I understand that the Minister of State, Deputy Kirk, was in possession.
Agriculture (An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta) Bill, 1986. - Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This Bill to impose ACOT charges on farmers represents another milestone in the litany of U-turns of the present Government. A reading of the earlier debates on this Bill highlights clearly once again the irresponsibility of the attitude of Fianna Fáil in their comments made over their time in Opposition. I will return to that in a moment. What is even worse and must be commented on is that even in this early stage of this Government — for how long or short we may have them — it is very clear that they have no commitment to the development of agriculture. Already there are many straws in the wind to confirm and corroborate that statement.
Of course we have had some cosmetic changes. We have had a change in the name of the Department, as if this was to mean anything of consequence. We have had the setting up of An Bord Glas, but here we have had a clear indication of a hasty decision followed by a hasty appointment within 48 hours of members of the board but no steps being taken at operational level to deal with the executive or administrative matters which will be the responsibility of that board. We have staff in ACOT, An Foras Talúntais and elsewhere who at this stage do not know where they stand. They do not know whether they are coming or going. If the Government were serious and had a real commitment to doing the job rather than just introducing cosmetic changes these are things would have been done in a detailed fashion and not left outstanding.
We had a further change in the appointment of my constituency colleague, Deputy Joe Walsh, in the food area. I see him in the House and whether he is here or not any comment I have to make in this area is not related personally to himself. It is somewhat ludicrous, in the light of the hype and publicity from the present administration about their interest in developing the food sector, to leave my constituency colleague with that appointment and no money.
A look at the short record of the Government to date reveals that there are certain things they have done. What have they done? They have abolished the installation aid. Indeed, they are so worried about the effects of that decision that some Fianna Fáil supporters around the country, by a process of wink and nod and sometimes open statements, are saying that was a decision of the previous administration. That is downright dishonest. I am not saying it was said here in this House, but that is one of the things they have done. That was a very foolish decision indeed, meant, in a gross budget of £360 million, to process savings of £0.5 million in the current year.
The knife was taken to the ACOT budget. Again I understand the need for restraint in the public sector and public expenditure. I am not in here pleading to reverse this process, but trimmings had already taken place in the ACOT budget; despite the expressed view of the present administration and their strong interest in agriculture, this budget was cut in the present Estimates.
In areas of crucial importance in agriculture there has been no constructive thought, no positive proposals, no innovative action of any description. I am talking in particular about disease eradication. Levies on farmers have been doubled. Yet, despite some very constructive discussions which have taken place, despite a very constructive debate which took place in this House early in April when suggestions were made regarding better management of that system, we have had no change. It looks as if the attitude is to let the thing rumble on, haul in double the money from the farmers and leave them out there paying money with no entitlement to any say in the management of the scheme, but that is a matter for a separate debate.
Let me refer to the lack of action in relation to the extension of disadvantaged areas. We all know what happened in the past to reclassification. Reclassification does not involve the detailed study involved in a full extension. Reclassification involves merely changing the designation with, of course, very significant consequences for those included in the reclassified area. There is no evidence on the part of the present administration of any anxiety to secure approval from the EC for that reclassification application which was lodged by the last Government. At this stage my concern is intensified by the statement of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy, in Nenagh last Friday as reported in the papers. If that report is correct it is pretty clear that the Government are sitting on their hands in relation to this application with no intention of ensuring that it will be through in any short time or that the necessary funding to pay the headage grants in those areas will be provided. It is another very significant straw in the wind which again adds further corroboration to the assertion I made at the outset that there is no commitment by the Government to the development of agriculture.
I appreciate very much the work of ACOT. I will not be irresponsible and say that I oppose the charge in principle. On the other hand, if one looks at the present administration and what they have said on this matter it makes frightening reading. One wonders about the responsibility of the people involved at all.
We had a similar Bill before this House in April 1986. For a history of hypocrisy, cant and humbug, the comments made by Fianna Fáil on that occasion take some beating. I might quote from the Official Report of Thursday, 10 April 1986, column 481 as to what the then Fianna Fáil spokesman had to say:
This Bill will push back the cause of agriculture for many years. It proposes an unusual and sinister taxation on farmers...
Further on he had this to say:
Fianna Fáil strongly oppose this Bill and propose that it be refused a Second Reading.
There are many examples in that speech of that kind of attitude coming from somebody who is now a Member of the Cabinet, producing a Bill in exactly similar terms to that other one. This highlights the irresponsibility of the party presenting that view at that time. The Fianna Fáil spokesman's comments included the following, as reported at column 485:
As I have said, it will only be an elite group of farmers who will now be able to avail of the services of ACOT.
I would ask the Minister of State present to confirm that that will not be so. I shall return to that point later.
The Fianna Fáil spokesman's other comments were of a similar kind, with perhaps the following taking the prize:
Yet it takes this Government who are anti-farmer, anti-agriculture, anti-rural Ireland, to bring in this penal taxation on farmers which strikes at the very core of agricultural development, the basis of agricultural developmment, the advisory services.
Perhaps the less said about that the better. But it is important when a party, a major force in this country, present a view like that on a Bill of this nature and then, within a short 12 months period, introduce a similar Bill themselves, that that attitude be explained. There is a duty and a responsibility on this Government to explain that kind of contradiction, hypocrisy and humbug.
In regard to ACOT we have approximately £23 million in public funding from the Exchequer and local authorities — which I understand makes up approximately 80 per cent of that budget — placing us in the position that the choice is between cutting back essential services and imposing some charges. Therefore in principle, I cannot oppose those charges.
However, there are two major areas of concern. The first refers to the position of small farmers and other farmers in financial difficulty. There may be other sectors that are a cause of some concern but the main focus of concern is on those two. I am worried that provision is not being made to take into account the position obtaining in those two parts of the agricultural sector. To take the case of small farmers first, there are many farmers with very small holdings doing their best to eke out a living on them. I do not want to see them being cast to the winds or not being given the benefit of advice. They may not be in a position to pay for advice. If that is the case I would want a statement from the Government as to their attitude in approving any charge proposed by ACOT vis-á-vis the position of small farmers. I am thinking of the western seaboard, the generally disadvantaged area, although outside those disadvantaged areas there are holdings that merit the same description. In replying the Minister might deal with this point.
The second serious concern is about those farmers in financial difficulties and there are substantial numbers of those. I suppose the larger the farm the greater will be the financial difficulty encountered. Perhaps the old role of the adviser was confined to operational advice. I know that in recent years the ACOT adviser has assumed a much wider and very worthy role, that of examining the position of a farmer in a broad way, advising him on how farm plans can be developed so that his finances can be put on an even keel where such is not the case. I would be very worried about the position of farmers in financial difficulties, farmers who obviously would not be able to afford that kind of advice. Indeed, in many cases, they are the people who most need help.
In replying the Minister might let the House know what is the attitude of the Government in relation to those who are unable to pay. It may be significant, or may not be, that even though the speech of the present Minister for Agriculture and Food in introducing this Bill is rather similar to the introductory remarks of the then Minister of State, Deputy Hegarty, when he introduced the Bill in the lifetime of the last Government, there have been some significant phrases omitted from the present Minister's speech. I noted in particular that when the then Minister of State introduced the Bill on 10 April 1986 he began his introductory remarks by stressing the provisions of paragraph 2-42 of Building on Reality as follows:
Farmers who can afford to pay for an advisory service which is tailored to their individual needs will be required to make an appropriate payment for the service.
Then he went on to emphasise that there was no question of the general body of farmers being charged fees for agricultural services. He made it very clear that the plan was to restrict charges to an appropriate payment from those who could afford them. He also mentioned at that time that proposals by ACOT on the matter would be approved only where that requirement had been met. Is it significant that, in the re-introduction of the Bill by the present Minister, there was no reference whatsoever to the situation——
No reference to Building on Reality.
Unfortunately, no, which meant there was no reference to farmers who can afford to pay. There was no reference to the general body of farmers being charged, in particular no reference to the fact that there would not be approval by the Minister of a list of charges from ACOT unless the requirements in relation to those unable to pay had been met. The point I am making is — this may or may not be significant; it may have been overlooked — that I am somewhat concerned, in the light of the other record I outlined earlier, at the lack of commitment to agriculture already demonstrated by the present administration. It is a serious point. I want to give notice that, unless it is clarified to my satisfaction, I intend putting down amendments on Committee Stage.
I do not intend to bring my party into the lobby to oppose this Bill on Second Stage but on behalf of my party I will put down amendments on Committee Stage unless I receive full clarification on that point. That clarification should include a statement from the Minister as to whether he believes we should have, as it were, two-speed farmers — those who develop their holdings and who can afford to pay the advisers and those who are left behind the ditch to struggle on their own. That surely is not the way to develop agriculture.
ACOT have always taken a strong interest in young farmers. There is much concern, worry and consternation among the younger generation on the land because of the inability of ACOT at present to develop the educational and training programmes for young farmers. I understand the problems in the public finances but even before I assumed responsibility as Opposition spokesman on Agriculture I always felt that the seeds of future growth lay in the extension, as far as resources permit, of a proper educational and training system for young farmers. If we look at the money spent on education and training in non-agricultural areas and if we compare the flow of funding to AnCO to that available to ACOT, we can see why reservations are expressed in relation to any cutback in that area. In so far as resources permit, I would like to see education and training receiving the highest possible priority and from that point of view I am somewhat concerned at the present trends. I would like an indication from the Government as to their policy; do they believe that, even with tight finances, that area deserves and should get high priority?
A combination of measures affect young farmers and those who are about to take over farms. Installation premiums, which were introduced last year after patient negotiation during a number of years, were abolished and a decision was made not to continue stamp duty exemption for young farmers. Young farmers have difficulty in securing beet contracts and so on. That, together with the downgrading of education and training, puts a major damper on young farmers and those interested in promoting their welfare. It requires a policy statement from the Government as to their attitude in this area.
Another aspect which should be teased out and discussed is the relationship between ACOT and An Foras Talúntais. Have the Government given any thought to this matter or do they see any possibility for better use of scarce resources in the amalgamation of those two bodies? It seems there is at least a prima facie case for their amalgamation. I am not long enough in this portfolio to be absolutely definitive to state it as closed party policy. If savings can be made in administration costs as a result of the amalgamation of the two bodies and if, at the same time, the effective programmes now being run by the two bodies can be run as effectively under the one umbrella, then surely it is obvious that is must at least receive serious consideration and I suggest that the Government do this. If as a result of deciding to amalgamate the two bodies savings are made, then the kind of things I am talking about, putting more emphasis on education and training, giving more money to the priority areas and the re-introduction of the installation premium, would become quite possible. It would be more efficient use of State resources and no extra demand would be put on the taxpayers. I know there are other sides to the argument and I do not overlook them but that matter must be given serious consideration and more so as we now have a Government who criticised us for using the scalpel but who are now rushing around with a sledge-hammer and chasing every halfpenny of public expenditure.
A sledge-hammer does not cut as well as a scalpel.
Unfortunately it does not, that is the problem. I do not want to be emotive about this matter but certain Members on the other side of the House before the last election talked about cuts killing. The scalpel very rarely produces that kind of result. I will leave it to the imagination as to what the sledge-hammer can do. In relation to public expenditure, carefully designed cuts are the answer instead of rushing around with the sledge-hammer knocking out entire programmes and entire institutions without any thought whatsoever. That is one of the reasons the present administration have been subjected to a record amount of criticism in such a short space of time. I am not saying I want to hear the Minister or the Minister of State say that the idea of amalgamation of ACOT and An Foras Talúntais is good one. All I want to hear them say is that they are prepared to look at it quickly and if it results in a more efficient and cost-effective way of achieving the same or better result then obviously it will have to be put into effect.
Other aspects need to be considered. When dealing with constituents' farm development problems, I have often wondered about the two-tier system which involves ACOT representatives visiting farmers and discussing certain aspects of the farm modernisation programme while, on the other hand, the farm development service visit the same farmers in relation to the grant. That opens up an area for discussion. Does that make sense? It seems it is a recipe for substantial travelling expenses for those involved. I cannot see it as being a recipe for anything else. There may be a legitimate answer to this problem but if it is a recipe for travelling expenses, I suggest that agriculture has greater priorities than that. I am suggesting that in a time of scare resources it is a system which needs to be looked at, as to whether the dual system in relation to the farm improvement programme is the best and most cost effective way of serving our agricultural community and the country.
I wish to speak about the farm improvement programme and focus on the dairying sector. One of the specific statutory functions of ACOT as set down in the 1977 Act is to adopt measures to ensure that those engaged in agriculture are informed of schemes and facilities for the development of agriculture. My colleagues in this House will be aware of the problem which has arisen under the farm improvement programmes for a number of farmers who have proposals to develop their dairying facilities. Those farmers were notified after the middle of March that unless they were within their milk quota before the end of March they could not qualify. I do not blame ACOT for this, though under the Act those engaged in agriculture should be informed of such schemes. My understanding is that ACOT had not been officially advised about this requirement until the last minute. It is not good enough that such notice should be given to farmers two weeks before the end of the milk year. They had been operating quite reasonably on the understanding that such a requirement would be coming in but would apply to the year 1987-88. I know a number of farmers who took steps to ensure that any surplus milk would be covered by way of additional quotas and so on. It is not good enough to notify farmers a short number of days before the end of the milk year that they have to remain within their quota for that year. How could they be expected to do that? As I said, my understanding is that ACOT were not at fault because they were not made aware of this requirement.
I am not looking for a scapegoat on this issue. What I am looking for is a solution. I am saying that the Minister of State and his colleagues have a bounden duty to seek a solution to that problem. I do not want to hear about the red tape in Brussels causing problems in finding a solution. I have been going to meetings in Brussels long enough to know, like Daniel O'Connell, that the coach-and-four is still around. I suggest that the Minister and his officials apply their combined talents and ingenuity to find that coach-and-four to solve this problem.
When we are talking about ACOT it is like looking through a telescope at the future of farming. Despite the difficulties facing farmers, there has to be a future for farming. It may take a more flexible approach or there may be a need for more imaginative ideas. It may mean that farmers have to be encouraged to change from old approaches and old systems, but one can look at this as an insurmountable problem or a challenge. I see it as a challenge that has to be overcome. In overcoming the problem ACOT, operating alone or in a new shape, will have a very important function and a major role to play in directing and advising farmers in the years ahead on how to take advantage of the situation and how to change direction well in advance to take advantage of the circumstances as they arise.
When reviewing the performance of ACOT, one can see that that body have made a significant contribution to the development of Irish agriculture, but they have an even more important role to play in the years ahead. It is unfortunate that those remarks had to be made in the context of a Bill providing for charges on farmers, but if the only way a level of services can be achieved is a choice between charges and no services, unfortunately there must be charges.
I conclude on the point I made earlier about the ability of farmers to pay. I want to reiterate that point and I seek the necessary assurance to which I referred earlier. I want to ensure that the small farmer and those in financial difficulties will not be denied services in the years ahead because of their inability to pay.
This is my first opportunity to publicly congratulate my colleague, Deputy Joe Walsh, on being appointed Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food and to wish him the best of luck. I also wish the very best to Deputy O'Keeffe as Opposition spokesman.
Towards the end of his speech Deputy O'Keeffe focused precisely on what this Bill is about — imposing charges on the agricultural community for agricultural services from ACOT. This Bill gives us an opportunity to review the work of ACOT, the role they played and the changed circumstances in which Irish agriculture has been competing in the EC since our entry in 1972. The earlier part of the Deputy's speech, in terms of its political charges, had an air of unreality about it. Since I came into this House there seems to have been a debate on agriculture, which has been absolutist in its context, one side charging the other of having no commitment to agriculture, or less commitment to agriculture. I do not believe the farmers will benefit from that sort of debate. They believe no political party have a commitment to agriculture. A political party with no such commitment would have little or no support nationally, let alone among the farming community. It is also quite clear that Fianna Fáil have consistently said that the development of agriculture constitutes an essential national interest and we argued that very cogently in Opposition at the time of the super-levy negotiations. That is history now and there is no point in treading on old ground.
It should be emphasised that the Government are confronted by a national crisis. Despite the policies of the last Government — or maybe because of them — we have little or no room for manoeuvre in terms of public expenditure. The need to discipline the way we spend taxpayers' money, for whatever plausible or laudable reason, has now become a top priority issue for any responsible Government. Unless we get the public finances right we can do nothing for the development of agriculture, horticulture or any other facet of national life. However, we see that as only half the job, in marked contrast to the last Government. A developmental arm of economic policy was sadly lacking during the tenure of the last Government which has been proved by the figures with which we were confronted on entering Government. These showed the doubling of the national debt, an inexorable rise in unemployment and a worsening of the public finances which, in spite of tough talk and the attempt to dictate to our social partners, causing confrontation on all fronts, left us in a national crisis.
To bring an air of reality to this debate in discussing the pros and cons of charges imposed by ACOT for services previously given free, we must understand that they are a fact of life. We had well founded reservations in this regard before we assumed office but we must impose charges because there is no alternative. I do not believe any Fine Gael spokesman on agriculture can tell me, a Fianna Fáil Deputy for a midland area that is not disadvantaged and which has a higher ratio of small farmers than many places in Deputy O'Keeffe's constituency, that Fine Gael are supported by the small farming community. Fianna Fáil have commanded such support over a long number of years and I am able to articulate their needs just as cogently and cohesively as anybody else. Farmers who require off farm employment to supplement their income, farmers on very small milk quotas and those on marginal land are the majority in my constituency and these charges will hit them hard.
ACOT were only beginning to take those farmers into account in recent years, having dealt with the full time, progressive farmer with a large acreage and good quality land. In a survey carried out in my part of the country, it became quite clear that in respect of those small holdings of marginal land, it was only farmers who had taken ACOT advice and that of the agricultural services who were in a position to eke out some sort of a viable living. Those who did not receive such aid, for whatever reason — perhaps they were old farmers who were not interested in modernising their holdings — did not make progress in earning a decent living from agriculture. There is a problem for that category of farmer.
I also wish to remind the previous speaker that, in essence, he was talking about a continuation of the policies of the previous Government which brought about a demise in agriculture. We have been in Government for two months — I hope we will be in office a good deal longer — and I have total confidence in the Minister for Agriculture and Food and his two competent Ministers of State. Given a proper opportunity to familiarise themselves with the position in regard to agriculture, they will utilise and maximise the resources available to them from the Exchequer to give the maximum benefit to the farming community.
It was unfortunate that the previous speaker fobbed off the establishment of An Bord Glas as a last minute thought emanating from the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. He said the board has no money and will not operate properly. I should like to point out that one of the beauties of An Bord Glas, one which should find favour on the Opposition benches, is that that they will not require one penny extra of taxpayers' money to become operational. It is an example of precisely what he was talking about in terms of ACOT joining An Foras Talúntais. It is a rationalisation of the services available in the horticultural industry, bringing them together and co-ordinating them in such a way as to make some sort of impact on the large amount of imported food. It is derided by the Opposition who require the public to believe they are constructive.
The board came into being after 12 or 18 months of serious study and negotiation by the then Opposition spokesman, Deputy Kirk, and it was launched with the full approval of all the vested interests concerned. It certainly was not a last minute attempt to put forward a new, glossy package. We had enough of glossy packages in Building on Reality and we do not want to see that kind of PR job any more. We put forward a specific developmental project which will help the horticultural industry, and those who are best able to decide whether the board will help are in that industry. It has their full support and participation.
The Minister for Energy has announced an extension of the gas grid to Dundalk and this is something which the horticultural industry were crying out for under the tenure of the last Government. This will be of benefit to the many farmers who specialise in horticultural products. Let us at least be realistic as regards what is involved in Board Glas. Knowing the amount of work which Deputy Kirk put into that project I am not prepared to have it fobbed off by any Opposition spokesman new or old, familiar or unfamiliar with the amount of work which went into that operation.
Another point made by the Opposition spokesman which I would like to refer to relates to agricultural education. There is no doubt that successive Governments have failed in their duty to young farmers and have failed to provide the educational framework which is absolutely vital if we are to produce the type of farmer who can subsist, live and expand in what is increasingly becoming a competitive and complex market. I speak of agriculture in the context of our EC membership, the changes which are taking place in the CAP, the reductions in the guarantee fund and the failure of existing schemes under the guidance fund. It is important and absolutely essential that agricultural education receives priority.
As I said, I am quite satisfied that the Deputies who have been given responsibility in this vital area will bring about the decision-making which was so totally lacking under the previous Government. If I may say so, they were an administration who were defeatist in terms of trying to protect our national interests in the EC. The previous Minister continuously derided the people he was supposed to be representing on public service television. He said that we should not expect too much even before he got out there. It is quite obvious we got what we deserved given that he was a man who was not prepared to stand up for his corner even before he got on the plane.
As I say, that is old ground and there is no point in continually referring back and comparing one Government against another. Farming is in a state of crisis. When farming finds itself in such a position we can rest assured that our economy will be in a similar position because, as anyone who is involved in agriculture knows from experience, if economic growth is to take place there is a necessity to take the farming community off their knees. They were put there, let it be said, to a large extent by the policies of the previous administration and their failure to adapt to the events which were taking place in Europe and their failure to protect our national interests, particularly our milk production. On that occasion, we were not able to show the reliance we had on milk and the contribution agriculture makes to our wealth and GNP.
I agree that there is a need to have a review of agricultural education. The certificate in farming is a major step forward for ACOT. It is a well recognised and worthy certificate and one which should become the trade mark of any progressive farmer. I can say for my own county that attendances at those courses have been practically 100 per cent and great enthusiasm has been shown by the farmers concerned. Those courses deserve greater support from the State because as has been rightly said the amount of subsidisation in terms of academic education and AnCO training far exceeds what is available to young farmers many of whom come from low income groups. Agricultural education has to be looked at because if we do not have farmers trained in the modern skills there will be a continuous drift from the land, and we cannot afford that in our present economic circumstances.
There is one point I would like to make in reference to farmers in my own constituency which I think is relevant to this Bill and that is that ACOT have put forward a new scheme in relation to the suckler grant. My area which should be classified as disadvantaged is not so classified. Rather than arguing over the progress which different Governments have made in terms of reclassification what we should be doing is changing the criteria on which the disadvantaged area scheme is based. Many of the farmers I represent in the Shannon Valley Basin were far worse off as a result of the weather conditions during the past two years than any farmer in upland disadvantaged areas. I am talking about ground which disappeared for four or five months which left farmers in an impossible position. They received little or no response from the last administration and the spokesman for the Opposition has the gall to say we have no commitment to agriculture. If we have none, it leaves the former Minister in a very poor light. His party got the response they deserved in the recent general election.
In regard to the suckler grant I understand that the Minister has said that he is not in a position to increase it in the non-disadvantaged areas. Considering that there is a curtailment of milk production and the super-levy is in place, it is important to remember that a calf from a cow in a dairy herd is as good as a calf from a cow in a beef herd. It is important that we recognise that the herd owner is being squeezed at present and will continue to be squeezed because of the shortage of calves in our national herd. They are some of the points that I wish to raise. Despite this measure I believe ACOT will be given the constructive and dynamic role which is vital for the development of agriculture. In marked contrast to the previous administration there are the personnel in the Department of Agriculture and Food who have the expertise and practical knowledge to bring that development about.
I would like to thank all the Deputies who have contributed to this debate and who have contributed in such a reasonable and constructive way. I want to remind the House that this measure is precisely the same measure which was introduced by the last administration and which was on Second Stage on the dissolution of the last Dáil. If there were any prizes going for hypocrisy it would be a close enough contest between the different contributors at various stages the last time this Bill was before this House and on this occasion.
The issues raised in the debate were wide-ranging and frequently went well beyond the scope of the Bill. It is fair to say, however, that Deputies from all sides of the House are in general agreement that there should be some contribution from the farming sector towards the relatively high cost of the farm advisory services from which many farmers derive such substantial benefit.
In relation to the cost of ACOT's programme, which for this year is in the region of £28 million, it is only fair that industry, including the farming industry, should contribute a share to that. A headline has already been set by a growing number of farming organisations, for instance, in the establishment of scholarship schemes. I should like to compliment the IFA, the FBD, Kerry Co-op and a large number of others who are involving themselves in this very worthwhile scheme. I understand that the schemes provided by organisations and co-operatives now contribute 10 per cent towards the cost of agricultural scholarships.
In addition, there is a substantial number of highly developed farms which are giving very good incomes and it is only reasonable, in particular having regard to the present state of the national finances, that a contribution should be made from substantial farmers. It is appropriate to draw the attention of the House to An Foras Talúntais's farm management survey in 1985 which showed that of the 70,000 full time farmers, 12,810 earned between £10,000 and £15,000 and 14,280 earned over £15,000. It is estimated that a substantial number of farmers had an average income in the order of £25,000. It is only fair and reasonable, having regard to the benefits which are derived from ACOT and the other farming support agencies that contributions would be made by, in particular, the substantial farmers.
In many areas of economic activity now we are availing of contributions from people who can afford to pay and who avail of services. The same should apply in relation to the farming community. Therefore, it is fitting that ACOT should be enabled to obtain a portion of their resources from the sector they are advising and assisting, particularly to ensure that their programmes can be maintained at an effective level. In the interests of securing the maximum contribution from agriculture towards the Government Programme for National Recovery, despite comments from various people, I attended a meeting with the leaders of the main farming organisations in the past week and was certainly heartened by their support for the Government's programme and their agreement that it was the right formula——
I do not believe that for a moment.
——to get the country back on an even keel again. It has come across in debates and in particular from my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, that there is concern that small farmers, farmers in disadvantaged areas and those with low incomes, or perhaps some times virtually no incomes, and especially those in severe financial difficulties who have major repayment contributions to make should not be excluded from the services because they cannot afford to pay for them. I share the concern in this regard. This legislation is enabling legislation which will merely allow ACOT to introduce a system of charges for advisory services. What type the charges will be and the weighting of the charges as between farmers in different income categories will be at all times a matter for the Minister for Agriculture and Food and subject to his approval. It will be possible for ACOT and the Department of Agriculture and Food, subject to the Minister's approval, to devise a formula and options for providing advice so that account can be taken of farmers at different levels of income and in different financial situations to allow for a package or a number of packages to be made available to give due consideration and weight to the ability of the particular group of farmers to pay for the services.
ACOT make available their advice and their best people. I must pay tribute to them for down through the years attending, sometimes in dingy, poorly lit and draughty old halls and making available lectures and courses that farmers could attend without payment of any kind. That, of course, will continue and I would urge farmers to make the best possible use of those courses and seminars.
It goes without saying that the consultation with ACOT and the Department of Agriculture and Food will not focus on the income needs of that organisation solely, but will take full account of the important place of the agricultural industry in the Government's Programme for National Recovery. Due weight will be given to the role expected of ACOT in helping the industry to make its maximum contribution in terms of output, productivity and economic recovery.
Of course it would be necessary to introduce legislation to change the roles of An Foras Talúntais and ACOT and having regard to the total number of staff involved and the total reorganisation of both these bodies, it would be unlikely that anything could be organised this year, but the matter is being looked at and is under consideration as to whether a better job could not be done for the industry by the amalgamation of both these bodies. However, it is too early to come to any conclusions in that regard. In relation to any support services to agriculture or, indeed, any other part of the economic activity, State agencies would want to have regard to the contribution they are making to the development of the industry for which they provide that support.
Members of the two bodies about which we are talking would want to ask what contribution any particular project would make to the development of the agricultural industry. It would need to be a positive and action-orientated contribution. In my view both organisations are capable of supplying the dynamism necessary to get agriculture into the higher plain which is required having regard to the changes in the CAP and, in particular, the changes in intervention arrangements. I note that the two bodies, ACOT and An Foras Talúntais, are putting greater emphasis on the developmental role they are playing. They are putting greater emphasis on the processing, marketing and presentation of our farm products. We have to be aware that in milk and beef alone we export more than £2,000 million worth of such products and, by any standards in the Irish economic milieu, that is a very substantial amount. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
It is proposed to take Committee Stage next Tuesday, 19 May 1987, subject to agreement between the Whips.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 19 May 1987.