduction of the former Bill and the introduction of the present one.

There seems to be a particular conflict over the words "education" and "training" and we could have a long discussion on the meanings of these two words. What is the difference between education and training? What is education and what is training? Is a person ever educated or trained? When a student attending a teacher training college receives a certificate, has he or she been trained or educated? The same could be said to apply in farming. Who has a farming education? Who has a farming training? According to a report published by the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture, 84 per cent of farmers have only primary education. In that case, it must be said that primary education is of a very high standard because, as every Deputy knows, the keenest minds in the country are those of people who may not have achieved the so-called highest level in any educational sphere.

I have come to the realisation that the will is there among the farming community to accept the challenge presented by modern farming. The setting up of a unified and properly co-ordinated body would be for the benefit of everybody, but if research is segregated and divided from advice and services, it creates an impression that all may not be as well as it should be. There is concern for co-ordination even in the area of education and schools are being amalgamated. People are under the impression that the various agricultural services should be co-ordinated and research should not be removed to an autonomous independent section.

It is proposed in the Bill to charge farmers for services given by agricultural advisers. If an attempt is made to introduce this in the west, the result will be that many farmers who could benefit from agricultural advice will not avail of it. For generations families have been raised on very limited budgets, many on finance coming from abroad through enforced emigration. People are not inclined to part with money for advice. I suggest that the Minister should pay the advisers an appropriate sum and they should give their valuable advice to farmers free of charge.

I would like to remind the Minister that, according to the agricultural enumeration information of June 1975, which relates to numbers of holdings classified by acreage only, there were 24,635 holdings in County Mayo. Of these 9,172 were greater than 15 and less than 30 acres and just over 5,000 were greater than 30 and less than 50 acres. These are very small holdings. There is a definite lack of realisation of the physical barrier that many of these people have to cross to derive a decent income from the holding of ground. There are thousands of acres that need to be drained. I welcome the Minister's recent announcement——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is going into areas that could not be connected with the present Bill. He is talking about drainage, the size of holdings and so on. The Deputy will have to relate all that to the advisory services of the Agricultural Institute.

Mr. Kenny

In order to research an area of County Mayo one must be able to get into it. If there are no roads into it then we must provide roads into it. I welcome the Minister's announcement from the EEC in relation to that. Replying to a parliamentary question from me some time ago, the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy, said there was not enough bogland in Erris in the north Mayo area to provide a peat briquette factory. There is over 110,000 acres of bog down there. There is a research station in the heart of it and that research station has proved that valuable agricultural work can be carried out in areas of high density bogland.

If it is proposed to introduce a charge on farmers for agricultural advice there will be a significant section of the farming community who will not avail of this advice for their own personal reasons and possibly for the reason that they might consider the advice might not be worth it and that they would be better to continue as they did in previous years. The important point is that production on our farms must be increased. To do that we must have education, training, research and advice. It appears to me that it would be much better to have all of these things co-ordinated rather than segregated, with research in one section and advisory services in another section.

The Minister's proposal to introduce this Bill is seen by western farmers as the result of pressure brought to bear upon the Minister prior to June of 1977. There seems to be very little logic in it. The former Bill, if introduced and implemented as it should have been by now, would have provided all the benefits necessary to the people whom it was supposed to benefit rather than wasting the time of this House, of the Minister and the Deputies in discussing the verbal differences and distinctions between words as phrased in the Bill itself. I do not welcome the Bill. I would like the Minister, his advisers and his Department to note that if a charge is to be levied on farmers for agricultural advice there will be a section in western areas who will not accept that.

Mr. Bruton

Are there no speakers on the other side of the House?

Mr. Gibbons

There were only two speakers on the former Bill and they both spoke against it.

Mr. Hegarty

There is one thing I can say about the Bill. It has a lovely sounding Irish name, An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta. I have tried to compare the amended Bill with the original Bill. Being a pragmatist, I know that the requisite number of votes are available on the other side of the House so that this Bill very shortly will be law.

This is all about the interests of the farming community. It is not about politicians or civil servants or anybody else. It is really about farmers and production from Irish farm land. That should be in everybody's mind on both sides of the House. A few short years ago farming was a comparatively simple matter. It was a question of hard work, where weeds and all sorts of things were eliminated manually. Everything was done the hard way. The only reason we maintained production was because the people on the land were more numerous. But now, with the advent of modern technology, with the fast changing methods of farming, this is no longer the case. Nowadays we have to compete in an exciting new market place whereas previously we were only concerned with the British market. Now we have a new set of competitors and the onus is on the Irish farmer and the authorities, the Government and the Department, to ensure that we can compete efficiently and effectively on those markets. My only concern in relation to any Bill is that it will be the most effective legislation to do that. The Minister knows as well as I do that at the moment farm prices have escalated. He said that he was going to do something about it by trying to endeavour to make small holdings more viable, but this is not the place to talk about that. The Minister fully appreciates that, unless a farmer is efficient and effective and treats his farm as a business, then he will not survive. We all owe it to the farmer to do what we can to ensure that not only does he survive but that he prospers.

Let me refer briefly to a few points in the Minister's speech. The word "education" has been removed and the Minister has made his point. He has removed the word from every place in the Bill. He seems to be obsessed with its removal. I cannot see the logic of that at all. There is nobody so innocent or ignorant that they are going to confuse agricultural education with ordinary primary school or second level education. Everybody knows what we are talking about so why not let that stand? The word "education" was a useful addition in the Bill. The Minister agreed with me on one occasion in this House that not enough emphasis was put on agricultural education. In what rural school in Ireland is agriculture taught as a subject at primary level? Not everybody in that school will be involved in farming, but surely it is in the interests of everybody to know something about it. I would disagree with the Minister. I think the word "education" is the operative word. For instance, by taking the word "education" out are we leaving ourselves open in the future to some Minister coming along and saying that we should get rid of all these educational courses because they are costing us too much money and that in any case it is not mentioned in the Bill?

We all know the value of these courses. We have sponsored courses in various areas under the county committees of agriculture. In Midleton, where I live, there is one for ladies at the moment and I am reliably informed by my wife that it is a very worth-while exercise. The EEC have provided funds for this course. We should put more emphasis on this sort of thing. Education is the operative word. There were many young boys this year who could not find places in our agricultural colleges. I appeal to the Minister to do something about this because I know he is as concerned as I am. Those young people will be the farmers of the future.

I would like the Minister to tell us what he has in mind in regard to providing proper educational facilities for our young farmers. We know that the farm apprenticeship board are doing a very good job, but they are short of funds. They have made successive appeals to the Minister for more funds. We know about the large sums of money being spent by the IDA for the creation of jobs which very often do not exist. We are talking here about training people for jobs which actually exist. At the moment we have not a sufficient number of farm managers to go around. If this Bill does nothing else but improve the educational status of our young people we will be on the right road.

I do not see any mention in the Minister's speech about a firm programme for the future of our agricultural advisory service beyond fiddling about how they would be run, who would rule what, who would be somebody's boss. We should be talking about a five-year programme for our advisory service. This Bill should spell out where we are going.

The Minister spoke about the autonomy of the institute. There is merit in this. I believe that since its inception the institute have done good work in research. In the early days we all went to them for advice and assistance which was freely given. The fact that it was autonomous in the past helped. I would like to see the Minister going one step further and making this new body equally autonomous for the same reasons he gave when he was talking about the institute. In the past we accepted our advisers as representing a fair viewpoint but this was often due more to the character of the men than the type of outfit they were operating under. We are now looking for a more perfect system. I believe the most perfect body would be a fully autonomous one.

The Minister has said it is necessary to have control in relation to State funding. The institute have proved that there is no need for that sort of control. They have worked very well without any interference at all from the civil service. I would like to see the new body being free to do exactly the same thing. The important thing now is to get on with the job. The morale of our advisers at the moment is very low because of bringing in Bills, taking out Bills, adjusting them and so forth. I believe we are wasting time because developments are coming so quickly in agriculture that we have to be abreast of them at all times. We need a good advisory service readily available on the ground but we have not this at the moment. The CAO in my area told us recently that we have two vacancies. Two men were sanctioned by the Department for County Cork although we had not the money to pay them. Is this only grandiose talk? In my area our adviser is covering one-and-a-half times the territory he covered some time ago. We should have three advisers here. Top class farmers will seek the advisers but there are many farmers who have to be encouraged and helped and in those cases the advisers have to make the approach. The Minister is aware that the role of the adviser in farming was never more important than it is today. He is aware that because of the implementation of the farm modernisation scheme our advisers must sit in offices working over heavy files when they should be, and would prefer to be, dealing with farming problems, coping with disease eradication, helping to plan next year's crop programme and helping to ensure that farmers get the best possible return from their land.

Mr. Gibbons

Will the Deputy tell the House why the Cork committee did not spend their very big surplus?

Mr. Hegarty

The Minister should refer that query to the CAO.

Mr. Gibbons

That is the position. The committee have not taken the maximum advantage of the local contribution by any means so that what he has referred to could not be caused by shortage of funds. The Deputy should take that matter up with the CAO.

Mr. Hegarty

It would be more appropriate if the Department raised that question with the CAO. Now that we have been assured that we have plenty of money we can look for extra advisers. We have several suitable applicants for a post we recently advertised. They were eager and well-trained young men but, regrettably, we were able to offer only one applicant a post. Somebody is codding somebody in this regard. If the funds are there why did our CAO not fill three posts?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting into great detail on local posts but the Bill does not deal with that type of local detail.

Mr. Hegarty

It does because it is about the job of farming and how it should be done.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not talking about the job of farming and how it should be done; we are talking about establishing a board and training and education in agriculture but not the sort of local detail the Deputy is concerning himself with.

Mr. Hegarty

If we had autonomy for the new board we would have closer collaboration in future between the institute and that board. We would have a general blending in of the two bodies that would give young agricultural graduates greater scope because they would be able to spend some time on research and some time in the advisory service. Research is just as important as advisory work. I have yet to meet an adviser who is satisfied with second-hand information. Advisers want to find out things for themselves and they should be given an opportunity to do this. If they were appointed to the institute for a period they could do this.

The Minister should have given more thought to research because there is a considerable amount of overlapping in this area at present. The universities, the advisory service, the institute, the Department and companies like the Sugar Company are all engaged in research with the result that there is bound to be a lot of overlapping. At present trials are being carried out on seeds which should be done by an independent authority. We have been told of the wonderful yields that are possible if farmers use imported winter cereals but we discovered that they are not very good after we tried them in Ireland. For that reason we must have more emphasis on the co-ordination of research. We should not have many groups carrying out research into the same thing and coming up with different answers.

The previous speaker spoke about charging a fee for advice but I do not think that is on. As the Minister is aware farmers are probably the largest ratepaying group in the country. They are paying well for this service. The Minister should tell the House if he has had any success in his efforts to get EEC funds for agricultural advice and improved technology. He is aware that the prospect of creating many jobs in agriculture is great at present. We have entered the European area with dairy and horticultural produce and met with great success. Many of our products are in the front row of European supermarkets, a great compliment to our farmers and concerns like Erin Foods who process agricultural produce. The Minister should investigate the possibility of helping out concerns like Erin Foods in their research work. As he is aware the price obtainable for our produce in Europe is limited and the profit margins are very fine. We are depending solely on new and better varieties, on disease control and all the rest of it. The importance of all this in the context of this advisory Bill is that any money spent by the Minister and by the Department will not stop at the farm gate. The real money starts outside the farm gate in the processing industry, in the supermarkets in the case of sugar beet, in processing and in transport and in fertiliser sales. A massive industry hinges on agricultural output and yet we allow one small semi-State body to carry the can for research and development when all of this should be properly funded and tabulated in this Bill.

It was mentioned that the National Agricultural Authority will be maintained in real terms but we have no guarantee of any level of funding and there has been no firm commitment from the Minister. This point needs to be clarified. I agree that elected representatives should work together as is proposed in the Bill, in local committees of agriculture, and this move will bury any suspicion that might exist and will help both groups to understand each other's point of view.

In the final analysis this Bill is about agricultural development, it has nothing to do with who introduced it or moved it. There is a lot in this Bill to be commended and there is a lot that I am unhappy with. Basically it is a negative Bill which deals with who governs what and who will be responsible to whom. It is a nicely tabulated civil service type of approach. I had thought that a man with such a wide experience of farming as the Minister has would have come up with an exciting new programme which is what we have waited for, but we have been disappointed. There is not much merit in this document. When this Bill is passed the advisers should get an opportunity to get on with the job. I hope that agricultural processing will be expanded. As Deputy Kenny mentioned, nobody is ever fully educated and as somebody else said "The more you know the more you realise how ignorant you are". The same applies to farming with the fast-changing technology, the new ideas and the sophisticated new equipment and at a time when a decision in farming which could go wrong is expensive and every decision in farming is expensive. A little application of nitrogenous fertiliser could wipe out a harvest, and neglect in spraying in the case of mildew could also wipe out a harvest. I am not under-estimating the work of the farm modernisation scheme all of which could not be done adequately by a clerical staff. There will always have to be the type of semi-confessional arrangement with the adviser who goes out onto the farm and discusses in detail with the farmer his most private affairs and his business. The farmer likes to think that that is a highly confidential discussion and he may not be quite ready to walk into an office and spill out the whole story. We cannot cheesepare on advisers by just putting in more office staff.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 November 1978.