Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1971: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. O'Sullivan

Before the debate was adjourned last week I was saying that I should like to see greater powers given to the county committees of agriculture. I had in mind the Land Project Office and the Farm Improvement Scheme. I feel that if they were given over to the advisory service it would benefit the farming community considerably in so far as it would bring their problems closer to hand and they would be in closer touch with the agricultural instructors in their area. I have no doubt that they are fully qualified to advise farmers on those aspects of it.

I should like to see greater consideration given to the remote areas, such as the peninsular areas in my county where they find it very difficult to get instructors to remain, due to the fact that agriculture is not as advanced in those areas as it is in other parts of the country. The system of appointment is on a temporary basis, the instructors being appointed by the committees in a temporary capacity and eventually appointed by the Local Appointments Commission. As soon as an instructor is appointed to one of the peninsular areas, straightaway he looks for another vacancy because he has a greater opportunity of improving his position elsewhere. If the Minister could give some incentive to instructors to get them to remain in those areas it would be worth while. If they could be given the maximum salary at the outset and their appointments were permanent they would not be looking for an opportunity to get away as soon as possible.

I feel that the pilot schemes should be extended in West Cork. We are very grateful to the Minister for starting these schemes in West Cork and they have been very successful. The results show what can be done by the introduction of the pilot schemes. The time is now ripe for taking the remainder of the peninsular areas into the pilot schemes, thereby affording small farmers an opportunity of participating in and availing of the higher grants which are being given in the pilot areas.

I feel that sheep breeding should get more consideration from the Department. We have the problem of sheep scab which we find difficult to eradicate which has been a plague to the sheep industry for some time. Cork County Council have been advocating some scheme to remedy this problem. Last year they introduced a pilot scheme in my area in the Beara Peninsula as a result of which there was an increase of 50 per cent in the number of sheep dipped. This was a considerable increase and goes to prove that farmers will cooperate if they get the incentive to do it. Unfortunately, this scheme was not continued this year and a number of sheep farmers were quite perturbed. From inquiries I have made I find that there was a problem in relation to the sale of sheep in the North of Ireland. Because of the lamb subsidy and the ewe hogget subsidy one year would have to be left open for sheep which would be sold in the North of Ireland. I am sure we could find some way of getting around this problem and the sheep farmers deserve some consideration, especially in the mountainous areas.

I know the sheep farmers are grateful for the subsidies which have been introduced, but there is also the great problem of the eradication of sheep scab. I would appeal to the Minister to do all in his power to have this plague eradicated. We are grateful to the Minister for introducing this Bill. It is a very worthwhile Bill and one which will help county committees of agriculture considerably.

Mr. Farrelly

I like the previous speakers, welcome this Bill but in my view it does not go far enough. In March, 1970, the Minister came before the Oireachtas with a proposal to increase the rates of subsidy to the committees of agriculture to 2s. 3d. That sum has since been found to be inadequate in most counties and the Minister has found it necessary to return to the Oireachtas to grant a further increase which will amount to 2½p more than the increase granted in March, 1970.

With all due respects to the Minister —he is quite well aware of the workings of agriculture committees being a former member of one of them—2½p of an increase in 1971 is totally inadequate. I should like him to reconsider the matter and accept the amendment, which some of the agricultural Members of this House have put down, to increase this sum to 30p. As anybody who has anything to do with county committees of agriculture knows, their costs are increasing year by year. The schemes they operate in their own counties are very helpful in fostering better farming methods and in educating young people who one day will take the places of the older members of the farming community. The scholarships provided by those committees in the agricultural colleges have increased by approximately £50 per head. With their present limited finances it is very difficult for committees of agriculture to carry out their planned programmes.

County Committees of agriculture in order to carry on during the last number of years had to refrain from appointing sufficient agricultural advisers. They knew that by keeping one or two such posts vacant they would save 50 per cent of the salaries of those people and thereby be able to keep out of the red. This is not the proper method of improving agricultural conditions and methods of farming in the country.

It has been mentioned here that there are people in rural Ireland who contribute sizeable amounts of money in taxation and rates to county committees of agriculture and who do not derive any benefit from those committees. People who live in labourers' cottages in Meath, and who contribute in rates to the agricultural committee through the county council, can get benefits from the schemes operated by the committee. Such schemes include fruit and vegetable plots where subsidies are given in share to one-eighth of an acre and I am very pleased to say that we, in the Meath County Committee of Agriculture, initiated a scheme some years ago to give grants for filling machines to help the small cottier and the very small farmer to engage in the production of soft fruits and vegetables. The Minister for Agriculture at that time adopted the scheme and it has now become a nationwide scheme. The amount of the grant at present is very small but nevertheless it is an incentive to such people. They have approximately a statute acre of land each which was not in production heretofore and I am very pleased to note that many of them have come into production under this scheme.

I am sure the Minister listened to Senator O'Sullivan when he spoke about the sheep dipping scheme. I can never understand why this scheme is not controlled by committees of agriculture. The sheep dipping scheme is administered by the county councils at present. I wholeheartedly agree with the previous speaker who said that this is a scheme which should be handed over to the committees of agriculture in future. They are in a better position than the county councils to deal with such a scheme.

I am sure the Minister is well aware of many other increases in the costs of county committees of agriculture. In 1969 we had 328 agricultural instructors and in 1971 we have 603. Even with this increase in the number of agricultural instructors three are still areas which are not sufficiently serviced by those advisory people. I should like to impress on the Minister that the committees cannot run the schemes without the necessary finance. It is a serious reflection on the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries when somebody gets up—as I did at the general council within the last week—to say that the local committee of agriculture was over £20,000 in the red. That is a great tragedy because, as we all know, agriculture is the basic industry of this country. If it is not put on a proper footing right away, especially now that we are about to become a member of the EEC, many of our small and medium-size farmers will not be able to survive any longer. Those people have carried on up to now only with the assistance of intensive agricultural advice. Small farmers and middle-size farmers are hardworking, industrious people, but they need extra advice to keep them in production and on the land. If such people are forced to give up farming it will create an immense problem for some future Government. Any man who understands the workings of agriculture will be able to survive, even in EEC conditions, if he has a 50-acre farm.

I would again appeal to the Minister to reconsider the sum of 15p mentioned in this Bill and, if possible, to increase it to 30p. Without such an increase I cannot see how the advisory service can carry on in any county in the future.

Mr. W. Ryan

I wish to join with the other speakers in welcoming this Bill. Like them, I feel that 15p in the £ is not going far enough. Within another year some of our committees of agriculture will be in the red again. I understand that there are about seven counties, including my own county of Tipperary, in the red at present. However, I think it is a good thing to see county committees of agriculture in the red because it indicates that such counties are spending money usefully on agricultural schemes. Some people seem to think that a demand for 15p in the £ is a considerable amount, but in my opinion it is a very reasonable sum because we were getting 1s in the £ when rates were £1 in the £, whereas today in a number of counties rates amount to £5 in the £ valuation.

It is a rather sad reflection on agriculture committees that they have to go, cap in hand, to the county council every year, asking for so much money. If a county council refused to grant a sum of money, the agricultural committee would be in queer street, but I do not think that has ever happened. The Minister mentioned that he proposes to make changes in relation to committees of agriculture, and no doubt this system will be changed and other means will be introduced in order to permit farmers to carry on. In some of our western counties county councils pay only 25 per cent: the Government pay 75 per cent of the cost of running agricultural affairs in the county. This system should be extended to the whole country. Money spent on agriculture is money well spent.

In recent months much has been said about changing our committees of agriculture. A change of some kind may be needed, but nothing drastic is necessary. Many people claim that the system of electing committees is altogether wrong; on some committees there are people who are not farmers and who have no interest in agriculture. With regard to my own county, South Tipperary, there are three people on the committee who are not farmers, but they are people who know a lot about agriculture. It is possible to know a lot about agriculture without being a farmer. Different farming organisations claim that they should have the right to nominate people to serve on committees of agriculture. In this country there are many people who would be prepared to act on committees if they could get in the easy way. Such people would not be prepared to go to much trouble in order to canvass in the rural areas before election to a committee. If a change is needed I believe that a good way of electing a committee of agriculture would be to conduct the election on the same day as the county council election. I also believe that only farmer members should be elected to the committees and only farmers should vote on that com mittee.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

What about agricultural labourers?

Mr. W. Ryan

I am sure that a way could be found to permit the agricultural labourer to have a vote. If the agricultural labourer has a cottage plot, he would be entitled to have a vote.

A number of speakers mentioned about having a closer link between the committees of agriculture and the various offices of the Department of Agriculture in each county. Something should be done in relation to that. In Clonmel the County Committee of Agriculture purchased new buildings about two years ago. At that time we were led to believe that the farm improvement scheme office and other offices of the Department in Clonmel would be transferred to our office, but that never transpired. The result is that the two offices are at least one mile apart in the town of Clonmel. I believe all offices of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, whether they be under the jurisdiction of the Minister or under the County Committee of Agriculture, should be under the one roof.

In South Tipperary there are about 14 agricultural instructors and this number is not sufficient. Co-operative societies throughout the country should be encouraged by the Department to appoint their own agricultural advisers, and county committees of agriculture should be entitled to give grant to such advisers.

Mention has also been made about sheep dipping. I cannot understand why this is done through the county council, because people in the county council know very little about sheep. Sheep dipping regulations should be enforced by the county committees of agriculture rather than by the county council.

On the last day Senator Nash mentioned that the taxpayers should not pay the agricultural rate. Not all taxpayers are paying the agricultural rate. If you reside in an urban council area or in a city, you do not pay the agricultural rate, and that should be clarified to people resident in towns. Senator Nash also mentioned that in the 12 western counties the taxpayer had to pay £2 in taxes and £1 in rates to help the agricultural community. That is an exaggeration. A small portion of the money that comes from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries must come from the taxpayer, but certainly not to the extent that has been mentioned.

I am sorry if I spoke longer than I should but I was anxious to say those few words on the Bill, and I hope that this will be the last time that the Minister will have to legislate in order to authorise county councils to give us more than 3s. in the £. There should be some other way of doing this.

It was mentioned that if a person's valuation is under £20 he is not paying rates on that and therefore not contributing to agriculture. In such cases farmers who are not paying on the first £20 should contribute something to agriculture.

Mr. McDonald

They are paying their fair share on buildings.

Mr. W. Ryan

Yes, they are paying on buildings.

Mr. Lyons

I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is necessary but the importance of even a few pence spent on agriculture is great. The total ceiling allowed, 15p, when compared with the rate of £7.20 in Mayo, is small. The Committee of Agriculture in County Mayo spent whatever they were given to spend. Mayo has not the rich soil of Meath or some of the other counties. It has problems of terrain, weather, and mountains to hinder agriculture. In spite of this, the Committee of Agriculture felt that, if there was to be any production in the area, agricultural services had to be provided. This meant having instructors. It is not always easy to get these in counties such as County Mayo because people prefer to live near what they call the facilities necessary for modern living in the spheres of education, culture and entertainment. It is becoming more difficult to get professional people of all kinds to work in the far West of Ireland and, indeed, in places in the Midlands too.

In spite of this the money was always provided. The taxpayers and the farmers never grudged giving it. I was pleased to hear Senator Ryan referring to Senator Nash's speech and comparing the amount of money being provided by the taxpayers with that provided by farmers. Senator Nash is very learned and wise. I should not like to question him on the legalities of any situation, but in the counties concerned the three-to-one he referred to was really one-and-a-half-to-one because in the western counties a 75 per cent grant was given as against a 50 per cent grant elsewhere. Senator Nash was making the case that this was paid by urban dwellers and that they also had to carry some taxation. The farmers had to carry in taxation exactly the same amount as the urban dwellers. There was not a big gap between what they paid and what other people were paying. From reading Senator Nash's speech one might think such a gap existed. Farmers and rural dwellers have to contribute to amenities that they have not got themselves, such as footpaths, street lighting, libraries, et cetera, in towns. Urban dwellers should realise that the traffic is not all one-way.

I welcome the increase but I should like it to be greater. It appears from what the Minister has said and from what columnists are writing that there will be a major reorganisation in agriculture and in the various bodies dealing with agriculture in the future. I want to say loudly and clearly to the Minister that, no matter what reorganisation is undertaken, there is no doubt but that the schemes under the Institute of Agriculture, the farm buildings schemes, the land project schemes and the schemes carried out by the committees of agriculture will have to be rationalised. The people at local level will have to have a greater share than ever before in shaping the destinies of these rationalised agricultural bodies. The local people will not allow finance to be taken from the county councils.

People have said that a statutory demand can be made by a vocational educational committee and that a statutory demand should also come from the agricultural committees. It is possible in the future that a statutory demand will come from whatever new body takes over the administration of the services. This would be quite in order, but I should like to see local control in existence. While it is difficult to devise anything like perfect control, I could not agree with Senator W. Ryan in saying that an election should be held on the same day as the county council election, where some fellows would be nominated for the county committees of agriculture and they would be elected by popular vote on the same day. An election of this kind could cause a great deal of confusion. County councils, so far, are quite capable of electing the proper type of people to the committee. Perhaps the Minister could make it statutory that a certain number of the members of the committee should be composed of farmers and non-members of a county council. I have been a member of a county council for over 20 years. In the final analysis it is the elected members who have to say what the expenditure will be, and he who pays the piper should call the tune. I want to see that the payer calls the tune and not the piper.

More specialisation is needed regarding the instructors. There is no point sending an instructor to Belmullet, Erris, or somewhere below Castlebar and leaving him there for years without making sure that he is given courses on the newest and best methods and kept up-to-date with modern procedures. Rationalisation would ensure this. The Institute of Agriculture are doing great work in research, but it takes far too long to get the results of this to the farmer. A means must be found to get all these things brought down to farm level as soon as possible.

From reading the literature they publish, one can see the magnificent work the Agricultural Institute are doing, but this is no use unless the results can get down to farm level. This means more specialised education, and people who know a particular job from A to Z should be sent out and a number of these specialists should rotate to each county. The existing service does not leave much room for promotion. There are always cribs about the fact that you can only move to deputy CAO and from that to CAO and after that it is a dead end. Some new system should be devised whereby people who specialise in a particular branch would get remunerated for their services, and circulate from county to county as needed in order to do the particular job necessitated by the circumstances and the soil conditions.

Again, coming from a western county, I would ask the Minister— despite whatever Senator Nash may have to say about its impact on urban dwellers—to pay the 75 per cent grant overall and we will all be satisfied.

Mr. Doyle

I welcome the increase in the maximum rate of 15p in the £ which committees can now demand from county councils, but I feel, like most other Senators here, that this may be inadequate and many committees will be in the red again by next year. There should have been a bigger increase granted as committees could be relied upon not to spend more than was necessary in any particular year. It is now more than ever necessary to provide an efficient advisory service for our farmers who are likely to be competing with European farmers in an expanded market in the near future. We need central offices where land project officers, farm building supervisors and, possibly, Agricultural Credit Corporation staff work in close harmony and as a single unit. The work of all these services could, in my opinion, be coordinated by committees of agriculture.

County committees of agriculture are doing very good work at present, but I feel that more progress could be made with schemes of development, such as the Small Farms Scheme. This scheme was the means of bringing the advisory service to farmers who never consulted an instructor. Now they are working to a plan and making satisfactory progress. This is the type of work on which we and county committees of agriculture should be concentrating and expanding to include more of our farmers, not alone small farmers. In this way we would have the majority of farmers working to a planned programme. There could be an overall plan for the county. We must do everything possible as far as the proposal in relation to viable farmers, is concerned, especially now, as we are going into the EEC.

Another aspect of work of committees which should get more attention is agricultural education. Every young person going into farming should have an opportunity to attend a course of instruction, either at an agricultural college or a farm training centre within the county. Education of our rural youth is of paramount importance and must be treated as a priority. Farmers of the future must be highly skilled in business methods such as marketing, if they are to hold their own under EEC conditions.

The provision of educational centres is not going as fast as it should, and at the rate they are being built it would take years to have educational centres covering the whole country. Granted, what is required is more money for education centres and proper accommodation where instructors can work to better advantage.

More specialist advisers are also needed at county or regional level, as farming is becoming more specialised. County committee members should discuss development programmes at their meetings and have a more progressive outlook on agricultural matters. Too many side issues are being discussed at most committee meetings. It would be more unlikely to happen if the other Department services mentioned were under local control or at least organised under one body, such as the committee of agriculture.

These are the only few words that I wished to say and I hope that the Minister will give some of these points consideration because I think they are very important at the moment.

Mr. Garrett

I welcome this Bill as far as it has gone. But I am afraid that it has not gone far enough in relation to the western counties and especially to County Mayo from which I come, because even if we were to operate the 15p which we are being allowed now, in the next year, by March, 1973, the Mayo County Committee of Agriculture will still be £24,000 in the red; and as we are operating at the present time and as we will probably operate after March, 1973, we will be a committee trying to advise the farmers of the county at the whim of a bank manager and on a shoestring budget. This is not very profitable to the agricultural community and it is not a very appropriate method of operation.

I should like to congratulate our deputy CAO, who is acting CAO, and our agricultural staff in Mayo. We have the largest number of farmers operating the Small Farms Bonus Incentive Scheme of any county in Ireland, and there are many more applications to be processed.

In order that we may be able to operate in the future we will have to cut down on unnecessary staff and on some of the schemes and plans that we already have. This would be to the detriment of the community. I do not know if it is proper for us to ask the ratepayers of Mayo, who are already paying £7.10 in the £, to take on an additional taxation burden in subsidising and looking after the agricultural committee. I would strongly appeal to the Minister to give some extra subvention to Counties Mayo and Kerry which are in a similar position financially in order to operate in a manner befitting an agricultural community and a county committee of agriculture.

I do not know if it is appropriate at this stage to mention the large contribution which we will be possibly called on to make to the health authority when we are striking the rate next March. If we are going to be hit from all angles under this rates system, which I consider completely outdated, the people of Mayo will not be able to meet the extra burden. We are the highest rated county in Ireland. We are not complaining too much about that at the present time, but if it continues to increase we will not be able to exist.

These, then, are my views. I would strongly appeal to the Minister to find some method whereby he could give a larger subvention than the 75 per cent we are getting for the payment of our agricultural advisers. They are second to none and deserve to be paid for their work.

I think money could be spared by many agricultural committees. We appoint agricultural advisers. They have recently left the university, but then they have to go away for a fortnight or three weeks on a special course. If they complete the full agricultural course at the university, why have they to do these other courses? Other professions, such as the doctors, for instance, do not have to do this. Doctors do not go away for courses a few years after getting their degrees. But they are informed by circulars and pamphlets from the Medical Research Council. Perhaps if such pamphlets were circularised to our agricultural advisers, there would be no necessity for extra expenditure in sending them on special courses.

There is very little that Senator Nash said with which I can agree. It was ridiculous for him to say that a farmer had divided his farm into three or four lots among his wife and children in order to avoid the payment of rates. On two different occasions and for two different people recently I had difficulty in getting the Land Commission to subdivide two farms to enable a farmer to place a portion of his farm in his son's name so that he could get married and settle down. On both occasions the Land Commission refused to do this. Unless the Land Commission cater for special cases in Tipperary to enable them to divide their farms into small allotments and avoid the payment of rates, a statement like that is nonsensical. I do not think it is happening or that the Land Commission would allow it to happen.

If the urban population are subsidising agriculture to any degree there is many a pound and many a penny gone from the rural dwellers in subsidising every amenity that exists in an urban area. Those urban areas are dependent on the farming community residing in their hinterland. If the farming community were not capable of producing sufficient the urban community would soon suffer from the lack of customers in their pubs and shops. Anything which small farmers, such as we have in Mayo, get from the urban area they are well and truly entitled to.

Finally, I should like to appeal again to the Minister to give us a subvention greater than we are getting. I would like to see this 15p in the £ raised to 20p in the £. We will have to do something like that in County Mayo in order to have a viable committee of agriculture and not one that is working at the whim, the good nature or mood of the bank manager on a Monday morning.

Mr. Reynolds

The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries admits that the financial position in some counties is bad. He admitted it in the last paragraph of his speech. He says:

The proposed Bill is required to ensure that those committees which in the immediate future cannot carry out their statutory functions on the present incomes will be permitted to seek sufficient funds to enable them to do so. My Department will, of course, continue to provide grants for committees on the same pro rata basis as heretofore.

I wonder if this is on a pro rata basis? Some committees are in a very bad financial position. When one examines the way that this money is collected and distributed, particularly the money collected from rates, it is an unfair type of taxation and the distribution of it by central Government is equally unfair. Take County Leitrim alone: if we increase rates by an old penny in the pound it gives us an increase of £640. We then get a pro rata grant against it of 1d which gives us £1,280. In County Meath if rates are increased by 1d they get £2,500. They get 1d from the Department which gives them £5,000. There is a difference there of £3,720. It is most unfair and unjust. Senator Nash said here the last day that some committees are getting 75 per cent, but they are getting only 75 per cent recoupment against employees in the advisory services. Agricultural committees have other costs. For that reason, this whole situation would need to be looked at. Even now with the increase from 2s 3d to 3s, which is an increase of 9d, there will be approximately seven to nine counties which at the end of the financial year will not be cleared with the bank. We know the position of banks at the moment. Let it be private enterprise, committees of agriculture, the industrial world, these people are squeezing hard to get down overdrafts. It is an unfair situation for committees of agriculture to find themselves in.

There is much talk in high places about taking powers from the committees of agriculture and getting rid of them. When one hears of this, particularly at a time like this, one can only look at the recently appointed health boards and one is inclined to ask himself how satisfactory these are functioning. The public representatives have been squeezed out. They might have one of a majority on most health boards. At the same time the people who have been appointed to these health boards, other than those elected by the popular vote, are responsible to nobody but their own organisations. These people, in my opinion, are not giving the service that was expected of them. We were asked to give the health boards a trial. That is being done and I have no doubt when their demands come out at the end of the financial year the ratepayer will get a far greater surprise than he will get from the miserable few pence the Minister has agreed to give agricultural committees.

I wonder if the Minister would consider looking at agricultural committees in a different way. We have in the agricultural committee a local organisation consisting in the main of public representatives. It is reasonable at this stage to suppose that we are going into the EEC. It is also reasonable to think that our farmers will have to be much more highly geared for the competitive market they are going to meet there. Agricultural committees in the main down the years have been a kind of educational service to the farming community providing advisory services, winter classes, and instruction. They did a very good job for the minor scope they had. When one looks at the increased number of instructors in the country over the last 12 years the increase has been approximately 275 instructors, or nearly double. I do not think we have gone far enough. We all know there is too much overlapping in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The whole situation could be quite easily solved.

Take an average-size county. If there were three to four offices set up in each of these counties, with the advisory services of the land project, the farm building section and representatives from the Department of Lands, these people could operate their services from these centres. They could be supervised by the county committees of agriculture as they are now supervised in the advisory service.

The merit in this suggestion of combining together the four services which are now operated on a separate basis would benefit the farmers, especially if there was more co-operation at local level. There does not seem to be co-operation between the farm building section and the land project section and the Land Commission. There is an obligation on the Department of Agriculture to get this co-operation and introduce decentralisation so that most decisions can be made locally. It would be a great achievement to get the heads of the various sections working together at local level and the Minister should look hard at this. These people would have first-hand information. They would have the local knowledge and know the requirements of a given area. After a short time they would even know the requirements of each individual farm.

At present under the 1931 Act no county committee can erect a building to house staff from any other section of the Department of Agriculture. That is a pity and something should be done about it. My second suggestion would be to enlarge the small farm bonus scheme to the level of what I would call the farm development scheme. The farm bonus scheme has been in operation for some years by the committees of agriculture and it should be enlarged. At present only a farmer who has a poor law valuation not exceeding £25 or if his area of land is under 50 acres can get into the farm bonus scheme. The new type of farm development scheme should be open to all farmers big and small.

We must remember that on entry into Europe we must increase our agricultural production. The scheme could run on the lines of a farm bonus scheme with a programme of four to six years of planning development, including a bonus at each successful stage. It would work out much more satisfactorily than the scheme which is operating at the moment. It might be no harm if grants were no longer paid to people who would not enter this type of scheme and that they would not qualify for grants for farm buildings or land project or any other grants on offer. Senator Nash referred to this type of person here when he stated in Volume 71, column 1557 of the Seanad Official Report of Wednesday, 24th November, 1971:

But it is now about time the agricultural community realised that all the time they cannot be at the taking end of the nation's pocket. Throughout this country there are farms and farms and farms which are growing furze, which are inadequately tilled, which are improperly used and for which the ordinary taxpayer is expected to pay.

If that type of person is there he should not be allocated a grant because we are not getting any production from him. The Government's agricultural programme is aimed at increasing production. Farmers who do not expand agricultural production should not qualify for grants. The reward for following a planned development programme need not necessarily be a bonus. It could be a loan free of interest or a subsidised loan, which operates in some of the EEC countries already. It would help our farms to get ready for going into Europe.

The two suggestions are, in brief: the setting up of many departments at local level, incorporating all agricultural services and giving as much control as possible to the local committee of agriculture. These people would know the local problems and know how best to deal with them. At the same time these services working together would be able to run a farm development scheme such as I have mentioned.

The Minister for Agriculture should give very serious thought to this, because it would be most inadvisable to abolish agricultural committees. Having served in one for the most part of 30 years I sometimes think they are not doing what they should, but we do what is possible with the limited amount of money which is available.

Mr. Keegan

Like all other Senators I welcome this Bill, which may be a short one but to me is a very important one. My own county, Westmeath, has not yet exceeded its specified sum which it was allowed to expend in the past. Nevertheless, in an expanding economy it is reasonable to assume that it will in the very near future avail itself of the new limits which we are setting here today.

I wish to emphasise the importance of the county committees of agriculture, especially now that we are about to have a referendum on our proposed entry into the European Economic Community. Every effort must now be made to provide all the technical, scientific and marketing information which can be regarded as beneficial to all our farmers so that they can reap the full benefit of membership of the EEC. The county committees of agriculture have enjoyed the confidence of the majority of our farmers over the years. For that reason nothing can be contemplated which would minimise their importance.

At present the number of holdings over five acres in County Westmeath is approximately 6,282. Of those holdings 4,018 are under 50 acres. Assuming that Mansholt is right, are we to assume for one moment that all those 4,000 would have to disappear? To my way of thinking, those 4,000 farmers are determined to remain in agriculture. Therefore, it is important that every aid that can possibly be given should be given to those people.

When I said we had 4,018 under 50 acres, I should also say we have 2,423 holdings under £20 valuation. If those 2,423 had to leave agriculture where would the jobs be to absorb them into industry? They just would not be available. Therefore, what is really required is an intensive small farm bonus incentive scheme to enable those people to increase their income from their existing holdings.

At the present time over one-third of all farmers are availing themselves of the services provided by the county committees of agriculture. Farmers are conscious of the need to acquire new skills and new methods of production. They also realise that farming is no longer just a way of life; it is a business and, so far as the country is concerned, it is a very important one. The Minister and his Department should do everything in their power to promote greater liaison between other sections of his Department which are directly or indirectly involved with the Committees.

Other Senators have mentioned the veterinary services, the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme, the Land Project Scheme, the Warble Fly Eradication Scheme, the Beef Bonus Incentive Scheme, the Brucellosis Scheme, the Farm Building Scheme, water schemes, the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and so on. At present all those branches are operating individually and I feel that the Minister and his Department should make a special effort to incorporate their activities under one heading. I know that it would present many difficulties, but I feel that with the co-operation of all farming bodies a new and workable solution will be found, which will benefit all our farmers. Any money invested by the State in agriculture is sound investment. My own experience over the years would indicate that farmers are quick to avail themselves of any incentives given them to improve their lot.

The value of our agricultural exports is increasing year by year, and are helping to pay for at least some of our imports. More and more practical advice must always be available to our farmers in order to prepare for the challenge of the future. Let me say that I believe the county committees have an important role to play in the future, as they have done in the past. With new thinking along the lines which I have suggested, I am of opinion that the county committees can be repaid and should be repaid. I welcome this Bill and, like other Senators, I wish to thank the Minister and his Department for their efforts to promote more and more aid for agriculture.

Mr. Ahern

I have only a few words to say about this Bill. There are many things here which I should like to discuss but which would be appropriate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

There is one important statement which was made here by Senator Jack Fitzgerald with which I thoroughly agree. Why is there a limit at all so far as our basic industry is concerned? Why are we tied down? I am 18 years on the Cork County Committee of Agriculture. In the beginning there were five in the advisory service; we have 30 or 35 at the present time. What is all this bluff about? Is it an act from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to strap us down? I firmly believe that it is; it is an excuse to get out.

In Cork, through our grants and premiums, we have done a good day's work. At the time when the late P.S. Moloney of Clare was the only agricultural instructor we had, the attitude of the farmers was: "I should love to hear what he would say, but how am I to overcome the fact that I have no capital?" That was the attitude until Macra na Feirme and Muintir na Tire came along and they educated the people of the country. They siad "There is a necessity" and the people agreed.

That is the problem we have had for years—first to get over one system, and then to find capital. This is the crucial point about it. Of all the speakers who have spoken here there is only one with whom I agree—the one who asked "Why are we held down when we are the basic industry?" It is simple to understand that. Only a few months ago Cork County Council, of which I am a member, gave planning permission for something which will exterminate the agricultural community in East Cork— the Cork Smelter factory. Not alone that, but the workers who are employed in that area are affected. They are employed by Erin Foods, by Irish Meat Packers, Cork Distilleries Company, Bord Bainne, and Firgoscandia Cold Store in exporting butter, cream and new potatoes. There was no question at that time of seeing an advisory officer from the Cork County Committee of Agriculture. The CAO or his assistants were not asked. Not at all, why should they be asked? Why did they not ask the horticultural advisers?

Somebody will say "Liam Ahern is opposed to industry in East Cork". I am not: I want plenty of industry there. This problem should not arise. I take my advice from the CAO and his advisers in the Cork County Committee of Agriculture. I have been on the Cork County Committee of Agriculture for 18 years and I have seen several things happening. You hear people talking about the political bore, but we have worked well. I am a member of two rural organisations. I firmly believe that the person who is elected by the people, who will have to distribute that money, is the proper person to be on such committees.

Senator O'Sullivan mentioned that land projects in the Land Commission should be dealt with on a county basis and I fully agree with him. People living in an area would surely know more about their own localities than the people here in Dublin. I am violently opposed to the new set-up envisaged by the Minister and by the Department regarding county committees of agriculture. I am quite satisfied that they recognise the rural organisations, but any man who stands at the chapel gates and canvasses for an election is the man responsible for the striking of the rates.

I welcome the Bill for what it is worth but, on the other hand, its introduction should not have been necessary. Agriculture, which is our greatest industry, should be better treated. When the health services or the vocational schemes need assistance they can obtain it without any difficulty, but agriculture cannot get any help at all. They seem to be hammered left, right and centre. Is it a gimmick to try to get us out? I can assure you that Irish farmers will not co-operate as wholeheartedly with the Department as they would with their own local county committee of agriculture.

I wish to pay a tribute to our CAO and the staff in our committee of agriculture who have been of great assistance to us. It often happens that a man who has been in an area for some length of time and who knows the problems of the area is transferred to some other part of the country, and another man is sent to take his place but he, in turn, will have to move again after about two years. Something should be done about this position which is causing frustration at present.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. J. Gibbons)

I should like to thank the Members of the House for their contributions to the debate. One of the points which emerged from it was that a new and improved system of advisory services should be devised. I think I mentioned in my opening statement that we were in the process of devising such a development scheme—I should prefer to call it a development scheme rather than an advisory system.

A number of Senators spoke of the anomalies that arise from time to time in that an individual farmer looking for advice, especially advice of a more penetrating kind, the evolution of a development plan for his own farm, may have to call in the services not only of the advisory staff but the land project, farm buildings and other services as well. Senators made a very valid point that it would be a good thing if these different services could be co-ordinated within a unified service. That is one of our aims. There was a certain degree of paradox in the fears and anxieties expressed by Senators, that, while you look for a vastly improved advisory service being converted into a farm development service, at the same time local committees of agriculture which have been carrying on gallantly for decades can remain unchanged in function and unchanged in personnel. This appears to me to be unrealistic, but it does not appear to have any real bearing on the Bill.

Senator McDonald mentioned that it was the beginning of what he called an economic squeeze out of committees. He blamed the financial ills of certain committees of agriculture on the Department of Agriculture, unless I have misread him. He also mentioned—as did other Senators—the inability, under the present advisory services, of deserving officers, especially those with specialised skills, to get to the promotional level they deserve. Obviously, within a unified service men worthy of promotion would be able to get it.

Senator O'Sullivan and some other Senators mentioned, somewhat irrelevantly but nevertheless quite important, the question of sheep scab I know how important this problem is to the country generally and I have taken note of what the Senator has said. I shall see if some better means can be found of dipping sheep against this disease. Several Senators felt that the Bill as presented did not go far enough I will deal with that point in a moment because it is necessary to get down to details when answering that point.

Senator Doyle and others spoke about the vital necessity for a new advisory development service and the training of young people going into farming. Senator Doyle did not think we were providing sufficient places in agricultural schools for young men interested in agriculture. That is quite true, but no matter how many places we provide in such schools more will be needed. However, I would remind Senator Doyle that in his own county a new college was opened recently in Rockwell. Not far away from there, in Pilltown, County Kilkenny, the Department of Agriculture have taken over Kildalton Abbey which is now being used for the training of young people going into farming.

Senator Reynolds and Senator Keegan mentioned the question of the centralisation of the different farm services and it was a very logical point to make. The desirability of having available under one roof the various services such as farm buildings, land reclamation and the advisory services, and possibly domestic science advice as well, was mentioned by many Senators. There were many Senators who thought that the Bill does not go far enough. I should first like to say that it is an interim measure. It is a measure that is being brought in to enable committees of agriculture to meet their commitments until the present system is replaced by a better one.

Among the Senators who said that a ceiling was being put on the activities of committees was Senator Dalgan Lyons of County Mayo. I should like to remind him that in the case of County Mayo since 1966 the county council have not provided as much as they might have done for their committee of agriculture. For instance, in the year 1966-67, against a permissible 21d, they provided 15d. The following year it was 14.9d and the year after, almost 15d against a permissible 21p. The year after that again they provided 19d as against a permissible 21d. Last year, as against a permissible 27d, they provided 20.8d.

It is not unnatural that, in those circumstances, Mayo farmers found themselves in some difficulty. Even in that case, and with the co-operation of Mayo County Council and the recognition of the vital importance of the advisory services to a county such as Mayo, where three-quarters of the tab is picked up by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries anyway, it is vital for the local authorities in Mayo to face up to this particular problem. It is absolutely futile for Senator Lyons to say that the ceiling is not high enough. Even the existing ceiling which we are raising has not been reached by the Mayo County Council.

County Kerry is a similar acute case. Starting in 1966-67 there were contributions of 14.9 pence made to the committee of agriculture, followed by 14.8 pence and 19.35 pence. In 1969-70 they were increased to 20.76 pence; in 1970-71 they began at 24 pence and, rather oddly, went to the maximum. In each of those cases the Kerry local authority did not provide sufficient money for their own committee of agriculture. With the provisions now proposed in this amending Bill, they should be in a position, if not next year, during the following few years to get themselves out of the red.

This is an interim measure and I hope that it is the precursor of a new and better farm development service. I do not think that it is necessary for me to dwell upon each county, one after the other. There are certain discrepancies. Senator Reynolds mentioned County Leitrim. They are in the happy position of being almost, if not quite, solvent. Leitrim is a very difficult county with a very difficult soil and agriculturally it is difficult to evolve an agricultural programme for it.

The new ceiling of 15p, advocated in the amendment that I propose, should be sufficient for the purposes that we require and I recommend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Next Stage?

I agree to that.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 2nd December, 1971.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 1 Dec 1971