Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Dec 1979

Vol. 317 No. 9

Supplementary Estimates, 1979. - Vote 40: Agriculture.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. MacSharry)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £14,907,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December 1979, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain subsidies and sundry grants-in-aid.

The main Estimate for Agriculture for 1979, amounting to £132,815,000, was passed on 17 July. This Supplementary Estimate brings the total net provision for the year to £147,722,000.

I should now like to refer briefly to some of the main items.

Under subhead A.1 provision is made for a further £3.2 million to meet the cost of the relevant pay elements of the 1979 national understanding for economic and social development, as well as some other miscellaneous increases in pay and allowances. The increases under subsidies B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.7, B.9 and J amount to over £2 million and these also are mainly due to the implementation of the national understanding by the agricultural faculties at the universities, the agricultural colleges and such bodies as An Foras Talúntais and the county committees of agriculture. An extra £250,000 is being provided under subhead A.4 to meet the cost of increases in travelling and subsistence allowances which were decided on during the year.

Originally, provision was made for expenditure of some £4,000 in respect of animals slaughtered because of leukosis infection. Tests had disclosed leukosis in a number of herds which contained either imported Canadian Holstein stock or animals which had been in contact with such stock. In all, 13 herds were found to have a total of 55 infected animals. All these infected herds have been restricted and because of the nature of the disease the period of restriction has had to be prolonged for two years or more. In these circumstances it was necessary to make special arrangements with a number of herdowners who had serious problems of overstocking. At subhead C.4 an extra £300,000 is being provided as compensation in respect of animals slaughtered to relieve this overstocking situation. All the infected herds have been subjected to regular testing and the latest results seem to show that any leukosis infection traceable to imported animals has effectively been eradicated. There is continuous surveillance of carcases at meat factories and down through the years no evidence of the disease has been found in the indigenous herd.

The additional sum of £0.8 million required for the consumer subsidies on milk and butter is made up of an excess of £1.4 million on the milk subsidy, partly offset by a saving of £0.6 million on the butter subsidy. The excess on the milk subsidy is due to higher than expected consumption and a carryover of payments from last year. The butter subsidy saving is due to some fall in consumption compared to the very high level in 1978.

The increase of £4.9 million being sought for the M.6 subhead is due to the higher interest rates being paid by the intervention agency for its funds since the middle of the year as well as to higher levels of intervention stocks. The increase is to an extent offset by a related increase of £2.75 million in the receipts under subhead N.19, leaving the net increase at £2.15 million.

In the area of animal health there will be a saving of about £500,000 in the amount provided for the eradication of bovine TB. The round of testing which commenced at the beginning of May 1979 got off to a slow start because of the postal dispute and did not get fully under way until around the middle of the year. This resulted in payments for reactor cattle and fees to veterinary surgeons being somewhat less than expected. Payments under the brucellosis scheme, where there is a saving of £5.5 million, were also affected by the late start on the full programme of testing. However, the greater part of the saving under this heading arises from a lower than estimated level of participation in the voluntary pre-intensive brucellosis scheme which was aimed at encouraging herdowners to get rid of brucellosis infected animals before full compulsory eradication measures are extended to all areas of the country. The previous voluntary scheme has now been terminated and, with the recent introduction of a compulsory element into the pre-intensive scheme, I am confident that significant progress will be made in reducing the disease incidence in the counties covered by the scheme.

The original Estimate envisaged receipts of £9.5 million from farmer contributions towards the cost of eradicating bovine diseases. This was based on farmer contributions being collected over about ten months of the year. However, because the necessary legislation was not enacted until August, receipts under this heading in the current year are not now expected to exceed £1 million.

The shortfall of £200,000 in receipts under the Fresh Meat Acts and the Pigs and Bacon Acts can be attributed to slaughterings at beef export premises in the early part of the year being lower than expected and to collection difficulties due to the postal dispute. The shortfall of £175,000 in respect of fees payable by creameries and pasteurisers to meet the cost of the inspection service provided by my Department is due mainly to the fact that the necessary legislation increasing the fees was not enacted until July.

We are providing for shortfalls in respect of receipts from the EEC in respect of the farm modernisation scheme, aids to less favoured areas and certain other schemes. Most of the money involved has in fact been approved for payment to us but it is not expected to be received until after the end of the year.

Mr. Bruton

This has been a very bad year for farmers and for agriculture. It has been estimated by the Agricultural Institute that there will be a fall in farmers' incomes this year of about 9 per cent. I wonder if there is any other sector of the community which would accept with equanimity a fall in their incomes of 9 per cent. If there was a sector of the community under the charge of any other Minister who suffered such a fall, would that Minister be able to sit as quietly as the Minister for Agriculture has been sitting in face of such a large decline in real incomes of the people who are supposed to be within his authority? It has been estimated by people carrying out research in this matter that the gains of the farming community as a result of EEC membership vis-á-vis other sectors of the community have by now been completely eroded and that farmers are now back in exactly the same position as far as income is concerned vis-á-vis other sections of the community as they were before we entered the EEC. Few people have realised that. It is also something which many of the farming community have not yet realised, but it is a fact.

We have been told by successive Ministers for Agriculture that brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication are among the most urgent priorities in our agricultural policy. I believe it is evidence of nothing short of incompetence by the Minister for Agriculture, for whom the House voted £13 million for the eradication of brucellosis, that he now has to hand back £5,500,000, particularly when one bears in mind the inadequacies of the implementation of the eradication scheme and the hardships imposed on farmers by the methods used. The Minister early this year introduced what is known as the 30-day test under which before farmers move their cattle they have to have them tested for brucellosis and TB. An indication must be given that they are free of both those diseases before they can be sold to anybody. From the date that test is administered they have only 30 days within which to sell those animals. If they fail to sell them they have to wait for another 30 days before they can have another test and they cannot sell the cattle on the open market until they are clear of the disease.

In practice the operation of this scheme has caused great hardship this year, particularly to the owners of store cattle in the latter part of the year who were trying to sell them in an oversupplied market in relation to demand and the credit available to potential purchasers and prices were falling as a result. The way in which the scheme is operated meant that farmers who had animals tested did not get the results of those tests back until perhaps 25 days after the original test took place, and in some cases did not get the results back until after the full 30 days had expired. Instead of having 30 days in which to sell their cattle, all they had was five days. There might be one or two marts in the particular area in those five days and if those people did not get a good price at either of those two marts they either had to sell them at a bad price or take them home and face the prospects of not being able to sell them again for up to another 60 days during which prices could fall still further.

This imposed a very considerable hardship on farmers. It was not caused by the 30-day test but because of the inadequacies of the administration of the test, because the results of the test were not reported back to farmers for such a long time. All the tests for the entire country of blood for brucellosis are carried out in one laboratory in Dublin. Samples of the blood of animals have to come all the way from Malin Head to Dublin, from Clifden to Dublin and from other far away places to Dublin and are returned to those places. It was inevitable that delays would occur. They were particularly acute in the month of September when there was a very large rush in the sale of animals. This laboratory during that month was incapable of coping with the workload on it. What was needed were more staff and the opening of facilities for testing for brucellosis in all the regional veterinary laboratories, which are situated in about six or seven regional centres throughout the country.

The cost of establishing facilities for the testing of blood for brucellosis in those regional veterinary laboratories would have been very little. The equipment involved would have cost only £5,000 for each laboratory. Only about four or five assistants, who would not need very high qualifications, would have been needed for this work. People with the normal leaving certificate standard, with a very small amount of training, could be employed in doing this work. The reason for this delay and for the hardship that farmers have faced in the operation of the 30-day test is because the Government would not provide the equipment in the regional laboratories and would not provide the staff in those regional laboratories to operate the testing of blood for brucellosis in a number of centres rather than concentrating the testing in one centre where, from the point of view of distance and the bureaucratic procedure involved, delays were inevitable. It is all the more ironic when we consider that under the precise subhead for this work the Minister is able to hand back £5,500,000 unspent. He had the money but he would not spend it to make the 30-day test system work.

This is an indication of the grave incompetence of the Minister who bears responsibility for making that money available to ensure that the 30-day test system would work instead of being a cause of great hardship to many who could not sell their animals when they wished. The Minister should provide immediately testing facilities for brucellosis in all the regional veterinary laboratories. He should set up a system whereby an officer would be available in each of those laboratories to deal directly with complaints lodged by farmers where there is a delay of anything more than four days in dealing with blood samples which have been submitted. There should be one officer responsible in each laboratory to deal directly with the farmer and with the people who have these samples on their shelves awaiting the carrying out of tests. There should be an action system to eliminate all delays.

There is a strong veterinary case for allowing the carrying out of a further test for tuberculosis 42 days after a previous test, which would make it much easier for farmers to get their animals resold, having failed to sell them within the first 30-day period. At present, no test for tuberculosis can be carried out unless a period of 60 days has elapsed since the earlier test. The reduction to 42 days would allow a much more rapid turnover of tests and ensure that if a farmer had no opportunity for selling his cattle during the period provided by the first test, another test would come along much sooner than at present. I am advised, by veterinary people competent to advise me, that a 42-day lapse of time between one tuberculosis test and the next is quite sufficient. I urge the Minister to consider that matter immediately.

I am concerned to note a saving of £5½ million unspent for brucellosis testing and which is matched by a saving of £½ million unspent for tuberculosis eradication. The Minister last year, also, failed to spend the money voted under these two headings. We were told last year that arrangements were in train and that the same thing would not happen again, but it has.

I note also that of the money voted for socio-economic information services—£43,000—no more than £7,000 was spent. Money is available, from the EEC, to match any money that we spend on the provision of these services. These are advisory services, particularly to older farmers who are thinking of transferring their holding and unable to see how best to go about it—what type of family settlement they should make to ensure full security for themselves in their old age and an opportunity to bring a younger man into the running of the farm and thus ensure that the farm is run more efficiently. This EEC money has been available to us for the past five years to provide advisory services for farmers to precisely this end. We have been unable, for reasons which should be explained, to avail of it. In this year of 1979, we made a modest attempt to do something about it, by voting £43,000 for these services, but only a miserable £7,000 of this sum was spent. There has been a saving of almost half of the amount provided for schemes under the Food and Agriculture Organisation. We all know that there are serious problems of hunger and hardship in the world and that the Food and Agriculture Organisation are making immense efforts to improve the situation of the starving millions throughout the world.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is now making his full speech on savings. As the Chair pointed out recently, innumerable rulings have been given against that. I said I did not agree with it, but that is no reason why the Deputy must make his full speech on them.

Mr. Bruton

I am practically finished.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has up to now made his full speech on savings, not in accordance with the ruling of the Chair down the years.

Mr. Bruton

I have just one more sentence on that subject. It is remarkable, in this year, of all years, of the Cambodian tragedy, where people are dying of hunger, that £55,000 was voted to the Minister for Agriculture to spend on assistance to schemes being sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organisation, almost entirely to the Third World and he comes back to this House and announces that he is handing back £21,000, because he cannot spend it.

I note the increase of £3 million or more under the heading of salaries, wages and allowances. There has been a tendency, in recent years, for more and more of the money voted to the Department of Agriculture to be absorbed in staff costs in the Department itself. This is a trend of grave concern. The Government will seek to convey the impression that the bulk or all of the money, being voted under the heading of Agriculture is going to the farmer. The present situation is that almost 15 per cent of all the money voted under that heading under Vote 40 is, in fact, being absorbed in staff salaries within the Department. One might say that is a normal situation; Departments must employ staff and must pay them; of course they must. It is not the normal situation in the case of the Department of Agriculture, because in that Department, in 1969-70, they only needed just over 2 per cent of their entire money to pay their staff, when they were operating in times of much greater stringency economically and in agriculture. At that time only 2.6 per cent of their budget was required for staff, this year 14.5 per cent is required for staff. This is a sevenfold increase in ten years in the proportion being absorbed by staff costs. This money is not going to the farmers or into direct economic activity.

I have the utmost respect for the officials in the Department of Agriculture. Any Minister who operates in the Department would be served by amongst the best, if not the best, civil servants in the entire public service, but that is not an excuse for such a huge increase in the proportion of the budget going to staff costs. What has gone wrong that there could be a sevenfold increase in the proportion in barely ten years? The same situation has occurred in relation to the Department of Lands. The Department of Lands, the Department of Forestry and the Department of Agriculture are the only Departments in the Government in which this phenomenon of a dramatic increase in the amount being absorbed by staff costs has occurred. It is not something that is happening throughout the public service. In many Departments during the last ten years the proportion of the budget absorbed in staff costs has fallen—for instance, in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, the Department of Tourism and Transport and the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy. How could such a trend in the opposite direction have occurred in the Department of Agriculture? An explanation is owed to the House by the Minister. It is not the blame of the new Minister, but he can offer an explanation.

I congratulate Deputy MacSharry on obtaining this very important post. From what I know of the Deputy he has the capacity to do a very good job. The Deputy has been responsible on behalf of the Government for work in relation to the EEC budget and has shown in that work a very high level of capacity. The Minister has the qualifications to do a very good job here, but whether he does or not remains to be seen. Everybody interested in agriculture will watch his performance with great interest. I hope the Minister does a good job. I do so for the sake of agriculture, because it certainly needs something to lift it from the pit of despondency into which it has fallen in the last two years.

In relation to the provision for private agricultural schools and agricultural schools on farms, I note that there is some increase in the amount provided. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that these schools are packed out at the moment. Young people wishing to take a course in these agricultural schools are finding it very difficult, if not impossible, to find a place. This is very different to the situation that obtained three or four years ago when these schools had so many places available that they were able to take people who had no direct prospect of ever returning to the land or whose interest was not great. Now it is virtually impossible for people who will definitely return to the land to find places in an agricultural college. While I welcome the additional provision in the Estimate, it is quite inadequate in view of the existing demand for extra places.

If I were to single out one area in agriculture which will need special attention in the next two years, it is the area of agricultural education and training. The farming community need skills to cope with an increasingly complex industry, and our existing arrangements are not sufficient to provide them with those skills. Decisions will have to be taken quickly in relation to the expansion of training. Training is completely inadequate for farm workers. There are many openings, particularly in the south, for young men who want to become involved at a highly technical and well paid level in farm work. From speaking to dairy farmers in the south I know that in Cork they are finding it next to impossible to get men to work in the management of dairy herds and in the carrying out of milking operations.

One of the reasons why the deliveries to creameries now are just about at 80 per cent of what they were last year is that many dairy farmers are getting out of the business because of the very steep increase in costs, because of the freeze in prices that has taken place due to the negotiations of the Minister in Brussels, and also because they find that the seven day week type of work that they must do is impossible from a social point of view and they cannot get people to work for them in the management of dairy herds. There are immense opportunities for skilled workers in the dairy industry and, despite a large level of unemployment, these opportunities are not being taken up because people are not properly trained to take them up. Action should be taken as an urgent measure in relation to training on that front. The existing arrangements are insufficient. All the resources at the moment are concentrated on training for farmers and none is available to cater specifically for the farm worker, for whom there is a great demand and good wages.

I note that there is a very large increase in the amount of money provided for the Agricultural Credit Corporation. What is this far, and why an increase from £9,000 to £168,000? I am not decrying the increase, but it requires an explanation. Also, on what basis is compensation being made available for leukosis reactors? Perhaps Deputy Donnellan, who has special experience of this, would be able to add to the knowledge of the House in this matter. A number of farmers are having trouble with leukosis and are not able to get information on the basis on which compensation is made available. We should have more information on that.

Why has there been a saving of about £60,000 in relation to horticulture and aids to horticulture producing goods? Last year money voted for horticulture was not spent either. Is there a policy of not spending money voted for horticulture, or was it just an accident? If it was just an accident it might have occurred last year, but it would hardly recur this year. For the second year running money voted for horticulture has not been spent and I would like to know why. We must realise the immense potential of horticulture, but it cannot be realised without resources. In relation to horticulture it is recognised that the Dublin fruit and vegetable market is very unsuitable from the producer's point of view. It is operated by the Dublin Corporation, who, for all their merits, have no direct interest in the producer or in horticulture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not included in this Supplementary Estimate as far as I know.

Mr. Bruton

The operation of that market should be taken over from the Dublin Corporation by the Department of Agriculture and operated in a way that will provide an efficient service for both the producer and consumer and prevent, as is now the case in relation to most vegetables, a massive difference between the price obtained by the producer and the price paid by the consumer. Everybody is losing out by the present inefficient arrangements for horticultural marketing and the Minister should do something about it, particularly in relation to the Dublin fruit and vegetable market.

Although I had hard words to say about him on this and previous occasions I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to the outgoing Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Gibbons, for the courtesy he showed me on many occasions. Publicly, as I have already done privately I wish him well in the future.

Mr. Bermingham

I want to congratulate the Minister on his appointment to this very important post. If we feel he is doing a good job we will say so but if he is not living up to what we expect from him, we will be ready to criticise constructively the policies he is adopting. While I generally disagreed with the previous holder of this office, I want to pay tribute to his courtesy at all times. I disagreed with many of the things he did, but he knew agriculture. His views were different from mine but that was probably because he was in power and I was not. I wish him well and I hope he gets everything he desires as a backbencher and in his private life. I would like the present Minister to give his views on the general structure of land because coming from the west his outlook might be different from that of the previous Minister——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I allowed the Deputy to mention that but it does not arise.

Mr. Bermingham

——but if it is not he will be hearing many harsh things from me. I was amazed to hear that all the money provided for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis had not been spent. Many excuses were given. It was said they could not get it going in the early part of the year because of the postal strike. I am sick hearing the postal strike being blamed for everything. In my view there must have been a lack of dedication somewhere along the line. I believe the previous Minister tried his best and made unpopular decisions about the eradication of these diseases. I do not know what went wrong but more than the postal strike must have been at fault to account for the fact that this amount of money was not spent on the eradication of these diseases.

The 30-day tests introduced last year had a very serious effect on many people who sold their cattle at marts. These tests were necessary and nobody tried to resist them. Many people found it a hardship if they had to sell within five or ten days in a very limited area. In the case of many small farmers they had only one or two beasts to sell and they had to sell them through agents or cattle jobbers. Those people were particularly hard hit by the 60-day regulation. If they could not sell within 30 days they had to keep the cattle a further 30 days before they could be retested. If the period of 60 days could be shortened it would give these people an opportunity of reselling. Getting one or two cattle tested is an expensive business and only affects smallholders. I am not advocating that there should not be a 30-day test or that farmers should not be compelled to have their cattle tested, but if there is any way the Minister can alleviate that expense on these farmers I ask him to consider it seriously.

It has been said that the increase in salaries and wages is of the order of 14 per cent. That may not be a bad thing. The Department of Agriculture have to pay the national understanding. If this increase in staff means a growth in the service areas of the Department of Agriculture, then I accept it. Over the years the Department have expanded their services and, therefore, I do not agree with the attitude that we should not increase the number of staff. We should provide the money to increase staff. If they are providing extra services and if the Department are expanding they must have extra staff. It is only natural that more money would be needed for such staff.

As regards agricultural education I agree with the previous speaker who said that there was no practical agricultural education facilities available to farmers. I do not know of any great jobs with high remuneration which are available in my area. It is not a big dairying area. Farm workers in my area are badly paid. Farmers must be skilled in all areas of agriculture, whether in dairy or machine management or whatever. It is unfortunate that there is so little agricultural education available to them. Classes are run by some committees of agriculture. However, such people are excluded from some of them. Not enough use is being made of regional colleges. Some colleges have agricultural faculties but there should be more than there are. There should be a greater emphasis in regional colleges on agricultural education.

Any money spent on An Foras Talúntais is money well spent. They have developed farms for the Land Commission and others and have handed them back worth three times more than they were worth previously. They are doing a wonderful job in the limited area of their operation, in testing and farm development. They should be involved in agricultural production. They have the potential, know-how and proven ability to develop and improve farming. They supply information to farmers and that should be encouraged.

I should like the Minister to deal with a few points. Is the extra amount for An Foras Talúntais, £855,000, for expansion or is it to keep them ticking over? When the Minister is allotting money again he should try to get more money for that area and expand it in the directions I have mentioned. As regards changes in the composition of the county committees of agriculture—it is perhaps unfair to ask the Minister this as he is only one day in office—when will he implement the Bill which we passed recently and the changes in the composition of the various committees? A sum of £521,000 is required for the committees of agriculture. Some of it is made up in removal expenses, pay for officers and so on. Will extra money be needed when the Bill is implemented?

I wish the Minister well in his office. He will never fail to get money for progressive things here but we will be ready to oppose him if we feel he is not doing the job he should be doing.

Mr. D'Arcy

I should like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment to this very high office. I consider that the Minister for Agriculture has the most important office in the land. At least 50 per cent of our people, directly or indirectly, are concerned with agriculture. Deputy MacSharry has come up along the line like a lot of us. I do not know him very well other than we stayed in Brussels for a short time when we were first elected in 1977. I wish him the best of luck and look forward to his operation. I am a little nervous that the Minister has no real, practical colleague in the Cabinet. In gatherings of people and where decisions have to be made it is important to have friends there. From what I have heard the Minister is a good fighter and that is important. The Minister has taken over agriculture in difficult times and he has a difficult task. He can expect co-operation from this side of the House but we will also expect co-operation from him.

We are dealing with Supplementary Estimates and this gives an opportunity to look at the overall situation. Under every heading there are small or big increases. Under the headings of practically every Department there are increases from 1 per cent to 165 per cent. As far as the Agricultural Estimate is concerned, the increase over 1977 to 1979 is 1 per cent. This was in an answer given to Deputy Bruton.

There is a report from the Agricultural Institute which states that there is a decrease in incomes of those engaged in agriculture somewhere in the region of 9 per cent. On top of that we must look at 1980. If my figures are accurate the cost of production increase for 1980 will be in the region of 12-14 per cent. The Minister said that he hopes to win back the confidence of the farmers. They have suffered a loss of 9 per cent in their incomes, and costs in connection with production in 1980 will have increased by 12 per cent to 14 per cent. Something must be done about this matter. Farmers cannot continue with the present system whereby their profits are being eroded while, at the same time, everyone is calling for increased growth in production. It is rather interesting to see advertisements on television on behalf of the Department encouraging farmers to keep extra cattle on the land.

The one way to get increased production is to ensure that there is a fair margin of profit available for agriculture. There have been bad mistakes made in the past few years and we have seen the results. I farm extensively and efficiently. I come from a county where people farm efficiently and where they try to get the maximum production from the land. There will be further reductions next year if the present conditions continue.

We were getting a growth rate in agriculture of between 4 and 5 per cent. The latest figures are not available but we hear that the growth rate will be in the region of 1 per cent for 1979. This will affect the whole nation because any increased production from agriculture is usually for export. When we export we help our balance of payments. This year we exported agricultural produce at a value of £1,100 million. Any increase in this figure will be of considerable help to the economy.

If farmers were given a reasonable profit it would be possible to get an increase in production of from 3 per cent to 6 per cent per annum. The Minister knows better than I do that so far as agriculture is concerned we are achieving only approximately 55 per cent of our potential. We have 12 million acres of good productive land and it is dreadful to think that we are using it only to the extent of 55 per cent.

Certain factors are responsible for that. Ministers in different Governments have tried to increase production but if we are to reach our full potential so far as agricultural production is concerned we must ensure that the young people who are involved in the industry have a basic knowledge of agriculture. This brings me to the area of education in agriculture. When we look at the Estimate we see clearly some explanations why we are not achieving our full potential in agriculture.

The figure in the Estimate for agricultural schools and farms is £2,625,000. This is completely inadequate. Unfortunately the agricultural colleges are unable to accommodate more students. In Wexford we had 80 applicants for 25 scholarship places. Parents came to me and inquired how they could get their sons into agricultural colleges. I could only give them the names of the colleges but there were no places available. This is a hopeless situation. If I were asking a son—some day I hope I shall do so—to take over my farm, I would not do so if he did not have a good basic knowledge of agriculture. This matter has been talked about at all levels but little has been done to remedy the situation. Now we have a new Minister and I hope this will be one of his priorities.

I referred to the sum of £2,625,000 in respect of agricultural schools and farms. According to the Estimate travelling and incidental expenses for the Department amounted to approximately the same figure. Let us compare the two items and their importance. I have tried on numerous occasions in this House to get people to listen to me on this matter but I have failed. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I labour the point because I think it is important.

Agriculture is our national asset. People are always saying that. How do we make that national asset produce for the benefit of the nation? We must educate the people who are using the asset. I appeal to the Minister to look at the figures and to analyse them. He should consider where improvements might be made. I have always believed that the Department of Education should not be the authority responsible for agricultural education. Certainly no progress has been made in this matter.

In County Wexford there is Johnstown Castle with approximately 2,000 acres of land. This should be used for agricultural education. There are several other agricultural farms belonging to the State that could be used for this subject. I believe that Johnstown Castle is ideal for the purpose. They have the scope, the personnel and the good land. All that is necessary is that the Department would make available buildings that could be used for residential or non-residential purposes. In the regional college in Galway the school is used for non-residential purposes. So far as the residential aspect is concerned, that is catered for in the city. The same applies with regard to other areas. Johnstown Castle is near Wexford town and the necessary accommodation would be available there if Johnstown Castle were turned into a proper agricultural college. This could be done at very little cost. Research is carried out there by the Agricultural Institute and that is important. It is vital where agricultural education is being taught that there is research in the same area. I am horrified to see that there was a handback of £5.5 million from the eradication of brucellosis.

Before discussing brucellosis I should like to refer to leukosis infection. There are 13 herds in the State infected with leukosis as a result of imported Canadian cattle. The 13 infected herds should have been slaughtered in order to ensure that we did not inherit another disease. For the past 15 or 16 years, bovine disease has cost the State and the farmers a great deal of money. It has been reported that the disease is under control, that all infected herds have been subjected to regular testing. The latest results show that leukosis infection has been eradicated. I sincerely hope that it has been eradicated. Unfortunately, there are a few infected herds near my herd. I spoke to the person concerned and it took some pressure from me to get the Department to compensate him for the slaughter of his calves. Great care should be taken that calves from the 13 infected herds are not sold on the public market.

I have spoken publicly and privately about the damage caused by the 30-day test. This test has not achieved the desired result. A 60-day test would have achieved the same results as the 30-day test. Many farmers who applied for the 30-day test had to wait 15 days for the results. The cattle market has been unstable since last July. A drop in price of £3 per cwt. means that a farmer would bring his cattle home rather than sell them. The short time available to the farmer to dispose of his animals is ridiculous.

I call on the Minister to ask his Department why the 30-day test cannot be changed to 60 days. It is my belief that the Department introduced the 30-day test in order to make the farmers test their own cattle for TB and brucellosis. However, the farmers were quicker than the Department in that they sold their cattle privately. There is evidence to show that, as a result of the 30-day test, there was a significant drop in the number of cattle sold at marts. If I sell cattle to Deputy John Donnellan tomorrow morning and he shifts them to Galway, it would not be possible to prove whether I sold them on 1 July or on 1 December. The Department made no attempt to close the loophole. The farmers took advantage of the loophole and the disease is still being spread. I admit that the 30-day test has had some success but it did not have the desired effect. I accuse the administration of attempting to make the farmers pay for disease eradication. The cost of the veterinary surgeon was £8, even if the farmer had only one beast for him to test. After that the cost was £2 per beast. I have heard that the Department made a deal in Brussels in relation to the 30-day test. I have also heard that Brussels are prepared to accept a 60-day test. I appeal to the Minister to give this matter immediate attention in order to alleviate some of the hardships caused to farmers.

I note that the general grant-in-aid for An Foras Talúntais is £8,855,000 and that the grant-in-aid for the county committees of agriculture is £5,111,000. The most damaging piece of legislation passed by this House in the past two-and-a-half years was the AnCOT Bill. I am not saying that An Foras Talúntais are not doing their work but they should be involved in agricultural education at a different level. As An Foras Talúntais have the personnel, the equipment and the know-how, it is a great pity that they were divided. It was a great mistake to set up AnCOT in preference to the National Agricultural Advisory Authority, which was introduced by the previous Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Clinton. When one considers that their estimate is £8,855,000, An Foras Talúntais should not have the right to be an autonomous body. The farmers could derive great benefit from the knowledge of this body and it could also benefit the economy. I have contended, and will continue to contend, that their involvement be at a different level. Their involvement should not be behind closed doors but rather in the fields of the nation, in the farmers' yards just as is the involvement of the people in the county committees of agriculture. I wish the Minister the best of luck on his appointment and look forward to working with him.

Mr. Donnellan

I should like to support the case made by previous speakers regarding the 30-day test. Perhaps the new Minister, without much ado, might change it to a 60-day test; he might look at it in a different light from his predecessor. Certainly the money has not been provided in order to have this test scheme operate as efficiently as it should.

A legitimate point was made by Deputy Bruton in regard to the regional laboratories. As a representative of a western constituency I contend that the laboratory in Athlone, for instance, should be used for the 30-day test, thereby eliminating the delays that have occurred. Perhaps the Minister might state clearly exactly what payments are made to herd owners in respect of every animal in the herd affected by leukosis.

My final submission is in regard to the county committees of agriculture. As a result of events that took place in June last I happen at present to be chairman of the county committee of agriculture in Galway. We feel there is a serious lack of advisory services in our county, that the number of farmers per agricultural adviser in our county is much higher than in any other counties, certainly more than in, say, County Meath. We have requested the Department to appoint a number of additional permanent agricultural instructors to the county. We have the right to appoint temporary agricultural instructors if we are given the necessary authority; of course, we do not have much autonomy anyway. I think we have made application for six additional agricultural instructors. As chairman of that county committee I would ask the Minister to take note of these representations with a view to granting us at least the number requested.

Mr. MacSharry

We will look into it.

Mr. Donnellan

If the Minister wants to increase agricultural production in the State in general, the best, easiest and cheapest way to do so is to authorise a larger advisory service. In this respect I shall be parochial—because I am familiar with the scene about which I am talking— in County Galway one is talking about 700 farmers to each agricultural instructor. There is no way that man could give those farmers the attention they need. Therefore, only a very small proportion of those farmers ever has an opportunity of communicating with the agricultural instructor or of availing of the advisory services. Lest it be taken from what I have said that I am being critical of the services, I should say that I know most of the people involved and they are as fine a body of men in the service in our county as is as available anywhere else in the country. But the Minister's objective as far as the advisory services are concerned in relation to the entire country now should be to have something in the region of 150 to 200 units to each agricultural instructor or adviser.

We have a problem also regarding office staff in the county committee of agriculture headquarters in Galway, again because, as the county committee of agriculture, we have damn all power. We rely solely on the discretion of the Department of Agriculture in regard to requests for additional staff. Perhaps the Minister could bring his attention to bear on that matter and see his way to authorising the staff numbers we seek. Again, I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him success.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. MacSharry)

I want to thank all the Deputies who spoke for their good wishes on my appointment as Minister for Agriculture. I want to thank them also for their contributions. I shall do my best to reply to them in the time available, but I know there are other Estimates to be gone through and other Deputies wishing to make their views known on them.

I have taken notes of the points raised by each Deputy and I shall run through them briefly. Deputies Bruton and D'Arcy spoke of the reports of the 9 per cent drop in farm income this year. All I can say is that our figures and estimates are based on family farm income and that, while they show a drop of three per cent, the income per head will be unchanged this year.

Deputies D'Arcy, Bruton and Bermingham dealt quite extensively with disease control. At the beginning I thought Deputy Bruton seemed to want the same type of soft approach which has delayed progress over many years, but I do not think he really meant that. Disease eradication cannot be completely painless—I think everybody is agreed on that—and it must go ahead.

Delays in getting results were due partly to the postal dispute and partly also to the huge increase in the number of samples taken—110,000 per week as compared with 40,000 a year earlier. This huge increase shows that the disease eradication schemes are going ahead. All delays in the return of samples have been eliminated in the past month or two. I think that is also agreed by everybody now. We are providing new laboratory facilities in Cork and additional facilities at Sligo. As was requested by Deputy Donnellan, I shall look at the question of the laboratory at Athlone. Despite what has been said I am sure Deputies will appreciate—again bearing in mind the huge increase in activity in this area—that the new facilities cannot be provided overnight. However, I shall do my utmost to speed up the provision of the facilities required.

As regards the 30-day test, the question of the 60-day re-test and the suggestion of 42 days made by Deputy Bruton, I am not completely convinced that this would be desirable in every respect. However, I do not have a closed mind in that regard. It is something which I intend to work on in the Department as a matter of extreme urgency.

Deputy Bruton mentioned also the matter of socio-economic advice. The Deputy must appreciate that before schemes are put into full swing it is necessary to train staff. This scheme has been under way and the dissemination of socio-economic advice can be expected to develop more rapidly when the new advisory and training body take over An Comhairle Oiliúna Talamhaíochta.

Deputies Bermingham and Bruton raised the question of staff costs. Is it not incongruous to complain on the one hand about staff costs and at the same time to complain about inadequate staff? The figures mentioned by Deputy Bruton ignore totally the fact that the Department handle huge payments of EEC funds. This year, for example, the amount was £400 million compared with a total vote of £147 million. The staff costs as a percentage of Vote, plus the EEC fund, is less than 5 per cent.

Deputy Bermingham sought further information about staff numbers and he was not disagreeing in regard to increasing staff numbers. I should point out to him that the common agricultural policy section of the Department is extremely staff intensive. Perhaps this Department are more involved in EEC matters than are any other Department, even Foreign Affairs. Consequently, substantial increases in staff have been essential since the beginning of the decade. This is understandable particularly in view of the benefits we derive from the CAP.

Deputies made some valid points about the number of places available in agricultural colleges. Provision for expansion of places in these colleges is made in the comprehensive western package that is before the Council of Ministers in Brussels. I would agree with Deputy Bruton regarding the importance of training and education. I look forward to much progress and development under these headings when AnCOT get under way and are in operation. I cannot say when the western package will be agreed in Brussels but I can say that we will be making our best efforts to bring about a successful conclusion to this matter as quickly as possible.

Deputy Bruton asked also about the increase in the Vote in respect of the ACC which is under subhead F.1. This is to meet the cost of the interest in relation to an ACC guaranteed loan to Clover Meats Limited. The question of the saving on horticulture was raised also by the same Deputy. Both last year and this year we provided for funds by way of launching aid to any producer group in the horticulture sector. This arises under an EEC directive but it is not the fault of the Department if the interests concerned do not come together to set up a producers group. We encourage them to do so and we make provision for financial help for them in the event of their going ahead, but we cannot compel them to set up a group. However, we can only express the hope that they will decide to come together.

Deputy Bermingham asked when AnCOT would come into operation. They will hold their first meeting on Tuesday next. Regarding the Deputy's question about An Foras Talúntais, the extra amount sought is to meet the amount of extra wages as provided for in the national understanding. This has been the case, too, in respect of many other Votes.

Both Deputies Donnellan and D'Arcy inquired about the exact amount paid to farmers in respect of each animal affected by leukosis. I do not have the information but I will communicate with the Deputies. Regarding the points made by Deputy Donnellan in concluding his remarks, the question of agricultural advisers will be one for the new AnCOT. Hopefully, the progress that both the Deputy and I would like to see in that regard will be made.

Vote put and agreed to.