Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Jul 1974

Vol. 78 No. 15

Agricultural (Amendment) Bill, 1974: Second Stage.

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

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. M.P. Murphy)

The committees of agriculture are financed each year by means of contributions from their respective county councils together with State grants related to these contributions. The State grant normally approximates to the local rates contribution but in the case of the 12 committees of agriculture in the small farm areas of the west and north of the country further State assistance is granted by way of a contribution of 75 per cent instead of the normal 50 per cent. The purpose of this extra contribution is to assist these particular counties in employing adequate numbers of advisory staff.

The existing statutory ceiling of county council contributions, which has been in operation since 1st April, 1972, is a sum not exceeding 15 times the produce of a rate of 1p in the £ in the area consisting of the county, exclusive of any urban areas therein and the immediate purpose of this short Bill is to enable county councils to give increased contributions where necessary towards the financing of county committees of agriculture in the local financial year commencing 1st January, 1975.

Under section 1 subsection (1) of the bill, it is proposed to increase the ceiling to 40p in the £ with effect from 1st January 1975. This maximum does not, of course, make it mandatory on county councils to reach it or indeed to meet the demands of committees of agriculture for increased funds, 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.

In recent years there has been a considerable expansion in the staff of the agricultural advisory services—it now numbers some 650 officers. There is still a need, however, to further strengthen these services in most counties. In recent times I have approved of the creation by each of the twenty-seven committees of agriculture of a post of deputy chief agricultural officer with special responsibility for educational matters. In addition there will now be over 70 posts of senior instructor the holders of which will supervise, under the CAO, the work of all advisers in a particular advisory district. A significant development in recent years has been the provision of much-needed headquarters for committees of agriculture, and also the provision of new agricultural education centres. To date, 16 such centres have been provided at a total cost of some £415,000, and my Department has paid a total of £183,000 in grants towards the centres. A further seven centres are under construction. I have recently increased the maximum grant towards the cost of each approved centre from £15,000 to £20,000.

In the year 1973-74 ten committees were on a rate between 14.5p and 15p (maximum) in the £, while a further ten committees were in receipt of the produce of a rate of between 12p and 14p in the £. In addition to increased expenses generally, increased salaries have contributed to the deterioration in the finances of all committees, whose staff, in addition to having secured increased remuneration under conciliation and arbitration proceedings, have been granted the benefits of the national wage agreements.

This Bill is required, and is, in fact, essential to ensure that those committees which in the immediate future cannot carry out their statutory functions on their present incomes, will be permitted to seek sufficient funds to enable them to do so. Some committees either now have, or will have substantial deficits on 31st December next and unless action is taken now the position will deteriorate further.

I would see an advantage in having the statutory upper limit abolished entirely, if only with a view to avoiding an over-frequent resort to amending legislation which is inevitable in present circumstances of undue restriction on the necessary contribution from the rates. I am advised, however, that the abolition of a maximum rate contribution as it exists would not be feasible unless it were substituted by other statutory amendments which would confer new powers on me thus limiting the activities and finances of the individual committees of agriculture. Because of the administrative and other difficulties this would involve and more particularly as it would remove from the committees and from the county councils a responsibility which desirably they should have, I consider that the present system should continue, but that the maximum rate contribution should be fixed at a sufficiently high level to permit committees of agriculture to perform their functions without an undue pre-occupation with trying to avoid deficits.

In the circumstances, I consider that the existing maximum rate contribution of 15p in the £ should be increased to 40p in the £. As I have already indicated it will not be mandatory on county councils to meet demands of committees of agriculture for increased funds unless they see fit. Contributions from the Department will, of course, continue to be made on the same pro rata basis as hitherto.

Mr. Keegan

I welcome an opportunity to express an opinion on this Bill. I am disappointed that the Bill does not go far enough to meet the changes and the challenges which face the agricultural industry and the agricultural community at the present time. Agriculture is our greatest industry. It is our greatest exporting industry because of the fact that the basic raw materials are produced in this country and, therefore, it is the industry which contributes most to our balance of payments. I am sorry and disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary in his opening speech did not make any reference to the changing role of the committees in a changing agricultural industry. I can see the point that the Bill is designed solely to increase the powers of local authorities to make a greater amount of money available to each county committee of agriculture, to expand their existing services and to cater for increases in salaries to the officers employed by the various committees.

The Bill does not take into consideration the changes which are taking place since we became members of the European Economic Community. Therefore, the Bill does not go far enough because of the fact that our agricultural officers have been called upon to implement the new farm modernisation scheme. The work of the local officers will increase while the work of the land project officers will decrease, to a certain extent. Here was an opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary and his Minister to initiate changes because changes must take place in view of our role as members of that Community. With the introduction of the farm modernisation scheme and all the administrative work involved some changes should have taken place. Here was an opportunity to do it because this Bill seals with the county committees of agriculture and the method of financing those committees.

Therefore, I am disappointed but the Minister, or his Parliamentary Secretary, may still have an opportunity to rectify the matter. There is an urgent need to bring about those changes and to have the services geared to give the greatest benefits to those in need, namely, the small farmers in every county. An air of despondency and despair has set in amongst those people because of the depression in the agricultural industry. Some means of uplifting the industry is necessary if we are to restore confidence and induce farmers to plan for the future and remain in agriculture. Therefore, the role of the county committees and their officers is important. It now will be more important than ever because of the changes that are taking place in Europe, with which we are associated, because of the air of uncertainty which exists at present.

New approaches must be made: new schemes must be devised to enable the farmer to secure the greatest possible income from his holding and to guarantee him a future in that industry. I am disappointed, also, that it is the county councils that will foot any increase which will be passed on in the future.

I would have hoped that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries would have announced an increase in the grants to committees of agriculture to enable them to foot the bill. After all, every farmer is a ratepayer. If he finds that his income is declining he will find it difficult to understand how he is expected to foot further increases. This is an important piece of legislation; it is something that is above politics. The livelihood of our farmers should be the concern of everybody both Government and Opposition. Therefore, a great deal of new thinking is required at the present time to restore confidence in the farming community. The Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary should have announced an increase in Government spending on increased subsidy for the various county committees of agriculture.

There should have been some mention in the Bill with regard to channelling all the services associated with agriculture into the one local department. As I mentioned the new farm modernisation scheme and the land project are similar except that their implementation and administration will be slightly different. Something should have been done to bring those two groups together and have their services governed by one section of one Department. The same applies to the veterinary services and the brucellosis eradication scheme and all the other schemes that are associated with county committees of agriculture and with the farming community in general.

I would have been pleased if the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary had made some effort at channelling the activities of all those different spheres under the one heading and have them responsible to one officer. In that way you would create greater efficiency and reduce costs. This Bill is all about costs and money. That is one way in which it could be done because in the long run the activities of all the various sections of the Department are all dealing with the one section of the community—the farmers. Therefore, this Bill does not go far enough in promoting harmony among the various officers. I should mention the long drawn out industrial dispute which took place with the agricultural officers and the Department of Agriculture with the result that thousands of applications under the Farm Modernisation Scheme are still awaiting attention. First, they were with the Department and now, as a result of the resolving of the dispute they are with the various county committees of agriculture.

Any effort that can be made to broaden the activities of the county committees of agriculture is to be welcomed. It is disappointing that any further increase in expenditure must be borne by the ratepayers. I can tell you that the ratepayers will not take too kindly to this bill this year because of the diminishing income of thousands of our farmers. It will be said that those engaged in non-farming activities will also have to contribute to the cost. All ratepayers will be making their contribution towards the increase in costs of this new piece of legislation.

A great deal more needs to be done. As I said before possibly the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary may have some new thinking in the pipeline for the various agricultural committees throughout the country but now is the time to advance this new thinking and have the schemes implemented. We must concentrate the efforts of all the county committees on the small farmer because his survival seems to be at stake. His future is in doubt. Confidence must be restored to the small farming community. It can be done through the schemes of the county committees of agriculture and it can be done by initiating the best possible marketing which can be made available to the farmer.

I mentioned that the pig industry and the schemes operated by the county committees of agriculture are now inadequate in order to induce the small farmer to continue in pig production. Drastic remedies need to be implemented in order to put that industry back on a sound footing and in order to induce the small farmer to get back into the pig industry. By and large over the years the pig industry enabled the small farmers to continue in farming. The various schemes which have been in operation by the county committees of agriculture need to be further extended and strengthened in an effort to keep the small farmer in production.

The same position prevails in the cattle industry. The man who is producing the store cattle needs further advice on how to get the best possible return in the shortest possible time. Those were the duties and functions of our agricultural advisers. I am inclined to query the role of the land project officer and the agricultural officer with regard to all these new schemes which are embodied in the new farm modernisation scheme. Every aspect of our agricultural industry is embodied in the farm modernisation scheme. Greater education is necessary in order to keep our farmers fully informed in regard to all the changes which are taking place.

Much more is necessary in the field of farm education. A great deal of research must be done in the field of marketing and the farming community must be assured that there is a market for what they produce. They must be assured that never again will they have to face a period of depression. Never again will they be allowed to drift and float from day to day or from week to week.

I was pleased when I read in the newspapers this morning that we are to have a beef sales promotion campaign. That is very welcome and is something in which our county committees of agriculture could actively be engaged. This kind of promotion is very necessary in order to induce people to purchase our beef. Last year and the year before you had this hardening of attitudes against the purchase of beef because people were saying that it was too dear. It happened in this country; it happened in the European countries and in America. That was detrimental to the cattle industry in general and played a part in a fall-off in the consumption of beef. I am convinced that in present day living costs beef is value for money. It never was such value for money as it is at present. Our people at home should be encouraged to purchase beef. It is discouraging indeed when we hear the uproar that is created when beef prices increase but the glass of brandy could go up to £1 per glass and it would still be purchased and there would not be a word about it. It is imported from France mainly—a country which refused our lamb and mutton last week. While I am wandering from the contents of the Bill I hope the Chair will bear with me for the moment. I feel the strongest form of protest should have been registered against the attitude of the French last week in closing the markets to our mutton. The sheep farmer was doing reasonably well this year. It is a pity the market was closed to him because of the action of the French. Some form of action should have been taken by our Government. After all, the Italians did the same some months ago.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator knows he should not continue too long.

Mr. Keegan

I thank the Chair for allowing me to broaden the scope of the debate. In dealing with an industry of such vast significance as agriculture it can be difficult to keep rigidly to the terms of the Bill, as the Chair can well understand.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has been excellent up to now.

Mr. Keegan

I will get back to the Bill. Knowing the Parliamentary Secretary's associations with agriculture, I hope he will give the House a guarantee that there will be new thinking in an effort to save our greatest industry and instil confidence into the farming community once again. While any measure to increase the spending powers of the committees of agriculture is welcome, it is disappointing that the ratepayers will have to foot the cost. As I said before, the work of the officers is becoming increasingly urgent as a result of the introduction of the farm modernisation scheme. Therefore, I was a bit disappointed that all those new activities were not mentioned in the Minister's Bill or in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech. I am confident that they will give the House and the Irish people an assurance that more will be done in future to stabilise the agricultural industry and to try and get it back on a secure footing once again.

Mr. McCartin

This Bill is very necessary. We are aware of the circumstances that brought it about. We know that many of our committees were seriously in the red, as was stated by the Parliamentary Secretary in his opening remarks. The question of a further burden on the ratepayers of the different counties has come up for discussion both here and in the other House in relation to this Bill. As far as this new legislation is concerned, there is nothing compulsory about it. It just means that committees of agriculture may ask county councils for a sum in excess of 15p if they wish. In reports brought out two years ago, committees of agriculture recommedned to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries that they should have the right to make up their own minds with regard to the amount of money required to run their services in their counties. Having done so, it ought to be mandatory on the county councils to pay the amount of money required. It is not a very important point because I do not know of cases where committees of agriculture sought the particular amount within the limits of the legislation and were refused by the county council concerned.

We have democratic local administration working properly: a situation where the local authority can sit back and make plans, ask itself how much the service is worth and, having done so, decide whether it can levy a certain amount of money against the ratepayers. At the moment there is quite a generous subsidy being paid. Arguments have been entered into again and again about this question of increasing the rates. A subsidy of 50 per cent is being given all over the country and 75 per cent in the 12 western counties. Everybody, I think, will agree that it is a generous subsidy.

Senator Keegan said he would have liked to see increased subsidisation from from central funds. Of course, it is obvious that increased spending requires increased subsidisation from central funds. If the county committees of agriculture increase their spending in the western areas, it will mean an increase in the 75 per cent; in the rest it will mean an increase in the 50 per cent. Those of us who believe in the democratic system based on the county councils as we have seen it in the past and who believe in the development and strengthening of this system, seriously could not expect the central authority to go much further in subsidising the activities of the county committees of agriculture, without calling to question and further reducing the power of the local authority. This is a very important point.

I do not think any of us who are involved in local government can honestly say that we would like to see a situation in which we, the local authority, would merely spend the money handed down to us by central government. This would be a very hollow and make-belief sort of situation for a local authority. To have any power they must decide, to some extent, the extent of the services they will give. Having done so, they must be in a position to levy some form of local taxation in support of their activities. If we did not have some form of local taxation the very nature of local authority and local government would be called into question. I would not like to see that situation come about.

Reference was made to old age pensioners and people who have difficulty in paying rates. There is provision where any county council can remit rates or part of the rates of any person who is in great need. Local authorities must avail themselves of this provision to protect people who are not in a position to pay rates. That is the way to get around that difficulty.

If we take money from central funds it means there is going to be less money for old age pensions. We should not worry about asking the ratepayers to provide more money for this service. The advisory services have made a bigger contribution towards the development, expansion and increasing the standard of living of those engaged in the agricultural industry than any other service provided by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The competent, qualified adviser within the reach of everybody engaged in the agricultural industry is the greatest guarantee we have of keeping the farming community up-to-date, and of raising the standard of living of those who are dependent on agriculture.

During the debates on the farm modernisation scheme, I quoted figures for a pilot area with which I am familiar in my own county. I used those figures to prove that direct subsidisation in the form of grants for building, drainage and so on are not as great a stimulant to increased production as is generally believed. In the particular area about which I spoke, I mentioned the explosive increase in the amount of stock. There was an improvement in the quality of the stock and an increased standard of living for the people engaged in agriculture in that area. I pointed out that the amounts of capital imput by the Government by way of grants for farm buildings and drainage were relatively small. I am making the case now that the most important factor in that increased production, to my mind, was the intensification and the quality of the advisory service provided in that area. From my own experience as a farmer and from watching trends in agriculture over the past number of years, I believe that the agricultural adviser has the greatest single contribution to make on behalf of farmers.

I believe in a good strong, basic training for the young farmer, the type of training that is provided in the agricultural colleges through scholarships by the county committees of agriculture. Some farmers can obtain this training privately. It can also be obtained in winter schools, and at night classes. All the activities carried on by the committees are very important. It is regrettable that so many of the young people who were awarded county committee of agricultural scholarships and attended the agri-agricultural training colleges have not returned to farming. Nevertheless the benefits of this training have not been lost to the farming community.

The one way we can ensure that education in farm modernisation and development is brought to the farmer is through the agricultural instructor. Labour has become very scarce and very precious in rural areas. Farmers, particularly those engaged in mixed farming, cannot find the time to attend winter farm schools. Young men may not realise sufficiently the importance of the education which is being provided for them. The young married man is very anxious to obtain whatever education is available in modernisation and development, but he may not be able to attend winter farm schools or night classes. The way to provide that man with the sort of service he wants is through the agricultural adviser. These advisers have had a basic training and have time to study. They are in contact with the Agricultural Institute and with other sources of research and development from abroad. They can fit all this knowledge to the particular circumstances and needs of the locality and can bring it to the farmers. This is the most important service we can give to the agricultural community.

The advisory service has fallen down slightly in some fields. I have the greatest respect for the advisory service and I owe a lot to the various instructors with whom I have been in contact. This was first noticeable in the poultry industry where the poultry instructresses seemed to fall behind in so far as the giving of advice to the more intensive and more modernised poultry units was concerned. They tended to help the small, less-efficient, less-important producer. It was a pity that this occurred down through the years. The high-powered adviser employed by business interests and sometimes by co-operatives took over the work of the poultry instructresses. I can see the same thing happening in the intensification of the pig industry. I should like to see the local instructor in the forefront of the developments that are taking place. Many members of the agricultural community will look to research institutions abroad rather than to the local agricultural adviser. This is bad for the morale of the service. I should like to see the local agricultural instructor being the most efficient, the most competent and the best equipped man available to deal with the problems of all farmers, however progressive they might be. This happened in the poultry industry; it seems to be happening to some extent in the pig industry. As beef production becomes more intensified I would not like to see this trend occur. It is very important that we should take good care of our advisory service.

The question of specialisation should be seriously considered by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Instructors in the various counties should have the opportunity to spend more time to study research institutions at home and abroad. They should be enabled to travel abroad not just to become aware of what is most modern and most efficient but to see what are the most efficient means in similar situations in any part of the world. We should have a number of instructors who have the time and the ability to do this sort of work and who can come back to their counties and make their knowledge available to the ordinary instructor so that they can give this special advice in cases where it is needed. There is a great deal of work to be done for the man who is not a specialist, who carries on mixed farming as most of us know it, but who has at his disposal the advice and guidance of the specialised instructor. This idea should receive more consideration.

I welcome the appointment of senior instructors. In the past we had perhaps too many young graduates with the necessary qualifications but with very little experience in giving the sort of advice needed by the farmer who was in difficulties, but whose knowledge and experience was a little more sophisticated than this young instructor expected. Senior instructors can work with these young graduates in their first years in which they will gain their own experience and knowledge. The appointing of senior instructors should be welcomed by the advisory service. The present Minister has done a lot to improve prospects of promotion and opportunities for them. For too long agricultural instructors employed by the committees of agriculture were more or less in a cul-de-sac compared with the men who joined the Agricultural Institute and the Department and even with the men who were employed by private enterprise. The man employed by the committees of agriculture found himself with very little promotional opportunities and very little chance to develop his talents for anything except direct advice in the field. A young man embarking on his career should have the opportunity, if he has the ability, to go ahead fairly rapidly. I welcome the new opportunities for promotion.

The changing role of the adviser has been mentioned in relation to the new farm modernisation scheme. This change was long overdue. I would not like to see the number of officers engaged on land reclamation or rehabilitation reduced in any way. I can see more work in the future for people engaged on land reclamation.

We hear talk about the depressed state of agriculture at present. It is very depressed in the west of Ireland, where farmers are engaged mainly on the production of store cattle. These men have been hardest hit and the hardest hit of all is the man who depended for his living on a cow for the production of a calf which was sold either as a calf or a store bullock or heifer. The man who sits down with his agricultural adviser, makes his plans for four or five or six years ahead, decides what money he wishes to invest and what return he expects to get out of it and stays with that plan through the good year and the bad, that is the man who in ten or 20 years will be the successful farmer.

There will always be situations in which farmers may find they are in the wrong line because there is not a good future for this particular line. Farmers who jump into calves one day, milk the next day, and then sugar beet, or wheat or barley will find, in the long run, that they will not be successful farmers. The agricultural adviser could have a very stabilising influence on farmers with whom he is in contact and this contact should be promoted through conferences and discussions. He should try in the bad periods to maintain the confidence of the farmer in the particular line he chooses to follow. Nobody has to justify the role of the local adviser to anybody. The Minister does not have to justify it. The county councillors do not have to justify it to the ratepayers because everybody knows the important function the agricultural adviser performs.

Mr. Killilea

This Bill is certainly needed. The contribution to the west is reasonably satisfactory. I would point out that this is not the first time the contribution has been raised for the west but there is a reason for that. The rate in the £ in the west is much higher than it is in the rest of the country. The west is, therefore, entitled to a bigger slice of the cake.

The reason why the Bill is necessary now is because last year the Government received on our entry into Europe £30 million which they did not reinvest in agriculture. That was a mistake. It would have been a good reinvestment because a better all-round situation would now prevail in agriculture. Senator McCartin tried to put good face on agriculture despite the appealling conditions which prevail in agriculture. The situation is unparalleled. Certainly my generation have never seen such a depression. That fact must be faced because, if it is not, we are only codding ourselves.

The county committee of agriculture is a very important body. It has always been so. It is a body which distributes information on agricultural matters. There is a great need for that kind of information particularly in the west. The ratepayers are asked to pay, but the ratepayers do not mind paying provided that the net result is an improvement in our agricultural economy and a consequential improvement in incomes. For the remaining part of this year ratepayers, particularly farmers, will find it desperately hard to meet their commitments due to the situation that prevails in agriculture. My county is already at its maximum. Indeed, we are in the "red" so this contribution is absolutely necessary.

County committees of agriculture have always played an important role but they will have to play an even greater role now. They will have to expand. We have always in our committee tried to explain to our farmers exactly what is going on in agriculture. We hold night classes. We hold field days to show why can be done. We have tried to explain what should be done in sheep because we carry one-fifth of all the sheep in the country. Our money, to date, has been well spent.

There is a great deal of respect in our county for the county committee of agriculture and for the officials and staff who work so diligently for an improved agriculture. The same can be said for most committees of agriculture in the west. They have worked very hard in difficult circumstances. The going has been hard but they have succeeded in disseminating a wealth of knowledge. The fact that we have to go to our ratepayers is sad but we must get the money. As I said, some of the EEC money last year could have been reinvested in agriculture. We have lost out from entry into the EEC. Regional policy seems to be at a dead end. Britain, in her typical role of either wanting to command or to break, has adversely affected us by stopping EEC regional policy. Agriculture has lost out. There is need for a big injection of money, particularly for the small farmer for whom the regional policy was really designed. However, the ratepayer is asked to pay, he will pay, but I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that he will find it desperately hard to pay.

The sheep situation is acute at the moment. We all know why. The French market is closed. This is an embarrassment to us. Cattle are in a very bad state also. We see what is happening with milk and one can foresee a situation two or three years hence when we will have a great surplus of milk. The cost of the rising input in milk is about the only salvation at the moment for the farmer because other forms of agriculture are so depressed. I am not blaming the Minister for that but more could and should be done.

I put down a motion in this House concerning the Farm Modernisation Scheme and I remember saying it would be very hard to implement it. It will be even harder now because the calculations made last January or February and sent in to the Minister, as he requested that time, are now hopelessly out of date. Something was obviously slipped across on us. I asked then that the directive be re-negotiated and my arguments then have been borne out. Despite all that has been said in favour of the farm organisation scheme, the onerous task that falls on the agricultural advisers and the small farmers to become viable is too great a burden. Forecasts can be quite crazy and a situation may prevail in six months time that cannot now be foreseen, much less forecast. There is not a Senator who could forecast what the price of cattle will be next October. Neither could he forecast the price of sheep or potatoes next October. Yet, we were asked to make that forecast. It is most unfair. In the prevailing situation the county committees of agriculture should now be asked to review the situation. The Department should also review the situation with regard to the farm modernisation schemes.

The advisory service needs to the strengthened. In my county we need ten new advisers. There are long delays but they cannot help that because they cannot be everywhere at the same time. In a county so thickly populated with small farms the demand on advisers is very great. We are losing out because some avenues of agriculture are neglected owing to the total absorption of the agricultural advisers on farm modernisation. In the past we had field days dealing with sheep, wheat, beet, potatoes, particularly certified seed potatoes. These have been dropped. Why? Because our agricultural advisers simply do not have the time for this very important work.

I have great faith in the Agricultural Institute but they seem to specialise on a narrow aspect of farming and the broad spectrum of agriculture is left in abeyance. The advisory service needs reorganisation and new thinking. It needs a broadening in scope. The ruination of agriculture is that one year a farmer specialises in cattle, the next year in beet, two years later in milk, and two years later he switches all over again. There is no levelling off. Trends here are vastly different from trends in Europe.

It is our duty, and particularly the duty of the Government, to instruct county committees of agriculture which in turn should instruct the farmers in a new positive approach. Chopping and changing has played too big a part in agriculture for the past 50 years. This must cease and, to bring an end to it, it is absolutely necessary to reorganise the whole advisory service.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that the staff of the agricultural advisory service now numbers 650 officers. He referred to the new deputy chief agricultural officer who will have responsibility for educational matters. Education is half the battle; if a man is educated he has some chance but, if he is not educated, he has no chance Agricultural education is very important. There are ways and means of achieving that education but the county committees of agriculture have a responsibility where less well-off farmers are concerned who may not be able to get a proper agricultural education. This could be done in a variety of ways. Indeed, some of that £30 million should have been invested in this aspect of agriculture.

One must admire the advisory services for their refusal to implement the farm modernisation scheme. It was not, as has been suggested, a strike. It was a refusal to implement a particular scheme to draw attention to certain existing defects. The Parliamentary Secretary glossed over the situation. He said that there was a considerable expansion in staff. He pointed out they were making a new post of deputy chief agricultural officer. I do not think this post was part of the bargain to put an end to the dispute between the advisory service and the Department. It is not fair to say the Department in their forward-thinking way would have found this solution without the pressure brought to bear by the advisory service.

I read an article in the Official Journal of the EEC which stated that the intensification of store cattle and beef should be furthered and nurtured. The Department should not have allowed a situation to develop in which we are totally dependent on agriculture. Our dependence is much greater than that of any other country in the EEC, with the exception of Italy. We are definitely in "slumpland" where beef is concerned and there does not seem to be any way out. Yet, only 16 months ago, Brussels told us—we accepted it as fact—that we should intensify our beef and store cattle production. The results of that intensification can be seen today. We really must be on our toes to ensure that these situations are not allowed to develop in the future.

Senator Keegan rightly said that it was a public disgrace that the door to the French market for our lamb should be closed in our faces, the windows shut up and we shot out when, in fact, we are a good supporter of French produce. A protest is not good enough. Something positive and concrete should be done to let the French know that we have a greater dependence on agriculture than they have. That should be done and I would certainly lend my support to some way in which both the French and the other members of the EEC could be shown that our dependence on agriculture is very important.

Coming back again to the last paragraph where the Parliamentary Secretary said he could see an advantage in having the statutory upper limit abolished entirely, even though this sounds daring, I do not think it is the answer. He is wise in not doing this. The county committees of agriculture must be protected. The only way they can be protected is by legislation in the two Houses of the Oireachtas. County committees of agriculture all their lives have played an important role and they have an even more important role to play. Therefore, they are entitled to protection from the Houses of the Oireachtas.

We have seen the rise and fall of many organisations which, at the outset, were classified as great agricultural organisations. We have seen them lead and mislead. The one outstanding organisation that has stood all the tests of time has been the county committee of agriculture. I certainly would uphold those committees. It was suggested that there would be an advantage in having the statutory upper limit abolished entirely. I do not agree. This would be losing sight of the principles for which the county committees of agriculture stand.

So, with a half-hearted welcome—I think that is the word—one has to accept this situation, one has to accept this Bill. It does not go far enough. It is not without mistakes. Enough is not being done in agriculture and, in particular, in this field of agriculture. A reorganisation of the advisory services should be looked into immediately. The scope of the county committees of agriculture should be investigated. It should be broadened. They should be given a far more important role. Definitely, a greater slice of the national cake should be given to the county committees of agriculture. The ratepayer is now certainly being asked to pay. These committees have a great job to do and they need money to do it. This money should be forthcoming willingly from the Government of the day.

Mr. Butler

I welcome the Bill. Most people will congratulate the county committees of agriculture on the work they have done over the past number of years. This Bill allows contributions of up to 40p in the £ by the county council to be made to meet demands by the county committees of agriculture. It allows it but it does not state that from 1st January, 1975, every county committee of agriculture can demand 40p in the £ from county councils. A case will have to be made for each demand and, if we look at the figures given in the statement, we see that up to now only 12 counties in this State have looked for and obtained the maximum of 14.5p to 15p in the £. If 40p in the £ is to be demanded from 1st January, thereby increasing the rates, this cannot be substantiated. I feel sorry for those county committees of agriculture who have obtained only 12p to 14p in the £ in ten counties. In seven counties they have not even looked for 12p in the £ for the county committees of agriculture and for the working of those committees. I do not know how those seven counties could have a rate as low as or lower than 12p in the £. Surely in those counties the same interest in agriculture should prevail. I would advise all county committees of agriculture to examine their claims in the county council for extra incentives for agriculture. We all realise that agriculture is our principal industry. It is the industry which this country has survived on and will survive on for many years to come. I should like to see more interest taken in the investment side of the business by the county committees of agriculture.

It was stated by some Senators that there would be a substantial increase in the rates because of extra demands. I would like to point out that in the western counties the State provides £3 for every £1 demanded. The State subscribes 75 per cent and the county councils subscribe 25 per cent to the county committees of agriculture. If I were in that position I would be looking for more and more to help the farmers in those counties to get proper advice. If the State pays £3 for every £1 I cannot understand why Senators from the west of Ireland are not encouraging their county committees of agriculture to look for more so that that investment could be put to the betterment of the small farmers in the west of Ireland.

Advice is needed and training must be given to those people in the advisory service. They must be kept up to date in their knowledge. There is a falling down in this respect. When an agricultural instructor is appointed by a county committee of agriculture he does not get the opportunity to keep himself informed. He works full-time with the county committee of agriculture. He works day and night on their behalf, visiting farmers during the day and giving instruction to farmers at night. It would be advisable for county committees of agriculture to allow instructors at least two weeks for an educational tour or to go back to school to keep up to date. Advice is necessary in a progressive State. Up-to-date advice is always readily available and can be obtained if sought. I advise the county committees of agriculture to look for this advice from their agricultural officers.

Ten years ago we had only 354 agricultural officers attached to the county committees of agriculture and now we have 654, an increase of 300 over ten years. It is not quite enough. We still need, over a period of four or five years, another substantial increase in the number of agricultural advisers to the county committees of agriculture because we are now in a situation where intensive development is necessary for every acre of land and where advice must be given to every farmer even if he does not look for it. That is why I would like to see each county committee of agriculture appointing one officer who would be trained in socio-economics, especially in the counties where there is a number of small farmers. This is necessary because some of those farmers are living in impoverished conditions. It would be better for them if they were out of farming, receiving a pension, leasing the land and living a happier life.

I visit some of those farmers very often, especially in my own area, because I am involved with farmers. Every day I meet them and visit their holdings. In my area it is not too bad. I can imagine areas especially in the west of Ireland where the average farms are much smaller than in my area. Some of those farmers and their wives must be living in a situation which nobody else would tolerate. If we had a person who was trained in socio-economics, a person who would be able to go to those people, a recognised agricultural adviser and sit down with them at the fire and talk to them we would get better results. He could walk around the farm and point out faults here and there and advise them on the best way to spend their future years in happiness and contentment. The only way some of them could do that is to retire from farming. When the county committees of agriculture are increasing their advisory services at least one officer should be trained in the field I have already mentioned.

Another thing that is very important in the agricultural field and in the education of the farmers is financial methods. It is all right for a farmer to buy a beast for a certain figure and after a few months sell that beast at an increased price. The farmer may think that he has gained fairly well. If the agricultural adviser educated the farmers—many of them are educated, I admit, but there are some who are slow to learn and slow to accept advice—by getting across to them the importance of keeping expense accounts, then he would be doing not only the farmers but the State and the county a service. It is necessary now more than at any other time that farmers should be business people. They should be trained as business people as well as farmers. The only way in which they can be trained is by advice given by the people whom they accept, the agricultural officers.

Most of the increased demand on the county committees of agriculture, as the Parliamentary Secretary stated, arises as a result of the increase in salaries and expenses. Seventy per cent of the demand is for salaries and expenses of agricultural advisers. I am glad that they have got those increases. They are entitled to them in the same way as everybody else. Over the years the national wage agreement has allowed a percentage increase to all workers. The agricultural adviser is also entitled to those increases and entitled to the increases for expenses that he incurs. There should be no hesitation about it. Every time there is a national wage agreement the agricultural officer should get it without even looking for it. I do not think anybody should now go along and demand that they should be entitled to this, that or the other thing. They should get it there and then.

I should also like to congratulate the Minister for Agriculture who stated that he is now appointing to each county committee of agriculture a deputy chief agricultural officer for educational matters because education is now all-important. The chief agricultural officer will have to delegate his authority to the other officers. My feeling is that the main job of the chief agricultural officer will be to educate the junior agricultural instructors. Most of his time will be spent advising those on the up-to-date educational facilities that are available and the up-to-date knowledge he has received. Because the statement has been made that a deputy chief agricultural officer will be appointed, many of the agricultural organisations will be demanding that that officer should come to this area and that area. There will be such a demand for that one person that it cannot work, unless it is accepted that his advice be given to the other officers who will convey it to the farmers.

I also congratulate the Minister on appointing 70 senior instructors. One thing that has been disturbing the agricultural instructor appointed by the county committees of agriculture was that there was no promotion opportunity. There was a chief agricultural officer, then a deputy chief probably and after that the agricultural officer. Now, there is an opportunity for promotion. Seventy senior instructors will allow at least two chief agricultural instructors in each county. You will have a deputy chief agricultural officer and a chief agricultural officer, so that instead of one opportunity there will be four. This, in my opinion, is a very great advantage to the agricultural officers in the county. At the moment the education of farmers is essential more than anything else. The opportunity is being given to farmers to receive that education from the newly appointed officers. They should look for it because it will pay them very well.

I should like to refer to scholarships to the agricultural colleges. Up to very recently in every county agricultural scholarships were given. Notices were published inviting applications for those agricultural scholarships. Very little interest was taken and in fact many counties were not able to fill the number of places they held in those agricultural colleges.

There is a demand for education by the agricultural organisations such as the IFA and the ICMSA, Macra na Feirme and Muintir na Tíre. Here is an opportunity for some member to get first-class education in an agricultural college. I know the type of education given in agricultural colleges because I spent 12 months in one of these colleges myself. It was the best year of my life in every way. I was educated in how to handle young people and discuss problems with them. There were other things which we had to do in the agricultural colleges which probably gave us very little extra knowledge; we had to help the workers there. I would advise young farmers to take the opportunity, if there are scholarships available in their counties to apply for those scholarships and work hard to get those scholarships because they will benefit eventually.

There are many openings for people who have gone to agricultural colleges. Recently I saw an advertisement by the Department notifying vacancies. One of the necessary qualifications was that applicants should have spent a year in an agricultural college. This is very welcome.

I should like to ask what influence the county committees of agriculture have with the colleges themselves. I should think that some organisation such as the General Council of County Councils should have an influence with the colleges to see that the students are properly cared for and properly advised. We hear from time to time that this is not so in some colleges. In the college I was in we got a very satisfactory education. In other areas I believe this is not so. From time to time members of the committees of agriculture should visit those colleges, see what is going on and have consultation with the headmasters. By consultations between members of the county committees of agriculture and officers in charge of the agricultural colleges a greater flow of the right type of information and education will be achieved. This is advisable.

Again I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary and I warmly welcome the Bill now before us.

Professor Quinlan

I join with previous speakers in welcoming the Bill and at the outset I wish to avail of the opportunity to pay a sincere tribute to work done by the agricultural officers in the various advisory teams. Despite the many difficulties they have encountered in past years their enthusiasm remains unabated and the results are there for all to see. It is good to see that provision is made here to enable counties to make a substantial increase in the contribution from the rates to this work. It is vital work and indeed it was never more vital than it is in the present months when we have a depressed situation in agriculture.

With the euphoria of the last two years suddenly gone we realise that the situation is a highly competitive one. In this situation the main role of the agricultural advisory services appears as a service designed to cut costs; to show the farmers the most efficient ways of doing it and to counter the salesmen whose function is to lure the farmers deeper into debt with new-fangled ways of approaching various farmyard tasks. What is wrong in many sectors is not so much the price of the products but the fact that costs have risen so enormously that the resultant margin is indeed a slim one. This is very important because we have an exceedingly threatening balance of payments situation—£150 million deficit for the current year. It is on agriculture that we depend to reduce this: it is on the advice of the agricultural officers that we rely to spearhead this. A primary consideration in tackling this problem is that our agricultural grass-based enterprises account for 91 per cent of our output as compared with 37 per cent in the EEC in general. In other words, we are a completely grass-based economy. The agricultural officers have the dominant role today in ensuring that the maximum use is made of that grass.

On the conservation side they have been doing very valuable work: we must improve substantially in that respect. Figures show that we are not sufficiently conserving food supplies. We cannot depend for profitable agriculture on imported foodstuffs. We must minimise that dependence. Likewise, a very close eye has to be kept on the level of fertiliser consumption in view of the greatly increased costs. The agricultural officers have a vital role to play in that regard ensuring an economical use of artificial fertilisers and endeavouring by every means possible to promote a greater utilisation of farmyard refuse. The crisis shows that their role has developed enormously. There is a slight hint in the Bill of structural change as a result of the recent agreement with the agricultural officers association: it needs to go much further than that.

The provision of a post of senior instructor within the county is very useful and valuable. It always struck me as the height of folly to have officers transferred to another part of the country on promotion. I can recall excellent instructors stationed in Limerick being transferred on promotion to some place with a completely different farming set-up, in the midlands or elsewhere. There is a grave loss in that. The aim should be to have promotional opportunities within the county for experienced officers. The post of chief agricultural officer or deputy chief agricultural officer may be an exception. This is a post more related to administration and leadership. Intimate knowledge of the local advisory scene is something which cannot be transferred and it takes a long time for a new officer to acquire it.

I support very strongly all the excellent suggestions made by Senator Butler but especially the one suggesting opportunities for agricultural officers to study. I suggest that one month every year be devoted to that because, by pooling ideas and getting together, a sound, commonsense approach to agricultural problems based on hard economics can be achieved. That is precisely what we want today.

I would like to see the ambit of the chief agricultural officer extended to all services within the county; we should foster the existing co-operation with the Agricultural Institute. Various creamery groups, such as Mitchelstown and Golden Vale are developing their own special advisory services. These are playing a vital role in a specialised area of quality milk production. They should be assisted and encouraged by every means possible by the county committees of agriculture and the agricultural advisory service. The State might well empower the county committees to make certain contributions to those services at least from the point of view of getting them going in areas where they are not functioning at present.

I would like to see the pioneering work done by some of our excellent societies such as those I have mentioned become the standard pattern all over the country. We also have the rise of agricultural contracting services as a very necessary and vital part of the modern farm organisation. These would merit having at least one officer in each county assigned to their co-ordination and development. From rather casual observation of them I can see very often while the execution of the work is first-class the business associated with it is appalling. I saw a most excellent and hard-working contractor recently whose only fault was that his bills for last year had not been sent out and could not be extracted from him. Obviously, you cannot survive with that type of business approach. It is essential that people such as he should be brought to see the faults of their organisation on the business side.

There is also the very special problem of relief and seasonal workers in agriculture. That is something which should be approached along similar lines. Possibly the county committees of agriculture, in association with the Agricultural Institute, could have special training schemes at the beginning of the summer for relief and seasonal workers. The whole system should be catered for ranging from education aspects to the ordinary work on the farm. The premium is on leadership. We are looking to these agricultural advisers for leadership. Above all, there is the question of the temporary agricultural officer who has great difficulty in becoming permanent. Surely, when he serves a minimum of three or four years in an area it is in everybody's interest that he be given permanency: cut the red tape and let them get on with the work. The work is such that an officer need do nothing or he could do a grand job: it completely depends on the initiative of the person concerned. Where that is the case we should recognise initiative and reward it and free it from as much of the trammels of red tape as possible.

Debate adjourned.