Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Dec 1971

Vol. 71 No. 16

Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1971: Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

Mr. McDonald

I move amendment No. 1:

In subsection (1), line 20, to delete "fifteen" and substitute "twenty-five".

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that for the coming financial year it will be possible for committees of agriculture to demand sufficient moneys from the rating authorities to ensure the continuation of their full services. This amendment was tabled by my colleagues and myself in case this would not be possible under the terms of the present Bill. It would be disastrous if even one county committee of agriculture found they were unable to continue with the same quality, volume and scope of service they have been giving.

We must remember that there is an ever-increasing demand on the service by the farmers. We should be pleased to see this because, looking back 20 years, farmers were not seeking out and getting advice on new techniques and aids to more economic production. Last week I heard two lectures from the World Bank and they left me in no doubt as to the financial position of Irish agriculture. Neither the commercial banks, nor the ACC will entertain applications for loans or for facilities from farmers unless the farmers have a farm plan. The drawing up of these farm plans by our advisers are a time-consuming operation and they must be executed in great detail and with great care. They must take into account the ability and the capacity of the farmers to meet the projections and figures in these plans.

This type of service is coming more in demand and will be even more in demand in the years ahead. No county committee of agriculture is sufficiently staffed to meet this demand. The Minister is well aware of the relative success of the small farm incentive scheme. This throws a considerable burden on our advisers and we should like to see this scheme developed to a greater extent. Yesterday the Minister quoted figures for some counties, but there must be still one or two counties which have in the current year utilised the maximum demand they could have made on the rating authority. Despite that, they find themselves extensively in the red with their treasurers. This is not a desirable situation for such important bodies.

The figures quoted last evening for Counties Mayo and Kerry by the Minister indicated conclusively that the personnel of these county committees of agriculture have been very responsible and conservative and they did not misappropriate funds. In both these counties there is an awareness of the difficulty of the ratepaying community to meet the current demands. These people, in their wisdom, decided not to go to their county councils for the maximum to which they were entitled by law.

Members of county committees of agriculture are responsible men and the Minister can quite safely raise the ceiling to ensure that for the year ahead no county will find itself in the position of having to curtail its services.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

I do not so much blame the Department of Agriculture for some county committees of agriculture being in the red. In his reply yesterday evening the Minister mentioned two county committees of agriculture which are in the red, namely, Mayo and Kerry. Senator McDonald stated this evening that this proves that the committees of agriculture were responsible and were prudent and were not making excessive demands on their rating authorities. I disagree with this because, if they are in the red and are not getting sufficient funds to enable them to keep out of the red, then something is wrong.

I should like to know, if the Minister has the information, were the agricultural committees' estimates cut by the rating authorities when they were presented to the Mayo and Kerry County Councils? What I am concerned with here, in trying to amend this figure of 15p to 25p, is to ensure that we will not have amending legislation of this type year after year. If you look at the Bill, it amends section 2 of the Agriculture (Amendment) Acts of 1958, 1964 and 1970, and we have this amendment again in 1971. The reason for this is that the Department of Agriculture and the Oireachtas have been cheese-paring in allowing only a very small increase. For example, this is an increase of only 9 old pence, or 4p, in the £ over the figure for 1970.

There must be a reason why there are committees of agriculture in the red. The reason may be that the county committees of agriculture were inhibited by the Act of 1970, which set the figure of 2s 3d as an adequate one. As a result, a number of county committees of agriculture throughout the State reached that figure and, as they were not able to demand more from their rating authorities, they found themselves in the red.

I was rather surprised when the Minister gave us the correct figures of what the demand was in the Mayo and Kerry committees of agriculture and we found they had not reached the old figure of 2s 3d. The Minister and other Senators may think that I am making a case here against the amendment, but the case I want to make for the amendment is that we should have a greater increase on the figure for 1970 than 4p. We should therefore make the figure 25p rather than 15p. By doing so we will not have the insinuation in future that committees of agriculture are inhibited from seeking greater demands from their local authority because the maximum figure they can seek is so low. By giving the increase now, it would be a long time before a Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries would have to come back here with an amending Bill. While we have this Bill before us the Minister should accept the amendment and thereby spare himself, his officials and the Oireachtas the pains of having to bring in amending legislation in perhaps 12 months or two years.

Mr. W. O'Brien

I support this amendment. The fact that so many committees of agriculture are in the red is an indication that the ceiling is too low and inadequate. Senator Nash said here the other day that the fact that so many committees did not utilise the amount allotted to them was a case against this amendment. I believe it is a case to support the amendment because it is an indication of the type of people who are on those committees. Very responsible people are picked from the county councils. People with a deep interest in agriculture are picked to act on these committees. The greatest danger at the moment existing in rural Ireland is that the committees of agriculture are about to be abolished. This uneasiness was not removed by the Minister's speech in the Dáil when he referred to it as a temporary measure which would be reviewed. That could have a dangerous effect on the small farm schemes: many farmers would not be inclined to get involved in such schemes because of the danger that the schemes might be abolished. In 1971, when we hear so much about our entry into the Common Market, I do not think it is right to have a ceiling. Those are the only committees I know of, with the exception of the vocational education committees, which have a ceiling. I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

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

I cannot accept this amendment. I should like to point out to the House what strikes me as the paradox in the arguments of Senator W. O'Brien and Senator McDonald. Each in turn says that members of committees of agriculture are very responsible people and they have demonstrated their responsibility by not reaching the permissible ceiling which was allowed them. This is one half of the argument. The other half, which in my opinion does not match the first part, is that in the case of certain committees who have not done their housekeeping, for reasons which may or may not be within their control, and who at any rate find themselves in the red, the ceiling should now be raised. At the same time they say these men, being prudent, did not incur all the expenditure they might have done under the ceilings which existed. There seems to be a paradox there that I cannot resolve.

Senator J. Fitzgerald said that this amendment ought to be accepted on the grounds that, if it is not, it will be a recurring thing. He suggested there was cheese-paring involved and that the action of committees was in some way inhibited. I was at pains to point out, both to the Dáil and to this House, that the measures we are contemplating are of an interim nature. It is the intention of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to reorganise the advisory services on the lines that I touched on when I spoke on the Second Reading. Since that is the case, we would hope that this measure before the House would be of very brief duration. The shorter the better.

There is no ground for Senators to be concerned about the curtailment or withdrawal of any service. The contrary is the case. With the new farm development service I would hope that a far better service would be provided than the one provided by committees of agriculture in the past. I do not mean this to be a criticism of the work the committees have done. Within the machinery available to them, committees and their staffs have done a very great service indeed to the farming community and to the country generally. It is well that this be recognised.

The inescapable facts of the matter are that only a comparatively small number of committees find themselves in any serious difficulties and the Bill, as it stands, should enable these committees to get out of their difficulties if not in one year then in a very short number of years. Nobody need contemplate a curtailment of services. This is not contemplated by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. There is no necessity for this. The statistical information that is available to us about the financial positions of the various committees bear this out, especially the committees in the western part of the country where three-quarters of the Bill is met by the Department.

I realise of course the acute necessity there is in that particular area of the country for a specialised and highly-efficient development service. That was why we were talking about an interim measure, a short-term measure to tide the committees over this particular period until the service we now know is replaced by one that is accepted by the farming community as being better.

We would hope to have a full and better discussion of that in due course, fairly soon.

Mr. McDonald

I accept what the Minister said last evening about two committees, but I am still worried because I am quite certain there are a couple of committees which have made the maximum demand for the past financial year but who still find themselves in the red. Now, what hope have these committees of paying their way in the coming year and, in addition, paying back the backlog? There is no machinery I know of by which these committees can actually meet their obligations, other than to reduce their schemes. Surely, in 1970, when we are on the threshold of the Common Market, this is not the way to approach this problem?

The Minister referred to my statement that county committees were not spendthrifts and that they took their responsibilities quite seriously. The only point I was making was that, even if the Minister raises the ceiling, it does not automatically follow that every county committee of agriculture will go up to the ceiling.

The Minister must have on the list before him at least three counties which have been on the maximum demand this year, are presently in the red and have no hope of continuing their present scheme if the bank manager decides otherwise. This is a serious situation for such an important statutory committee. I would appeal to the Minister to have a careful look at this matter.

The 75 per cent contribution by the Minister and his Department to the twelve western counties represents Government policy. We cannot say they are very generous in this regard. It is part of Government policy to give this type of aid and to follow through with pilot scheme in that area. This was a pilot scheme. According to Dr. Scully, I do not think it has proved to be that successful—something which surprised me very much. I want to emphasise that this is a Government policy and that these counties are entitled to a trial run at least.

The Minister says this is a short-term measure. I do not mind it being a short-term measure if the measure itself is adequate. My information is that it is not adequate and that committees are going to find themselves inadequately financed for the foreseeable future or until the end of their existence. This seems to be the underlying fear. I take it from what the Minister has said that we will have the opportunity of discussing his proposals in the not too distant future.

I do not accept the Minister's argument on this unless he can assure me that, with the proposed ceiling of 15p, every committee will be able to meet their commitments without reducing their schemes in the coming year.

Another aspect of this, which Senators who are not members of agriculture committees may not realise is this: we have in the county committees of agriculture this deplorable situation whereby a very high percentage of the instructors are temporary and are, as a result, on the minimum scale of salary. If the Appointments Commission, who appear to operate more slowly as the years pass, decided in the morning to make all these instructors permanent, the salary bills for the committees would shoot up dramatically. This is something the Minister has not taken note of. I think it is, to a large extent, responsible for so many committees being in a reasonable and satisfactory financial state at the present time. I know that, in my own committee, if all the members of our staff were appointed permanently —something we have been advocating there for years—we would not have a credit balance at the end of the present financial year.

I would ask the Minister, therefore, to give me an assurance that the figure he has in the Bill will ensure that every county committee of agriculture which avail of the maximum allowed will be able to pay their way in the current financial year.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

I was rather disappointed to hear the Minister say that he was not prepared to accept this amendment or to amend the figure in any way. His reason appeared to be that the advisory services are about to be reorganised and that this is only an interim measure. He indicated that the reorganisation is going to take place sooner than we anticipate. If that is so, then it must be going to take place very, very quickly. It appears there is going to be very little consultation before this becomes a fait accompli. If the Minister were to accept this amendment and increase the figure to 25p, it would not in any way inhibit the reorganisation of the advisory services.

The 4p local authorities will be allowed to provide in the coming estimate will not go very far towards bridging the gap in the case of those committees who are on their maximum but who find themselves in the red. It may enable them to provide a better service and keep out of the red, but will it enable them to pay off the money and the overdrafts that they now owe? I presume the Minister and his officials have the figures and that he knows they will be enabled to do that.

On many occasions, when previous Ministers brought in similar measures we were told that it was an interim measure and that certain revisions were about to take place. We have had interim measure after interim measure and yet we seem to have no revision of any kind taking place. Perhaps—and I am prepared to take the Minister's word for this—this reorganisation and revision of the advisory services is now about to take place before the end of the coming financial year. If that is so perhaps we, as committees of agriculture, will not exist any longer and our ratepayers will no longer be responsible for servicing the advisory services within their council areas.

The Minister mentioned—I took note of the phrase last night—that they would "pick up the tag" of 75 per cent for the 12 underdeveloped counties. I should like to remind him that on my Second Reading speech I referred to the fact that the Department does not pick up the tag for the 50 per cent in a number of other counties. I gave the figures for my own county already. I should be glad if the Minister would give us the reason why the tag for the full 50 per cent is not picked up by the Department for the Meath County Committee of Agriculture.

Mr. Lyons

I have just a few small points to add to what has already been said. I should like to support the amendment although I do not think the amendment, taken at its face value, will do any more than help the few counties that are in the red. When I spoke here yesterday evening I spoke without the full knowledge of the facts because, for reasons which would be of no interest to this House, I was not returned to the committee of agriculture after the last election. However, I wish to impress on the Minister that in some counties there is a financial deficit but in Mayo, due to the fact that it is the highest rated county in Ireland, we have a deficit in work and in the usage of the facilities provided by the committee of agriculture. It is a far greater deficit not to be able to provide services than a deficit in hard cash. That is the reason why I tried to impress upon the Minister that in the designated 12 counties, where he is paying 75 per cent in grants to offset charges incurred purely in the employment of additional instructors, he should give that blanket coverage to the services as a whole. If this happens— and I see no other way of increasing services in counties such as my own county and providing the instruction that will be far more necessary in the conditions we will face within the EEC —it will result in a great improvement in the services.

The Minister should look kindly on the various counties that are already covered in order to ensure that, in view of the tremendous burden of rates which they bear—£7.10 in the £ in Mayo— they will not be denied the services they so vitally need. You cannot have second-class farmers in certain counties as compared with the richer counties. In County Meath if you put 1p in the £ on rates it would bring in over £2,500. In Mayo the same sum would bring in £1,500 and in Leitrim £600. It was mentioned here last evening that urban dwellers have to pay. The urban dwellers do not pay those rates but people living in small towns have to pay it. Those people have never cribbed about paying it even though it is to provide services for a class of people other than themselves. On the other hand, as I pointed out last night, farmers have been providing facilities for town dwellers, such as footpaths, lights, libraries and so forth. Even though this is an interim arrangement, I would ask the Minister to ensure that he gives the 75 per cent grant to all counties designated under the order so as to ensure that they can carry on their services at the highest possible rate.

I am concerned that in the background of this debate there is the feeling that changes are about to take place, but nobody knows anything about those changes. The representatives of the farmers here are entitled to know well ahead of time exactly what is in the Minister's mind and in the mind of the Government. Changes in structure, necessary though they may be, will need long debate and we all wish to have the type of agreement that the Department, the Government, the farmers and the economy as a whole will welcome. Without undue delay the Minister should outline what proposals are envisaged so that they can be fully debated and so that we will not have a collision course between the farmers and the Oireachtas. I should like the Minister to think seriously about this matter so that full information can be given to us well ahead of time.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I believe the exercise of ordinary prudence on the part of any committee, even the committees under the most severe strain, should ensure that they will be in a happier position within a short period. Senator Jack Fitzgerald mentioned that there had been very little consultation in the review of the services that must precede its replacement by a new and, we hope, a better one. I want to assure the House that before any such change is made full consultation will be made with the farming organisations and with all interested parties. Senator Lyons is quite right in saying that people should be kept fully informed of what is proposed. Naturally, they will be fully informed of what is proposed by way of improvements in the advisory services.

I have not yet got from the House any acceptable argument for the raising of the ceiling higher than the 15p set out in the Bill. The likelihood of the withdrawal or of any diminution of the services provided by committees, in the light of what Senators have told me about the prudence of the committees who operate them, is very small. No such diminution of services is contemplated. It would be necessary for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to take a very hard look at the situation if any such a diminution of services were to be contemplated, and I am certain the Department will do this. I do not think there need be any anxiety on the part of Senators on this score. The services, as they are being provided, will be maintained.

Mr. McDonald

Would the Minister care to give me the names of the committees who have availed of the maximum demand in the current financial year and who will finish the year in the red?

Mr. J. Gibbons

It would involve going down through a rather long list.

Mr. McDonald

There are only 27 on the list, and there are only seven or eight involved.

Mr. J. Gibbons

A relevant factor in this is the performance of individual committees, not only this year but in the years which have led up to it. Some of these deficits are the cumulative result of overprudent housekeeping on the part of county councils or the committees themselves. I do not know whether the detailed information sought by the Senator would be relevant. In the list before me one of the counties in my own constituency—Carlow—is at the maximum and they have a deficit of £3,828. Donegal have a small deficit but they are a good deal under the 27d. ceiling; they are at 17.89d. We have spoken about Kerry, Kildare have a relatively small deficit of £4,847. Leitrim have a very negligible deficit of £338. Louth have a deficit of £1,500; Offaly have a deficit of £6,500. That is in Senator McDonald's constituency— but, of course, Senators do not have constituencies.

Mr. McDonald

The whole 27 are in my own constituency, Minister.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Sligo have a deficit of £5,000; Tipperary North Riding £10,000; Waterford, £2,479; and Wicklow, £555. Does that meet the Senator's requirements?

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

Have all those which the Minister has read out reached the maximum?

Mr. J. Gibbons

They are at or near it. I mentioned the fact that there were some which were not at their maximum.

Mr. McDonald

In the case of Offaly, what hope have they of clearing that? I assume they have 9 per cent interest to pay also. This will tend to run down the advisory service in an important county. The Minister, I am sure, appreciates the fact that quite a number of farmers in Offaly were badly affected by the Erin Foods failure this year and had produce left on their hands. We really need an increased advisory service there. It is unfair to the members of the committee. Would the Minister like to give the House an assurance that his Department will pay off these arrears by some means other than by the 50 per cent grants?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Senator McDonald mentioned the case of County Offaly with a deficit of £6,500. With an increase from 27d. to 36d., even in ignorance of the product of a penny in the rates in County Offaly, I should think that with any kind of prudent housekeeping on the part of the Offaly committee their deficit should be eliminated in a short time.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

Before the next amending Bill comes in?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I hope there will be no necessity for one.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for Final Consideration and passed.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.55 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 9th December, 1971.