Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Mar 1970

Vol. 67 No. 15

Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1970: Second Stage.

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

The amendment of the Agricultural Acts as proposed by this Bill is designed to enable county councils to make an increased contribution where necessary towards financing county committees of agriculture during the local financial year commencing 1st April, 1970.

The existing statutory ceiling of such contribution, which has been in operation since 1st April, 1965, is a sum not exceeding 21 times the produce of a rate of 1d—that is 1s 9d—in the £1 in the area consisting of the county, exclusive of any urban areas therein. Under section 1, subsection (1) of this Bill, it is proposed to increase the ceiling by 6d to 27d in the £ with effect from 1st April, 1970. This maximum provision is, of course, permissive and does not make it mandatory on county councils to reach it or indeed to meet the demands of committees of agriculture, unless they see fit.

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

The short title and collective citation of the Bill are dealt with in section 2, which also proposes in subsection (3) that the Bill will come into operation on 1st April next.

The committees of agriculture are financed each year by means of contributions from their respective county councils together with State grants related to such contributions. The State grant normally approximates to the local rates contribution by the county councils, but in the case of the twelve committees of agriculture in the small farms areas of the west and north west of the country, further State assistance is granted by way of a contribution of 75 per cent instead of the normal 50 per cent towards the cost of employing adequate numbers of advisory staff.

Eight committees have not yet reached the maximum rate contribution of 15d in the £ which was operative prior to 1965 but the remaining 19 committees are now approaching at varying levels the present permitted maximum at 21d in the £. One committee has, in fact, reached the 21d maximum and five are in receipt of over 20d in the £. The proposed legislation is, therefore, necessary to ensure that the committees can carry on with their business in the years ahead.

As in the case of many other bodies, expenditure by committees of agriculture generally has been increasing in recent years. Total expenditure by the committees reached £828,000 in 1963-64; it now exceeds some £1,500,000. This increase is due principally to a welcome increase in the numbers of the advisory staffs employed by the committees. The total number of advisers in 1963-64 was 402. In 1968-69 the figure was 509 which represents an increase of about 26 per cent over the five-year period. The educational and other services of the committees have also been expanding. These include new education centres, winter farm schools, the pilot areas scheme, the small farms (incentive bonus) scheme, and the farm home management advisory scheme. Further advances in most of these areas are necessary if the farming community are to be adequately catered for in the advisory and educational work of the committees.

This Bill is required to meet the needs of some 11 committees who, in the immediate future, cannot carry on within the present permitted maximum rate contribution.

This is a rather short Bill which is designed to increase the amount of money county councils may allocate to their county committees of agriculture to enable them to carry on and where possible to increase all the services which they have built up over a period of years. All that is involved is the simple question of whether the House is going to grant that money or not, a simple question of "Yes" or "No". As the people who pay the piper, we are at least entitled to call the tune and, therefore, we should examine the services which the various committees are giving to the agricultural community to see whether the granting of this money is justified or not.

There is the question of the rates which in many counties have already been struck and it is to be noted that there is provision in the Bill to enable counties in which the rate has been struck to look for a further increase for committees who need extra money to carry on their services. I am sorry to say that in some cases this is not just belated but is in actual fact too late. We have arrived at the position in some counties—and there is no reflection on the eight who have not yet reached the pre-1965 figures—where a penny in the £ would bring in more than in other counties and consequently they would have more money to play around with and would not necessarily require this increase. However, there are county committees of agriculture who have reached the limit and they are unable to pay their officials the salaries which they could get in other sectors and, consequently, many very able men and women are at present leaving permanent, pensionable positions to take up better paid positions in the private sector. This is something we must deplore and about which we must do something immediately in order to stem this flow from the public to the private sector. This is something which could very easily snowball and those officials who are leaving for the private sector could very well find that they are happier in their new positions, certainly better paid and possibly have better conditions all round, and if that word gets around it could have an adverse result. We could find that instead of an increase in the number of advisers—which last year was the highest ever—there could be fewer next year. Consequently, the services instead of being extended as has been happening—and there is a tremendous opportunity at present to increase the services for the agricultural community who are ready to accept all available advice to bring about an increase in agricultural production and an increased return to themselves—would be reduced.

In the past the agricultural committees have had a really tough uphill fight to get advice across to the agricultural community. For far too long agriculture was looked upon as a way of life instead of being the country's oldest and greatest industry. I think it is true to say that it was not until around 1946 or 1947 when the great rural organisation Macra na Feirme was founded and the agricultural committees became its godparents that at long last the breakthrough was achieved. We were dealing with a new generation of young farmers who were anxious to learn and willing to put into operation the advice and recommendations of the agricultural advisers. This has expanded to such an extent that now we should be in the position of being able to put the county committees of agriculture on a similar footing to that enjoyed by the vocational education committees. There is a great demand for further instruction, further farm schools and further home advisory services and unless we can provide the personnel not alone to keep those going but to keep them expanding, and unless we provide the extra money, that expansion just cannot take place.

There is also the likelihood that in the foreseeable future we will gain entry to the EEC and then it will not be just good enough to be second best. We must make every provision for the young farmers who are coming along, for the people who are going to be the backbone of the country. They must be fully equipped to play their part when that day arrives.

If we take a look at the position in agriculture and look at the various Government Departments, there is hardly a single Government Department which has not a finger in the agricultural pie at some stage or another. If you remember that the agricultural committees are involved in various activities such as forestry and the agricultural credit corporation, if all those other branches could be brought together in one body it would be doing a great service to the agricultural community. Under the present scheme the committees of agriculture are unable to encourage or to employ men who specialise in a particular branch of agriculture, but we have now a tendency towards specialisation in farming and many farmers tend to specialise in one branch of agriculture or another. It would cost considerably more, I must admit, but all the various schemes and Departments should be brought together under one roof as in our Fine Gael agricultural policy called the rural development authority—if you do not like that name call it something else—because, to give one example, the Agricultural Credit Corporation are unwilling to give a loan to a farmer unless he can show that through his agricultural advisers he is prepared to embark on some particular scheme that will give the necessary return from the loan that he is about to receive.

That is just one heading under which I have tried to point out the necessity for bringing all these bodies under the one roof. It would save an enormous amount of overlapping, and the committee of agriculture could then supply one person specialising in one particular branch. Take, for instance, dairying. One man could deal with the cows from the calf to the building that she uses. Another could deal with pigs, another with sheep, and so on right down the line, instead of as at the present time when each agricultural adviser has to be a specialist in every field, which to my mind is very difficult, if not impossible.

Unless we are prepared to supply the extra money to provide this service the agricultural committees are going to find that instead of advancing as we would hope that they should they are just going to be back to square one in many cases, as the Minister has pointed out in his speech.

There was talk of reconstructing the committees of agriculture, and regionalising them, but I do not think it would be satisfactory if we were to bring agriculture into regions. As they are at present constituted we have the General Council of Committees of Agriculture who are doing very good work, and if you put three or four committees together to do the same job they will be inclined to get away from the personal contact that they are so familiar with in their own county, and the farming operations differ very largely from one county to another. I feel that unless all the Departments that have, as I say, a finger in the agricultural pie can be brought under one roof and the advisers specialise in the various branches of agriculture, I cannot see that bringing them into regions would be a better idea.

The committees of agriculture have certainly done a tremendous job. They give their services free and they are most anxious to see that the message is got across by any and every means. County shows to which the committees very often make substantial financial contributions are one excellent means which they have for the people to see what is being done. While I realise that this increase is going to have a further serious impact on the already soaring rates, I feel that the people who are getting the service are quite prepared at all times to pay for it. While it will be levied on a county at large basis rather than the committees of agriculture alone, the people who do not benefit directly from it will, I am quite certain, accept the increase in the knowledge that if we have not got a prosperous agricultural community there is very little hope of having prosperity in the towns and cities.

The Bill, as I have said at the outset, is a short one and somewhat restricted. I should like to speak at greater length on agriculture in the wider field, but I saw the Cathaoirleach looking in my direction a moment ago and I, therefore, would tend to bring my remarks to a close, but I look forward to speaking at greater length in the presence of the Minister in another place at a later date.

As Senator Malone has mentioned, this is a very short and restricted Bill. On behalf of the Labour Party I should like to say that we support the Bill. It is essential that committees of agriculture should be enabled to be properly financed so as to provide the services which the agricultural community needs. Perhaps the Minister when he is replying might refer to the fact that it appears that every five years it is necessary to have an Agriculture (Amendment) Bill of this kind. One wonders why he should be restricted to increasing it by only 6d each time. One would think that nowadays when money has lost its value the Minister would be asking us to increase it from 1/9d to, perhaps, 2/6d or 3/- rather than by 6d to 2/3d. Perhaps the thinking behind that might be that the agricultural committees might be inclined to run riot, making excessive demands on the local authorities. It will be noted here from the Minister's introductory speech that he specified, as we all know, that it is not mandatory on county councils to pay it. Very, very often at a county council estimates meeting we have the question of the agricultural committee's demand being questioned by councillors, perhaps, very vigorously, if they do not happen to be members of the agricultural committee. It does appear that the demand is there for more advisory services, and the proof of that is here where the Minister pointed out that he had an increase in the number of advisers of 26 per cent in the five year period, which I presume is the five year period covered since 1965.

Coming from one of the counties that, perhaps, has not reached the maximum of 1s 9d, or not nearly reached the maximum, because of the fact that a penny in the £ brings in £2,400, as against the neighbouring county where a penny in the £ would only bring in £1,200, I should like to say that this would mean they would have to impose twopence in the £ to bring in the same amount as a penny in the £ would bring in in my county. I do not wish to detain the House further. I support the Bill but I should just like to know what is the thinking behind restricting it to an increase of sixpence since that means that in a very short time the Minister will be looking for another increase to keep pace with the increased demand on the agricultural committees for more advisory services.

I, too, should like to support the Bill. It will be very welcome particularly in counties where they are reaching the limit and expenditure on salaries will increase in the coming year. The staffs of the committees of agriculture are on incremental scales. If the committees do not wish to expand their services at least their expenditure has to increase every year. I should like to point out to my friend, Senator Malone, that this Bill has nothing to do with payment of instructors by committees of agriculture. Their salaries are regulated by their terms of reference with the Department and their own negotiating body. In fact, the committees of agriculture only carry out the recommendations of their conciliation and arbitration agreements.

Which in one case was £2 a year.

That was discussed at conciliation and that was the award. I felt they should have got more all right but the Senator is only taking the higher end of the scale. The people at the bottom of the scale got a much higher rate.

It was £2.

It was £2 in respect of poultry instructors at the maximum of the scale. Those at the lower end got a much higher increase. I think the Senator referred to the trend towards moving out into industry. That has always been the case. As long as I remember, the rates of remuneration obtaining in industry have always been higher than those obtaining in committees of agriculture. A graduate always had to think about security. If he went into industry he received higher pay. He had not the security and he had to work harder. It is very hard to get horticultural instructors because of their scarcity. It is not the remuneration which is causing the scarcity. There are not enough people doing the course.

I was told by a graduate that roughly about 200 every year start in agricultural science but only 50 come through the four year period. If this is so I feel that there should be some arrangement whereby more than 50 can come through. People fail examinations but where the failure rate is so high something should be done to let more through. We need those graduates.

Staffs of committees of agriculture have been doing tremendous work over the years. I was glad Senator Malone mentioned Macra na Feirme because we both have very happy memories in days gone by of the work of that organisation and what the committees of agriculture have done throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. There seems to be a trend towards specialisation in certain directions. England have set this pattern for a number of years but, as a farmer, I do not think it is a step I should recommend. Normally, the farmer is conservative. If he calls an instructor he wants advice. He wants a guide and philosopher. Specialisation would involve five or six different people telling the farmer how he should spend his money. If a farmer were working to a plan, instead of having an instructor he would have five or six different people discussing what they were going to do with his money and how it was to be spent in the coming year. He would be overwhelmed. He would be much better if only one man discussed matters with him.

We are all politicians but we do not know the answer to everything. Most of us have an idea where we can get the information we require and it would be the same with the instructor. If he has to tackle a problem he can use the telephone saying he will think the matter over for a week or so but that in the meantime he will get all the data he can. I would not like to see specialisation creeping into our advisory services because it would have fairly far-reaching repercussions. University courses—they are farm management courses although they have never been so called—would have to be changed. It is unfortunate that so few of our farmers, particularly the larger ones, take those courses to run their own farms. Less than 1 per cent of those who graduate every year go back to work on farms.

I should like to see greater emphasis in our agricultural schools on encouraging people, particularly farmers' sons, to take this university course. It is fundamentally a farm management course embracing everything the farmer is likely to encounter in running a farm. I give my wholehearted support to the Bill.

I too welcome this Bill. Our advisory services must be kept up to date and expanded where necessary. I would ask the Minister to look into the entire question of our advisory services with the greatest possible speed. While it is encouraging to note the numbers of advisers now employed it is disturbing to see the large numbers of advisers employed on a temporary basis. When a farmer wishes to obtain credit facilities he has to submit a farm plan which is drawn up either by or in consultation with an adviser and it is therefore very necessary to have permanent advisers in each county to advise the farmers. I noticed recently that one bank made an additional appointment of an agricultural graduate to its staff and I think this trend will continue in the future.

I must join issue with Senator Crinion on the question of the status of the advisory service at present. As a member of a committee of agriculture it has been my experience when advertising for advisers that the applicants have always had several years experience. Graduates usually work in industry for a few years, but this year we were fortunate enough to appoint a graduate who qualified only last year. He took up his appointment the day after he was conferred. As far as we were concerned this was a new practice, but it seems to prove that the attractiveness of the position of temporary advisory officers has dwindled. If we are to attract the best advisers to agriculture we must make the profession of agricultural advisers at least as attractive as the profession of engineers employed by county councils. These people demonstrated in no uncertain way their dissatisfaction with the pay scales awarded to them last year, yet our agricultural advisers' salaries are a long way behind those paid to engineers. From looking at the diaries of many of the advisers in my own county it appears that more and more farmers are availing of their services. The last arbitration award left many young people very dissatisfied and I would ask the Minister to help out in this difficult situation.

I should like the Minister to do something to shorten the time lag between the time when a committee of agriculture asks the local appointments commission to appoint additional permanent officers and the eventual date when the name comes up for approval. In my experience it takes anything from nine months to two years and I think this is altogether far too long. The system of appointment must be changed. At present on appointment an adviser can take three months to make up his mind whether or not to accept the appointment and this causes difficulties for many county committees of agriculture. While I do not disagree with an individual's right to choose between various appointments offered him the good of the advisory service should also be taken into account. I understand the salary on the temporary scale is in the region of £800 or £900, but this is not a realistic figure for people who have spent several years graduating from the university.

It would be a good idea if principal officers were to visit county committees of agriculture at least once in their five year reign. This might help the people in Dublin appreciate the position a little better. I am not suggesting that the Department of Agriculture is not doing a good job but I feel that the people in Merrion Street do not always appreciate the thoughts of local members in the county. Such visits would provide a helpful link.

I should like to know if the Minister has any strong views about the appointment of agricultural technicians. I recall reading that a particular county proposed making such appointments and I would like to hear from the Minister if in fact these appointments were made. The general council of committees of agriculture should be utilised to a greater degree as this is an ideal way for representatives and farmers at committee level to exchange views and discuss policy matters. If agriculture is to thrive in the years ahead we must make a better effort to increase the effectiveness of our advisory services. The greatest blow our advisory services have suffered in recent years has been the lack of a long-term agricultural policy. In my county we made a very special effort two or three years ago to promote the expansion of the dairying industry in the midlands and while our advisory services certainly put their backs into the work and achieved a very significant increase in the output of milk yet a very few years after we find a drastic change of policy in the Department of Agriculture. This reflects most severely on the instructors who had done a very good job in tackling the task initially set for them. The Minister has an obligation to ensure that the services are not treated in this way. The only way of ensuring that people will not begin to mistrust our advisory services is to have them embark on a long-term policy and for the Department to introduce a long-term policy for agriculture. I certainly welcome this provision.

It is obvious that this is a Bill that will be welcomed generally for the reason stated by several Senators, that it will enable improvements to be made in various matters that concern agriculture. Basically, however, this Bill seems to me to be a Bill to allow the farmers to tax themselves more in order to be able to grant more money to themselves. This Bill is to enable a higher rate to be struck for the purpose of subsidising further the agricultural committees. Who will pay these increased rates? It will, of course, be the farming community. It is possible that that particular aspect might not be quite so welcome as the other aspect which enables more money to be given to the agricultural committees.

The Minister told us that the committees of agriculture are financed each year by means of contributions both from their respective county councils— and by this Bill we are increasing those grants—and by contributions from the State which the Minister told us are related to the local contributions. He implied that as a rule the State pays 50/50, more or less. The State pays just about as much as the local council. He did mention that in some counties— the small farm areas in the west and north-west—the State pays a markedly bigger proportion. It pays up to 75 per cent instead of the more normal 50 per cent. I notice, however, that in his speech he mentions that eight committees have not yet reached the maximum rate contribution that was operative prior to 1965, that is a contribution of 15d or 1/3d in the £. They have not quite reached what was the maximum in 1965 and therefore they had not got anywhere near the 21d which we are now raising to a maximum of 27d. I am entitled to assume that the eight committees to which he refers, which have not yet reached what was regarded as a legitimate maximum up to 1965, are the poorer counties and these counties, by reason of being poorer, will get less local grant and consequently less State grant. I may be wrong about this and I speak partly for clarification on this point. I should be interested to know, if I am correct in assuming that the committees which have not yet reached this 1/3d rate are in general the poorer counties, whether the Minister is not concerned that the help given to them by the State might not be enough, in other words in cases of the really poorer counties is the 75 per cent grant of the State sufficient?

Coming back to what I said in the beginning, are we as city and town dwellers satisfied that we are doing enough as general taxpayers to help agriculture? In the main this is a country of relatively cheap food compared with some of the other countries in the world and with some of the richer industrial countries like the United States. We, in the city, get the benefit of relatively cheap food. If one compares the price of meat or butter here with the price in France one will find that the price in France is markedly higher. There is admittedly a different method of calculation in regard to butcher's meat in France because when one buys butcher's meat in France one buys meat, not just partly meat and partly bone. Nevertheless, in general, meat here, dear and all as it may appear to us, is cheaper than in many other European countries. The question I am putting to the Minister is whether he is satisfied that we as general taxpayers, in particular city taxpayers, are paying enough in subsidy to these agricultural committees which are the immediate concern of this Bill? In other words, is our contribution—in view of the fact that food is relatively cheap and that this may be at the expense of the agricultural community — as general taxpayers sufficient in his opinion?

I could answer some of Senator Sheehy-Skeffington's questions about rates and who pays them in the agricultural counties but I have no doubt the Minister will deal with that. I will speak about one aspect of the advisory services which seems to have been forgotten by the men. This is the farm home management advisory service which is a comparatively new service and has done great work since it was started. At this stage the Department of Agriculture should take a hard look at the position of the women in the advisory service. They must do a very severe course of training, just as hard a course as the men, but they do not get a degree for this. I have already said here that it is incomprehensible to me why a man who is going to deal with animal nutrition and farm management can get a degree in agriculture but a woman who is going out to instruct the women of the country in home economics, in the feeding of our children and our adults, cannot get a degree and because she cannot she is penalised. Women get a diploma and they are second class citizens in the advisory services. This was very evident at the course which was held on the university farm in the Lyons estate run by the Kellogg Foundation of America last year where there was a post-graduate course done. There were nine agricultural graduates. There were two farm home management advisers. The girls did exactly the same course as the men. They did exactly the same examination. They had to write their theses exactly the same. At the end of that time the men became Masters of Agricultural Science but the girls could not even attend the conferring. They were conferred in absentia with diplomas. This, in this year of grace, is a disgrace. We should have a degree, perhaps combining home economics as well as farm home management. It should be partly in the university and partly in the schools which are now there. In this I am perhaps being slightly heretical in that I would suggest combining farm economics and farm home management in a common degree, with the successful students having the option of going to teach in the vocational schools or to work for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Something should be done about this quickly.

I wonder, too, if the Minister would like to tell me if at present a farm home adviser applies for a post as CAO or assistant CAO what that girl's chances are of getting such a post, because I am sure a reason would be advanced that because she had not got a degree it would not be possible for her to be in charge of an office where all the advisers would have a degree. I know there is to be a commission on the status of women but I think the degree of farm economics and farm home management should not have to await this. There is a degree being done this year in the University of Sussex and it is something the Minister should take a look at and perhaps recommend to the university authorities that such a degree course be initiated here.

I know the Minister wishes to get the Bill through quickly and I do not intend to delay the House. I want to make one point, and I do not agree with Senator Malone when he said he does not believe in regionalisation. If there is one part of this country where the county committees of agriculture could form some kind of regionalisation it is in the west of Ireland where you could have three or four county committees together forming a subcommittee to look into the real position of the west.

It is my opinion that they should examine the position of group farm schemes in the west and they should appoint agricultural workers on such group farms subsidised by the county committees which form the subcommittee. In such group farms a manager could be appointed and such farms could consist of 500, 600 or 700 acres. The manager could have a staff subsidised by the county committees and by the farmers themselves. It is about time something like this was done, particularly for the west. We have a pilot scheme in County Meath on a farm of 200 acres. I believe this is too small. It is time now that the farmers should be able to enjoy a five-day week and this would be possible through group farms of the size I have already mentioned to which would be appointed a manager and an agricultural adviser. I hope the Minister will look into the suggestion.

Might I first say thanks to the Members of the House who generally welcomed the Bill? In so far as their various comments are concerned, I will be as brief as possible but I shall deal with all of them to the best of my ability, presuming on the latitude the Chair will allow me.

First there is the suggestion about the low salaries being paid to staffs and the comment that we should do something about them because, it was suggested, departure of personnel from local services is entirely related to salaries and conditions. This is almost entirely if not entirely a fallacy. The recent award was not what they had hoped to get, but the movement out of the service had been taking place already for the reason I indicated— lack of promotional outlets. There are 600 instructors and only 27 of them can attain top posts as CAOs and 25 as assistant CAOs. This gives 52 out of 600, and if that number of instructors is expanded to 1,000, the outlets at the top will not get greater because they will remain at a county basis. Deputy Malone talked about a Fine Gael policy of bringing these things, as he said, under one roof. I have expounded a policy and I do not know whether it is Fine Gael or not.

Possibly, if it is wrong, no, if it were correct. I spoke to the county committees of agriculture in November and told them I would like to see, and I am more convinced of it today than I was then, that in each county or, perhaps, where suitable regional committees might be formed, in each region, there would be a full supervisory service and not just that but the whole range of agricultural aids and assistance that would come not only from the county committees of agriculture but also from the other interested agencies, particularly from the Department, so that we would have in these counties or regions many departments, each with county or regional headquarters. The aim would be to have all the services under the one roof. In that way the central Government would be able to delegate administrative operations from Dublin. This would eliminate the passing to and fro, throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, of files and other documents.

This, of course, would envisage the attaching also of the advisory services to this mini-Department, but it would unfortunately impinge to some degree on the autonomy that the advisory services believe they enjoy—although personally I do not think they do enjoy such autonomy. Apart from what would go to the farmer, the staff would have the benefit that they could aim at the very highest post in the State service, even aspire to the position of a Departmental Secretary. Perhaps, also, there would be outlets at county level for those who came in by the Civil Service method of recruitment as well as for those who came in through the Local Appointments Commission. This is broadly what I have advocated for years and the more I see of the operation, from an administrative and efficiency point of view as well as from the point of view of local advisory staff the more I am satisfied that something on those lines can be worked out and that the committees of agriculture, whether on a regional or county basis, must be retained; that they must continue to have a very important place in the new order of things if we are to have such an order because I do not wish to see centralisation and power, even if delegated from the top, being put into the hands of servants of the State or local authorities as the case may be without the invaluable knowledge and experience of the members who make up the committees of agriculture continuing to be available.

I know there are people who will point to members who they say should not be on committees of agriculture. These people quietly and conveniently ignore the fact that if there is one person who should not be on a county committee, there are likely to be 16 or 18 persons on that committee who have a great deal to contribute and who have continued to contribute a great deal during the years.

If such changes were being made I would wish to retain the advantage of the local committees. This answers to a degree, the complaint of Senator Malone to the effect that staff are being attracted away from the advisory services. It is not money alone that is responsible for this. While money is important it may well be that this situation has been created by a sense of frustration on the part of staff. If they come in as instructors they reach the end of the line after just two steps upwards and only few reach that stage.

Senator Fitzgerald spoke about competing. I did not take a sufficient note to enable me to remember what he said but I may remember later. Senator Crinion gave his views about the recent wage round. It is not for me to say what I think about it. I have had recent discussions with the staffs on this matter among many other related matters and it is likely that further talks and negotiations will arise from those discussions. I hope that some of the dissatisfaction prevailing in the service will be allayed or removed.

Mention was made of a delay by the Local Appointments Commission with regard to a request from a local committee for the filling of a permanent post. Many Members of the House will appreciate that this is a matter about which I can do nothing. I cannot even explain why there should be a delay in any particular case but these delays are frequent and prolonged. However, we should not take it that the delays are avoidable. I do not know whether or not they are avoidable. The Local Appointments Commission are doing a service for us in filling these vacancies and I assume that they fill them as quickly as they can consider the various requests they receive. If there are delays perhaps there are very good reasons for them. One aspect about which we certainly cannot do very much and which applies not only to the Local Appointments Commission but to the Civil Service Commission is that very often the availability of suitable applicants with the minimum qualifications is not evident. This may account for some of the delay in appointments.

A request has been made for closer contact between the Department's officers and county committees. Of course, it would not be possible to have too close a contact between the Department of Agriculture, their operators, administrators, professional and technical people and the county committee staffs but, on the other hand, I would say that we have fairly close contact between the Department and the people employed by the committees in the various counties. On the administrative side we have the advantage of the General Council of the Committees of Agriculture. This council has become quite active in the few years of its existence. They are likely to become more actively associated with my Department in discussing problems that arise at various levels throughout the country. We are at a developing stage in that regard at the moment but there is hope for continued and increasing communication, particularly through the committees of the general council and the sub-committees, with the Department and discussion on a wider scale of the various problems arising in agriculture as a whole.

Senator Sheehy-Skeffington suggested that the number of counties that had not reached various levels of expenditure, expressed in pence in the £, might be the poorer counties and he posed the question, if this were so was it an indication that we are not providing enough moneys from the Central Fund —in other words, that we are not making it attractive enough. I think the converse is true, not necessarily all the way but certainly in so far as it is not the poorer counties but the better off counties that are concerned. This does not imply what it seems to imply. It implies that these advisory services are not being provided but, generally speaking, many of the better off counties are very highly valued to begin with. They contain a larger proportion of the larger holdings than the poorer counties. Therefore, the number of farms to be served is less, proportionately speaking. In addition to that there is the situation of less to be served, where there is greater valuation and therefore a lesser number of pence in the £ producing more money to employ more instructors.

This is really the situation rather than an indication that the poorer counties are not spending. The poorer counties are spending the money and it is to these poorer counties that we have given the higher contribution. The contribution is 75 per cent in their case rather than 50 per cent for the rest of the country so that they in fact are extending more quickly than the better off counties in the east. Subject to the odd exception, of course, this is the overall average of the situation as things stand.

I knew that Senator Farrell would raise the home management situation before ever she did, but I do not think that this idea is correct that because they do not get degrees that immediately relegates them to a kind of second-class citizenship. If this is regarded as being so, to my mind it is more a state of mind than of actual fact. I do think that those people are very highly thought of and are regarded as an excellent staff doing an excellent job, and if that is the case, I fail to see where second-class citizenship comes in here.

They have not got a degree.

What I am trying to do is to look at this realistically. It is only the minority who have degrees here, and as one who has not got a degree, I am saying that the degree does not necessarily make them do the job better.

The advisory services have degrees.

The mere holding of a degree in itself does not necessarily make them better or anything else. They are as good as they are regardless of whether they have a degree or a diploma, but at the same time if it would make them happier to have degrees rather than diplomas, if there is something that I can do about it I would be glad to do it, but we are dealing with the universities, and they do not brook much argument from people like myself telling them what they should do and to whom they should give degrees at any particular time. Nevertheless perhaps this developing service will come to be recognised and the universities in their degree courses will come to see this. Whether they have degrees or diplomas I could not care less as long as they are doing the job as well as they are.

But if they can get degrees or letters added to their names by all means let them do so, though I do not think that it would improve their status one little bit. It would not detract from them either. The question is not one that I can deal with. I do not think it matters whether they have degrees or diplomas, and I do not think it would increase their chances of promotion. Certainly I would not think their chances would be very bright of being promoted to the higher level to fill a few of the 52 posts, not because of lack of a degree but because of their sex. It is as plain and simple as that. We will have to recognise that if they had a degree they would not be any more acceptable to the men and the staff to be supervised. I am not anti anything but I have to take this realistic attitude in the matter. If there is a poor chance of their becoming assistant CAOs, or CAOs particularly, it is because they are women, not because they lack a degree or letters after their name. Maybe we can do something about that, but it is neither we nor the universities who have to do this job—it is the people who have to say whether men only should be in this particular field, and it is for the public mind to accept these people for what they are rather than on the basis of whether they are women or men.

When will we have the first woman Cabinet Minister since Countess Markievicz?

I do not know, but as long as woman is not competing for my place in the Cabinet I am all for it being considered.

An altruistic attitude.

It is an honest one. I would love to see some of them in the Cabinet but not in my place.

Group farming was mentioned, or at least I wrote that down but I do not think it is what the Senator actually suggested. He suggested that in areas where farms are not really viable entities they should be grouped together and that the local adviser should become a sort of farm manager to the group and that the whole outfit would be established by the local committee of agriculture or by the farmers themselves, and that they would be able to go out and earn money working at something else than the farm. This is a grand idea if it would work, but I question it very much. The farmers are, I think the Senators will agree, a very individualistic lot—more power to them for being so. I do not think we would have farmers as we know them unless they were individualistic, and I do not think that they are inclined to be cut up or stamped and put into compartments by anybody. The idea that we can make more out of the small non-viable farms by putting them all together and getting everybody to do his share and getting somebody to run the whole thing while the farmers go off daily to earn money at something else is a very nice thought for the future, but it will take a whole long time in my estimation. If we are to have the farmer working 20 miles away while somebody else is running his little farm as well as ten other little farms it will take a bit of working out. I do not wish to run down the idea. It seems to be a pretty thought and perhaps a very good one, but I do not see it as a fairly immediate possibility as far as our farmers are concerned.

It may be said that it is working in other countries, but I was only talking about this country, and our farmers, I think, have an individuality about them, as we have as a nation and as we have in the various categories and classes of our people throughout the country. There is more individualism to be found among the farmers and perhaps even, it may be said, among the small farmers. The smaller the farmer the more individualistic he becomes. Maybe this is because being so small he has to be more individualistic to survive as long as he does. That may be part of the explanation. Certainly it is, nine times out of ten. If we are to take forty or fifty or 100 small holdings and group them all together with somebody managing the lot of them while the farmers go off to their day's work somewhere else it will take a lot to organise that, and I think that I will be back here looking for another 6d before there is any sign of any great progress being made in that direction. If we wish to look into this and feel that it can be done and that it can work it might be a very good thing.

I still have not got Senator Fitzgerald's contribution here. I still have not interpreted my own markings here as to what I wanted to say in regard to it, so I am afraid that I will have to leave him. It may come up at a later stage. Suffice it to say that I would like to get, if the Seanad will oblige me, this little Bill into law as fast as possible. Members of the House who are members of these committees of agriculture and of county councils will be aware that their estimates are either prepared or in course of final preparation and that they will be very shortly striking their rate. This has a bearing on it, particularly in counties which are already right up to the limit and want to go beyond it. So, if the House can do so it would help very much if this could be passed, perhaps this evening, by the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share