Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Jul 1974

Vol. 78 No. 15

Agricultural (Amendment) Bill, 1974: Second Stage (Resumed) and Subsequent Stages.

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

Mr. Cowen

When concluding the debate on this Bill in the Dáil the Minister declared his appreciation of the Deputies' contributions on, as he described it, this short Bill. I do not know why the Bill should be so short when it is so vitally important to the economy, so important that the Bill should be a very, very long one entailing a whole new structure for farming development and the activities and functions of our agricultural committees. This is what this Bill should entail. What the Bill does is tell us that agricultural committees need more money to carry out their functions and it tells the committees to increase their demands on the parent body, the county council, from the present maximum of 15p in the £ to a maximum of 40p in the £. The Bill then tells them to find this money in that particular way.

The Parliamentary Secretary in the other House made much of the fact that the composition of the committees of agriculture are closely aligned to the various committees of county councils. He sees this as a safeguard either against the maximum of 40p being reached quickly or the present lower maximum of 15p not being significantly increased. Is what the Minister is now doing not burdening county committees of agriculture with the job of fund raising? Their principal function is servicing and maintaining agricultural, educational, instructional and development schemes of all sorts and the other various projects county committees of agriculture have to put into effect. I believe, when the Parliamentary Secretary made this comparison, he was leaning towards the argument that because there are so many county councillors involved in committees of agriculture an even balance would be kept. If that is the Government's approach towards promoting agriculture it is a very poor one indeed.

When I said that I expected this Bill to be a long and important one I meant the Minister should have got down to the kernel of the problem. Agriculture, as we all realise, is our basic industry. It is our bread and butter. Progress on all agricultural fronts must always be maintained and we must always be seen to be accelerating the rate of progress. Agriculture has become a very sophisticated business particularly since our involvement in the EEC. The vast increase in technical know-how and agricultural education requires adequate finance. At the moment we need more finance. This finance should, of course, be obtained through a more sophisticated system than that of rates. The present inequitable and out-moded ratepaying system is one that we should now leave behind us. It is not a system we should have in mind when talking and promoting agriculture.

We, on this side of the House, look to the Minister to provide in this Bill the vast amount of money needed from the Central Fund. Basically, the Central Fund is the most important source of national spending and investment; it is also the most fruitful one from the point of view of raising money.

I would imagine that any committee of agriculture, while diligent in promoting its advisory services for the betterment of agriculture in general, would be very slow to ask ratepayers to increase their contributions to finance an expansion of advisory services. In the past, when county committees of agriculture were financed through the rates, there was not this vast involvement in advisory services that we have today. Advisory services today have a very far-reaching and important role to play in promoting our agricultural economy. Agriculture and the advisory services are of paramount national importance and struggling committees of agriculture should not be encumbered with the burden of deciding to raise money through the ratepaying system in order to develop the advisory services. That is why we think that the Minister could have done a great deal more in this Bill. He could have broadened its scope to ensure that money would be made available from the Central Fund rather than trying to raise it, as will be the case, through the relevant local authorities. That is what this Bill involves. It will depend totally on the county councils as to what increased moneys will be made available for the agricultural advisory services.

I would like to know if the Minister for Agriculture has made any effort to pinpoint the Irish farmers' case in his consultations with his counterparts in Europe in regard to the implementation of the farm modernisation scheme. Those of us who are involved on agricultural committees are well aware of the vast financial involvement necessary in the implementation of this modernisation scheme to ensure that the ordinary Irish farmer will benefit from it. We are also well aware that, for the implementation of this farm modernisation scheme, the number of advisory instructors necessary to ensure its effectiveness will be almost double. The ratio before this scheme came into effect was one adviser to 500 farmers. I believe the ratio, following the implementation of this scheme, will be one instructor to something in the region of 300 farmers. Here we have evidence of the enormous cost of implementing this scheme. I doubt very much, even if every county concerned increased its contribution to the maximum envisaged in the Bill of 40p in the £, if the money that this would bring in would give full effect to this farm modernisation scheme. That is why I wonder if the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary realise the enormous amount of money necessary effectively to put this scheme into operation. That is why I believe the Minister may have fallen down in his consultations with his counterparts in Europe in not pressing the Irish case. European funds should be available to implement such a very important new scheme. Had the Minister made the cost known to his counterparts in Europe I imagine EEC funds would have been made available. This particular scheme is as a result of EEC Directive 159. I have pointed out that the volume of work on the agricultural committees, on the agricultural advisers and their helpers will be enormously increased. The point is more and more funds will be needed effectively to put the scheme into operation.

It was suggested recently that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries slipped up to some extent in not informing fishermen of the availability of grants for boats and fishing equipment in general from EEC funds.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

That is nonsense.

An Cathaoirleach

It is irrelevant on this Bill.

Mr. Cowen

It was quoted in the papers, and not as being nonsense. If that is the case, it is quite possible that money could be made available from EEC funds effectively to put into operation the farm modernisation scheme. The fishermen were not told of the availability of grants towards boat-building and fishing equipment and that leads one to believe that the Minister may not be striking a hard enough bargain in the EEC to ensure that all the benefits that could accrue to Irish farmers do accrue. No EEC funds should be considered as a pittance or a charity. When funds are needed they must be sought and it is up to the Minister to seek them in a positive way, showing the future constructive contribution which would result from any desirable spread of investment from the EEC in this country.

Europeans realise that what is good for Irish agriculture is good for Europe. This should be firmly stressed and emphasised in all negotiations. We are no mere cog in the EEC as far as agriculture is concerned. We are a very big wheel and many of the EEC countries realise this. The Minister and his Department need not, therefore, be worried when negotiating on any particular aspect of agriculture.

The present depressed state of Irish farming needs a stimulant and an injection now more than ever. I doubt if the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary are doing enough to ensure that that injection is forthcoming. The best example of this depressed state is the cattle trade. The Minister and his Department have failed to promote a store cattle trade to the EEC countries. We seem to be exporting only a limited supply of store cattle to these countries. This is an area in which the Minister and his Department could involve themselves to ensure a store cattle trade is built up. This is one aspect of the cattle trade which has been totally and utterly neglected. We are still depending on our neighbours across the water to absorb 80 per cent of our store cattle.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator has wandered somewhat from the Bill. I would be glad if he would relate his remarks to the operation of the committees and the advisers.

Mr. Cowen

Now that we are involved in the EEC we must appreciate the need for agricultural education and training. For instance, the farm modernisation scheme obviously entails detailed and informed instruction as a result of information obtained in Brussels. What is happening in Brussels? It is becoming more and more difficult to keep track of various complicated changes in legislation. Committees of agriculture need more finance to set up a link with this source of information in Brussels. These committees and their advisers should have some sort of representation in Brussels so that they could bring their own unique problems for solution there. As well as that, Brussels would become aware of unique and important difficulties and developments in particular areas and different associations connected with agriculture would become involved with this link-up with European agriculture. There is not a proper link-up to keep us informed of the varying trends in European agriculture and the Department could do more to ensure that the committees and their advisers get this sort of information. Is it not just and right that our advisory services should benefit from EEC funds?

The greatest need in Irish agriculture has always been the need for education in agriculture. Much has been done by the agricultural advisers over the years. I want to join with previous speakers, both here and in the Dáil, to pay tribute to those men for their exalted interest in enlightening the farming community with very limited financial backing. They have done a wonderful job and the younger generation of agricultural advisers are still doing a wonderful job. They put in many hours which their pay packets may not reflect after their month's work. I know of many young agricultural instructors who do a great deal of overtime helping to meet the needs of the Irish farmer in general and they do not rush back to their offices at 5 o'clock or 5.30 or whatever the closing time may be.

The need for education is even more acute today than it ever has been. In education, it is wrong to compartmentalise. The Department of Education are primarily concerned with education, but every Department must be concerned with education in some way or another. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are very concerned with education. Agricultural advisers are not just instructors; they are also advocates and educators working in a rural agricultural environment and they cannot be divorced from the general education scheme because they deal with the youth who are earning a livelihood by farming.

I believe that the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Education should work more closely together. I have seen prospectuses from technical schools and regional technical colleges and from higher institutions of education with many courses on their programmes in which there should be a link up between both Departments. Agricultural advisers could avail themselves of some of these courses if there was a link-up between the Departments concerned. There are other subjects on the curricula of these colleges by which young farmers could improve themselves from an educational point of view. I ask the Minister to examine the possibility of a link-up between the two Departments. In the programmes of technical schools and regional technical colleges there are basic aspects of education which are essential to the farming community at this time. Many people from the farming community attend these schools and obtain their leaving certificates. A study of business methods and accountancy would be useful for those with an agricultural background.

There should be more emphasis on aspects of farming education in agricultural colleges. There should be some sort of European study course and more emphasis on book-keeping and accountancy in recognised agricultural colleges. Business methods are so important now that the farmer needs to be a very able businessman if he is to survive.

While recognising the need for, and the good intentions of this Bill my main objection to it is that it is a short Bill in every sense of the word—short in what should have been its primary objective, the raising of sufficient finance. It is a Bill which should be more involved and more radical. Because it is too short, it is also too simple. If the Minister wants county committees of agriculture to increase their rate collection figures, will the contribution from the Department of Agriculture not increase at the same rate? There is no indication in this Bill that the Minister and his Department are recognising the grave financial needs of advisory committees. In Offaly there are no signs whatever of the initiation of plans to erect offices for the county, to provide the advisory personnel with proper accommodation. There is a large number of office staff in the county involved with advisory committees and they are all confined to one room in the county council building in Tullamore. This is a major financial problem. If we are to develop our advisory services by increasing taxation by the rates system I doubt very much if we can develop to the extent needed at the present time.

The problem in regard to office accommodation is not confined to Offaly. There are similar problems in most counties in Ireland. The lack of proper facilities is not improving the situation and I am sure our counterparts in Europe recognise this.

This is why, as I said at the outset, a great deal of money is needed to put our agriculture development into proper gear. This is why I am against the Minister and his attitude towards raising this money. Supplying proper facilities for our agricultural advisers is a national project and has European connotations also. I maintain that the finances to provide proper office facilities in Offaly or in any other county should be forthcoming from central and European funds. Unless there is a new approach the present position will remain for many years because the finance involved is enormous and, as I pointed out earlier, this is why I think this Bill does not meet the requirements of the agricultural committees and advisory services.

Agriculture will earn money in proportion to the effort and money invested in it. Agricultural committees are basically engaged in agricultural education. So money must be increasingly invested in agriculture and agricultural education. We need more relevant agricultural advice through the Department from the general source in Brussels and we need increasingly informed education in agriculture. If the Departments concerned, Education and Agriculture, would get together the situation could be vastly improved through our technical schools and through our regional colleges.

Irrespective of whether we like it or not rates are a form of taxation. If we are to advance our agricultural programme and promote it to its fullest extent, let us avail ourselves of this money from the Government and from Europe. Do not let us ask the ordinary, already over-taxed ratepayer to subscribe and develop our advisory services. I would ask the Minister, through the Parliamentary Secretary, to ensure that when we need money at any particular time to promote agriculture in this country we do not go back to the farmer himself and to the ordinary taxpayer for it. Let us find it in the national "kitty". If we project the agricultural end of our identity in the EEC context I feel that the EEC funds will be made available through some source to put agriculture in this country at its proper level. We want it taken out of its present depressed position and promoted to what it can be and should be, a really good industry, and let the farmers see that both Houses of the Oireachtas are behind their efforts to develop their way of living.

Mr. Kilbride

This Bill is welcome. If there were no consideration of foreign organisation it would be necessary for the Government to bring in this Bill to make provision for inflation due to the loss of the value of money. In my time, as a member of a committee of agriculture, over a period of 20 years, I have seen when four pence in the pound in old money was the maximum the county council might subscribe. It was felt at that stage that some sort of a climax would be reached. The then Minister for Agriculture, either Dr. Ryan or his successor, increased the figure to seven old pence and it was later increased to 11 pence. In real terms this was much more than the 15 new pence which is the maximum today.

The Bill is welcome because it includes provision for implementing the Government scheme for modernisation of farms. It includes provision for an extension of education. Education is more than ever essential in 1974 even though the farmers are much more educated than many of the Senators opposite seem to think. I doubt if there are any farmers today stupid enough to believe that if they are to have an advanced system of education they should not have to pay something towards it. There is none so foolish as to believe, as is implied by Senators opposite, that all the money raised in consequence of this Bill would come exclusively from the rates. They know well that the Government, in the ordinary course of events, help to meet the costs of agricultural committees by a subvention of at least 50 per cent and, in the western counties, by a subvention of 75 per cent. The ordinary grants that are paid in subsidies are not paid from the rates and it is naïve for somebody to suggest that this is the only effort the Government are making towards aiding agriculture and that this is the sum total of the effort of the Department of Agriculture in this year of 1974. The cost of administration is considerable and for that reason I think the scheme should be utilised more effectively. The agricultural instructors should be in a position to afford the best possible opportunity to farmers to take advantage of the services provided.

The construction, improvement or replacement of agricultural centres was envisaged in the past six or seven years. The Department offered a grant of £15,000 towards the centres. That was four years ago. At that time the cost per square foot of the construction of the centre was approximately £4. It is now £6. Does the Minister think an increase of £20,000 is adequate? In my county we have been campaigning for an agricultural centre but so far without success. Money will be a vital factor when it comes to implementing whatever plans we finally decide on. I would respectfully submit to the Parliamentary Secretary that a grant of £25,000 for such a centre would be appropriate and would correspond to the £15,000 originally allocated.

Some county agricultural instructors have had very lofty notions about what a centre should contain. Because the Department have not put out a standard accommodation plan for committees of agriculture many committees are placed at a disadvantage if a particular individual closely associated with the Administration looks for something extraordinary. In one county, somebody associated with the Administration wanted additional office accommodation and it was left to the Department of Lands to facilitate other services, brucellosis testing, tuberculosis schemes and anything else connected or linked to agriculture. That is not correct. The Minister should put his foot down and say, according to the number of instructors in a particular county, here is what is wanted per instructor; here is what is wanted for a lecture hall and here is what you should have. Foolish notions should not impede or hold up for years the opportunities afforded to committees of agriculture to avail of these schemes and grants which are now being offered and which I welcome.

An agricultural instructor in 1974 differs in regard he what he has to do and whom he has to see and the manner in which he deals with business from an agricultural instructor in 1954. A certain amount of enlightenment is needed to keep up with developments, particularly since our entry into the EEC. Courses should be held every year to enable agricultural instructors to keep alert. An agricultural instructor from, say County Offaly, who is appointed to Cavan or Leitrim or Mayo or Longford and who is not acquainted with the area, should get an opportunity of studying the area for at least six months before appointment. He would thus know the special needs of the county to which he was assigned. There is not much point in appointing somebody who has been acquainted with the growing of grain, barley and oats to a place like north Cavan, north Longford or north Leitrim. It has been said already today that instructors should not be transferred to areas very far distant. I agree entirely with that. If he is due for promotion he should be given an area that is akin to the particular one in which he is at present working.

The people who get instruction, the people in whom we all profess to be keenly interested, the farmers and farmers' sons, should be educated in the trend of events in Europe with which this country is so much involved at present. They should be educated as to what to expect in the years ahead. We would not then have a situation where somebody is led to believe—it has happened, I will refer to it later—that there is a future in beef and when he has switched his thoughts to the production of beef he finds that there is nothing in it. That is one instance. Farmers should be made aware of what developments are likely to take place in the future, what competition will be like in the EEC, and to what extent can we be guaranteed tariff protection.

The pity is that farmers are not told these things. They are told how to produce more pigs, grain and beef. They are offered incentives to stop producing milk and to switch over to beef production. We have had this going on over the last six or seven years. But we have never been told of what the effect of competition in the European market would be on our profits. In the past the farmer has been ignored when he said: "What am I going to get out of this?" Was he not as much entitled to ask that question as the labourer who went out to work and to give his services for a week? A great many people feel farmers have no right to demand special treatment. I agree with that. But the fact is that society is so structured here that the price of what the farmer has to offer goes up or down without any relationship to the producer's costs. The farmer is being placed in the position of having to produce something for society and very often get little out of it.

Agriculture in this country has been made the plaything of politicians down the years. Now we have farmers being told they should not have to pay rates. They are being told that what it costs to help them become better farmers is an imposition. We are told that because of our association with the EEC circumstances now should be better than they actually are. We are told that if the farmer was much more enlightened than he is considered to be he would have been in revolution long ago.

The Minister is being blamed for not having a marketing system and for not putting our produce on the European market to the best advantage. Anybody making that statement should read of the revolt of farmers in Belgium and in France this week to see what the real position is, if they are so stupid as not to see it already. Such people are trying to hoodwink us that our difficulties are in consequence of our entry to the EEC three years ago and that these difficulties are of the making of the Minister and of the Government.

The Minister is facing up to a very difficult task in Europe. He has challenged all comers and has asserted the rights of Irish farmers. He is actively promoting a development scheme for this country. The most vehement opponents of the Government—at least those of them who are honest—would not dare to say that the present Minister is not playing a man's part in Europe. He is to be commended and I should like that he be commended from these benches today.

Grants are being paid by committees of agriculture as incentives to farmers, to educate them and to make them aware of the advantages of the use of certain implements. At present it is impossible to get fertilisers at an economic price. Many small farmers find it impossible to finance a fertiliser scheme, except with the help of the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Grants should be paid to farmers who would provide slurry tanks in the vicinity of pig production centres. We have complaints of pollution in various rivers and various lakes in the country——

An Cathaoirleach

I should like the Senator to relate these remarks to the advisory services, which are the subject of the Bill.

Mr. Kilbride

The services of the agricultural instructors are financed by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and in that sense I relate my remarks.

We are told that pig slurry is a very effective replacement for fertilisers. This is what has been polluting many of the rivers. The Department should make regulations for enabling slurry to be sold to farmers for spreading on the land. Slurry tanks should be subsidised. These were being subsidised by the Department but they recently stopped doing so. They subsidised a small number in some counties, including my own county. Slurry is immediately available and at very little cost. I would urge the Minister to aid small farmers by giving more and adequate grants for slurry tanks. This fertiliser is one of the best we could have for the land. It is cheaper than the phosphates and nitrates that are imported at great cost.

Because of the economic circumstances prevailing there the 12 western counties have an advantage in that the cost of agricultural services there are met, to the extent of 75 per cent by subvention from the Department.

The cost of agricultural centres in the 12 western counties should also be met to the extent of 75 per cent irrespective of the value of the holdings. If that were done, if we made a beginning in regard to incentives and gave effect to what has been proposed in that scheme three or four years ago, people would have appreciated that agricultural education was something that had the same standard of dignity and importance from the administrative point of view and its effectiveness would have been fully appreciated by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. At present there are areas where classes are held and instructions are given that do not have any relationship to the standard of education that should and, I hope, will normally apply to these centres.

A farmer must have more than a specialised notion about a particular sphere of activity. He is not somebody who knows all about a horse and nothing about a cow or a sow. He must know all about the horse, the cow, the sow and the plough. He must know about the production of grain and about diseases associated with animals. He must know everything associated with the multiplicity of activities that go on on a mixed farm. He must, if he is to succeed, be somebody well versed by experience and by technical education and this is where the good agricultural instructor comes in. He should be well versed in everything that is going to affect him, in the particular spheres of activity on the farm in which he is engaged.

To my mind the agricultural instructor can help farmers by imparting the knowledge he has, almost as much by the manner in which he imparts it and by the approach he has and how he is able to fit in with the company of farmers and farmers' sons. I think it should be accepted by everyone that an agricultural instructor who comes out and sets himself up with a cigar, a pair of long stockings, plus-fours or a pair of drainpipe pants and very long hair, will not fit into the farming life. These fellows are not able to get the confidence of the farmers. If they can get the farmer to accept what they have to say they must be as one of them. These are some of the things that I have noticed have made certain instructors in certain areas far more successful than others.

Confidence in an instructor is three parts of education. If you feel that somebody is coming out to talk to you about a matter about which you are anxious, you would like him to be the same as yourself. You would like him to be prepared to talk to you about the farm and the stock on it. If he comes out prepared to talk about this you are going to welcome him and look forward to him coming. But if he comes out to you with a notion that he is just that little bit above you and wants to talk down to you, and if he will not give an answer that is easily understood, you will not want him, no matter how decent a fellow he is. This is one of the areas to which education in the agricultural sphere should apply. Kindergarten study should be followed when training people who are expected to impart knowledge to farmers' sons or daughters. They should realise that the manner of presentation associated with farming in different areas may be very important from the point of view of the extent to which their instructions and lectures will be successful or otherwise.

The Minister deserves well of the people. As far as farmers are concerned, their relationship with the Minister is good. He has their confidence, irrespective of the sphere from which their organised activities are coming. The real test is how far the people can see that the Government and the Minister are genuinely and sincerely facing up to their responsibilities. I am glad to see the Minister is facing up to them. I hope when he has negotiated a development scheme, whether in conjunction with Northern Ireland or not, it will be as successful as his determination indicates. I hope that this extension of the right of committees of agriculture to get the finance they require, will be operated and applied in a way that will bring satisfaction to the farmers and to the people.

Mr. Brennan

I have no desire to delay the House very long because everything that could usefully be said about this Bill has been said. I congratulate Senator Kilbride on his detailed speech. I sympathise with the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary because they were left with a legacy which is likely to remain with us for some time. I would like the committees to ask them to come down from their lofty perch. I would describe most of the speeches I heard today as "roamin' in the gloamin' " to use a Scottish phrase. I have a fair idea of the Republic from north to south. The one thing, if I judge rightly, that is besetting the farmer today is how he will feed his stock for the next 12 months.

I will not go into the merits or demerits of the people who went before the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister. One need not be a Bachelor in Agricultural Science to know as any farmer could tell, that the more cattle one breeds the better one's chance of controlling not only the financial structure in one's own State but also one's entry to the EEC.

These are the facts. No provision, however humble, was made to feed that particular stock. Now we find ourselves in the unhappy position that we cannot hope to feed them. I am afraid, Parliamentary Secretary, that what I am saying is unfortunately only too true.

The vast majority of our cattle are underfed at the moment. This is the time of the year when we should have the best grass—after the 12th of July is the peak time in Northern Ireland. Agricultural instructors led one to believe that no beast could be fed out of anything but a polythene bag. The compounders, as the people and the Parliamentary Secretary must be aware, know that for hundreds of years—if not a thousand—cattle were fed not out of polythene bags but from the natural resources of the country—the grain, oats, barley, et cetera. They told us this was all wrong. They must have a balanced diet which consisted of a certain amount of barley and oats with a handful of grass meal thrown in for good measure.

I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary's advisers are amused, but these are the facts, whether they like them or not. How did the stocks survive down through the centuries? I, being a historian, found that one of the generals at the Battle of Clontibret was fined 500 cattle for cowardice. If there were 500 cattle taken out of the parish of Contibret where I come from there would be very few left. Senator Kilbride went to great lengths about the advisory service. I have every respect for the advisory services but they have their limits and will continue to have their limits.

The pig industry, as far as I can see, has vanished. What is the Department's redress for this? Have they made any real contribution towards saving the pig industry? Have they anything in mind? I would like the Parliamentary Secretary when he is replying to answer my queries, although I have grave doubts that he can do so. If I am to judge rightly the farmers are in an unfortunate and unhappy position today. They are in a much more unhappy position than when they were sitting over on the east side of this House when a certain former Minister for Agriculture was then in charge. I see no market today nor I hear no intention of any market. I wonder why? This is a matter for themselves of course, but that is one of the things they are entitled to have.

Seanad Éireann is supposed to be a vocational body, yet it seems strange that there are only four Members present to debate this Bill. If we were looking for Seanad votes there would be more here. Maybe I am too critical and I confess to my faults. Be that as it may. I am on more than nodding terms with the agricultural community because I live in an agricultural community in my native county of Monaghan. I am on nodding terms with most counties in Ireland. I was in Cork at the end of February or the 1st of March and I came from Bandon in Cork into Limerick, from Limerick to Tipperary. I watched from the train as I travelled from Nenagh to Dublin at that particular time and counted only two herds of cattle being fed on my side of the train. I give credit that the same would happen on the other side. Cattle cannot be put in one's pocket. The Department's experts should have ensured that if there was an increase in cattle numbers there should also have been an increase in seeds to sustain these cattle. That was and still is a source of worry to me. It is as prevalent today as it was last March.

I have every sympathy with the Minister. I believe he is doing his best and I wish him well. I have no desire to delay the House any longer. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary when he is replying to tell us if he has any solution for the pig industry. I come from an area where the pig industry was very remunerative. We are a community of small farmers. Believe it or not, I did not know that we are blessed or cursed, if you like, with so many hills. On the journey from Nenagh to Dublin I found that the hilly country was much more acceptable than flat, because the flat country will flood much more quickly than the hilly country.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to let us know when he is replying what he has in mind for the pig industry. Can he give an assurance that grain will be provided? Will he advise the farmers to grow more grain, oats and barley. In other words, will he give them a balanced diet? If the Cathaoirleach will permit me to do so I would like to tell a joke. I knew a young man who was doing his final examination for the position of agricultural instructor. One of the questions was to give instructions for the preparation of a balanced diet for a bonham two days old but the young man shied away from the question because he was afraid to attempt it. On one occasion I happened to be visiting a friend who is in the veterinary profession. We called to a farmhouse in County Limerick where we spoke to an old lady. There was one sow across the street, another in the yard and still another elsewhere, I said: "Oh, I see you have a lot of pigs here". She said: "I have another litter over here but the sow died". I asked her how she reared them and she replied: "Come over here, son, and I will show you". I went over and saw her prepare a balanced diet which consisted of a certain amount of milk, glucose and water.

What I am trying to convey to the Minister, Parliamentary Secretary and the Department is that they should get down from their lofty perches and not be lead away by the nonsense we hear too much of. There was an abundance of pigs, poultry and cattle in this country hundreds of years ago. Now we find ourselves in the unhappy position that we have more cattle than we can feed. I hope the Minister will do everything possible to alleviate that problem.

Mr. W. Ryan

At the outset we were told that this was a short Bill. I am afraid the debate on it proved a rather lengthy affair. Therefore I intend to be very brief. I have to be because it would be difficult for me to find something to say which has not already been said. I am not entirely happy about this Bill. It is the third Bill of this nature which I have seen come to this House during my time here. On all other occasions the Bills were welcomed and passed because we were assured that the money which they were making available was being spent on for the improvement of the advisory services thereby increasing production and the farmers' income. That happened.

On this occasion it is a little different. We are asking the ratepayers to pay 40p in the £ on the rates for agriculture. I do not see any hope of getting any return for that money such as we got in the past. The farmers' incomes at the moment are lower than they were last year. This should not be. All other sections of the community have increased their incomes. We were told by economic experts some years ago that once we got into the EEC rates on agricultural land would be abolished. The farmers were very happy about that and it happened the farmers would not be grumbling today about having to pay income tax. It seems rates on agricultural land in this country will continue to exist although that is not the case in a number of European countries. While this situation exists it is grossly unfair to ask farmers to pay income tax.

In the Bill it states that the western counties will only pay 25 per cent of the rates, that 75 per cent will be borne by the Department. I see no reason why this should not be applied to the whole country. We, in Tipperary as well as people in other counties, find it as difficult to pay rates as do the people in the western counties. We have very high valuations and the rates are pretty high. If the Department cannot find EEC funds to relieve the rates of the 40p in the £ they should find some other way of helping the farmers in all counties, so that each county would only have to pay 25 per cent.

I have been a member of a committee of agriculture for 24 years. We have always followed the advice we got from our CAO down through the years. Any time he asked for increased staff or a sub-office he was facilitated because we believed that all this money was money well spent. When I asked our CAO, a few days ago, about the cattle prices and pointed out that increased production had been the cause of the fall in prices he replied that it was not the adviser's job to provide a market. That is a job for the Department. No doubt he was right. I believe there should be closer liaison between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the local advisers. There is no use in the agricultural adviser recommending increased production when the bottom has fallen out of the market.

I am pleased to know that the dispute between the Department and the local advisers has been settled. It is up to the Department now to ensure that there is no further delay in the payment of grants.

Farmers living in urban areas have not been mentioned. Quite a number of farmers in County Tipperary reside in urban areas. I am sure a similar situation applies to every county in Ireland. They are excluded from the committees of agriculture. They get no rebate on rates. I do not understand why these farmers are classified differently from farmers living, one might say, across the ditch from them. It is time the Department did something about that.

I am slightly worried about female staff working in committees, especially poultry instructresses and those engaged in home management. Some time ago, a rule was introduced whereby married women can now retain their jobs. This means that there are fewer jobs available for girls leaving colleges. It is most unfair that those girls should find it so difficult to get a job. I know girls who left college almost a year ago and who are still without jobs. When a temporary job is advertised they have to go and canvass all the members of the committee in different counties to try to get the job. In most cases they are not successful. While it may be a good idea to allow married women to continue in their employment after marriage, in this field where the number of jobs is limited, they should never have been allowed to do so.

Finally, I want to refer to the structure of our county committees of agriculture. This structure is badly in need of change. We were told a year ago that there would be a change and that rural organisations such as the IFA, the ICMSA, Macra na Feirme and others would be allotted a certain percentage—I think 25 per cent—of the membership of each committee of agriculture. With the change of Government this did not happen and the committees have now been re-formed for the next five years. I doubt if these organisations have got representation anywhere. They did not get it in my own home county.

As far as the committees are concerned, I do not want to blame any one of the three political parties more than the other. I blame them all for the position in each county. If Fianna Fáil have a majority in a county they give all the seats to Fianna Fáil members—or most of them, anyway. If Labour and Fine Gael have a majority in a county— and they have that in a number of counties—they do the same. This is not fair. In South Tipperary we got 11 seats on the county council; we got only six seats on the committee of agriculture Labour got four seats on the county council and five seats on the committee of agriculture, which I think is not proper. This is a difficult matter to solve but it is a matter in which the Minister and the Department should take a hand. I understand that in one or two counties the method adopted is that you get so many seats for the number of votes you got at the county council election. That is the fairest way but it will never be done if it is left to the committees.

We talk a lot about power sharing and we advise others that power sharing is their salvation but when it comes to power sharing down here among the three political parties we forget all about it. I want to make it clear that I am not blaming Fine Gael or Labour any more than I am blaming Fianna Fáil. The same position exists in every county. Whichever side get the majority on the council grab all the seats on the committee of agriculture, which is the most important committee in the county. I would suggest to the Minister that he take note of this and perhaps in five years time we may see a change in the constitution of committees.

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

When introducing this short Bill in the Dáil the Minister prefaced his remarks by saying that the sole purpose of it is to enable county councils to give increased contributions, where necessary, towards the financing of the county committees of agriculture in the local financial year, commencing 1st January, 1975. It was indicated by the Minister that the sole purpose of this measure is to enable county councils to give the increased contributions if councils so decide to grant such contributions.

The original Agricultural Act was passed in 1931 and it set down that county councils must grant a minimum of 2d in the £ and a maximum of not more than 3d in the £ to county committees of agriculture. That was varied in 1941, when councils were empowered to grant up to 4d in the £, in 1948, the rate was fixed at 7d; in 1955, 10d, in 1958, 15d, 1964, 21d, 1970, 27d and 1971, 15 new pence, so that this Act is similar in almost all respects to seven previous Agricultural (Amendment) Acts that were brought before both Houses of Parliament to enable committees of agriculture to get more financial assistance from county councils where councils decide to grant that additional help and assistance.

I know that the House generally welcomes the necessity for this measure because I am sure all Senators appreciate that with the dwindling value of money more finances are needed by committees of agriculture to carry out their duties and functions. I note here that for the year ended 31st March, 1974, the total expenditure of committees was £3,202,478. Nine years ago that figure was £1,243,000. The House will see that the expenditure of our 27 committees of agriculture is rising steeply from year to year. Thus, there is a necessity for this measure.

It is made clear in the openning statement that a figure of 40p was desirable mainly by virtue of the fact that this is the eighth amending Act that is necessary and we have learned from experience that the amounts authorised by the previous Agriculture (Amending) Acts were inadequate and insufficient. We thought it well to raise the figure from 15p to 40p. That does not mean—as suggested by the last speaker, Senator Ryan—that it is mandatory on a county council to make available to a committee of agriculture 40p in the £. The Bill does not ask the county councils to do any such thing. Neither does it do what Senator Cowen alleged—tells a committee of agriculture that it must demand 40p from a county council. It does not tell a county council or it does not tell a county committee of agriculture to do anything. It lays down in simplified terms that in the case of a county committee of agriculture it is appropriate for them to make a demand on the county council of their area, their parent body, for a figure from local revenue of up to 40p in the £ or such sum as they in their wisdom consider to be necessary to measure up to their requirements.

It is the sole right of the county council to say whether the demand is reasonable or whether it should be met. I mentioned in the other House that seldom or ever did any friction arise between a county council and a committee of agriculture regarding demands made under the existing legislation. I gave as a reason for that, that to a large extent and this was referred to by Senator Ryan, committees of agriculture are made up mainly of county council members. I instanced the case of my own county of Cork where the number on the committee is 28-26 of whom are members of the county council, so that in making demands to the parent body the committee of agriculture are to a great extent making a demand on themselves.

I am satisfied from my experience as a member of a committee of agriculture and from what I have read and know of the discussions at other committees that there is no danger of any committee in Ireland making a demand on a county council for money from local rates unless, in the opinion of the committee, that money is necessary in order to advance their work in some way in which the committee would like to see it advance.

Mention has been made of the different schemes that need development—improvement of offices and accommodation whether they be desirable improvements such as the extension of services unless indicated in the opening statement. The main point of agricultural committees is the question of salaries. The criticism was made here that it was unfair to bring a Bill like this into the House and ask the Houses of the Oireachtas to approve of a measure that is likely to impose additional taxation on our rural communities.

The imposing of additional taxation is left to the local democratically elected members of county councils. I am a firm believer in democracy and a firm believer in having such local bodies—county councils and committees of agriculture—that are elected by the local people in their areas, that are elected by them through the ballot boxes and I hope that that system will long continue in this country. Despite whatever disadvantages it might have the advantages far outweigh them because people have opportunities to remove members of councils if they so decide and if they consider not to be measuring up to their requirements. It is much easier to remove the democratically elected member of a local authority than it is to remove an officer or an executive member of that authority. If local bodies are to continue they must make some local contribution. If the Minister were to bring in the Bill for the purpose of raising money to committees of agriculture and if he were to tell the Senators that he proposes to do away with this local contribution and would ask the Exchequer to bear all local costs for committees of agriculture, what would be the natural outcome? If central funds pay for the services provided by the committees the Department here, in my view, would be taking over and the committees would have no right to continue in existence any further because they were making no local contribution.

Money does not fall from Heaven here in Ireland no more than it does in any other country. Whether it comes from central funds or local revenue it comes out of the pocket of "Johnny Citizen". For national taxation it comes out of his right hand pocket and for local taxation it comes out of his left hand pocket. It is the Government's duty to devise what in their opinion is a fair and equitable measure for extracting that money from our people be it through the avenue of national taxation or through rates.

There is general agreement—and I have a somewhat similar term of membership of a committee of agriculture as has Senator Ryan—among committees of agriculture that the contributions made from central funds are fair and reasonable. Most of the local councillors do not consider there is an obligation to find some of this money locally because if all the money was to be provided from Dublin what would be likely to happen? Some scheme might come up for consideration by a particular committee of agriculture and a councillor might say that all this money comes from Dublin and that they should gobble it up because if they do not Limerick or some other county will. It gives a sense of responsibility to a committee that approve of a particular scheme within their county for they are obliged to ask the local people to pay part of the costs and this is fair and reasonable.

The Government, mindful of the problems of the people in what is termed as the congested part of this country—the 12 western counties—are determined that they should get special consideration. I think there is general agreement on that. I would say to Senator Ryan that a farmer in my area of south west Cork is in a different position to a farmer in Senator Ryan's area of south Tipperary. His land is rather different, to put it mildly. It needs a great deal of nourishment and its productivity potential is nothing compared with the lands in most parts of this country. That carries with it this obligation of nourishing it to a much greater extent. We know how costly nourishment is at this time. With the indifferent nature of the land, its low productivity content, which unfortunately is the position of the southern and western and north western part of this country, Governments here in their wisdom determined that such counties were entitled to some special consideration and they gave them this special consideration of making available in the case of county committees of agriculture grants of 75 per cent as against 25 per cent in the 14 counties which are deemed to be more favourably placed so far as agricultural development is concerned and so far as the productive content of the land, mainly in the four counties, is concerned.

I could not comment—neither I nor anyone else here has that authority— on whether it is fair or just that that should be the case. I merely offer a view. There must be boundaries. Unfortunately people do not like boundaries because of past history, but there must be boundaries. There is justification for this dividing line and I say this as one who is familiar with every county in Ireland. While Senator Ryan has every right to make a case for levelling off the grants I do not think it is well founded. Perhaps it is because I come from a congested district that I hold that view. I do not know the Minister's view, but I think he would agree with me. This must be viewed on a national basis. We must not be parochial in our approach. These people, because of their handicaps, are entitled to this special consideration.

In addition to getting this 75 per cent from Dublin—I use the term "Dublin" equating it with the Exchequer—many of the farmers who will benefit from this scheme, and that means probably the majority of them in the 12 western counties, because their land valuation is less than £20 are exempt from the payment of rates. In actual fact the Exchequer, in bearing the full liability of paying rates for such farmers, is giving towards the development schemes operated by the committees of agriculture in these counties amounts far in excess of the 75 per cent. The main purpose of the Bill is to ensure the availability of the money and the granting of certain powers to the committees of agriculture which, in turn, will ask the county councils to make available sums in excess of the 15p, the maximum at present, ranging between 15p and 40p.

The need for the Bill is self-evident. At present ten committees are very near the maximum rate of 15p in the £. Such committees cannot get any further finances locally. This Bill will give them power and authority from 1st January next to request county councils to make extra funds available. It has been suggested that, in this day and age, the State should carry more liability for local schemes and local authority services. That view is held by Senators and others. It is a view held also by the National Coalition Government who, in other fields of activity where moneys are collected from national and local revenue, have given, by virtue of a firm decision immense reliefs to the rate-paying public, particularly in the fields of health and local authority housing. I do not like making general statements on matters like this, but I have here the actual figures to show how in other fields of public activity reliefs have been given.

There was comment in the Dáil to the effect that the Government were putting additional burdens on local revenue instead of giving reliefs. For the information of Senators who may not have the information, this is the record of the Government where relieving the burden of rates is concerned in the fields of health and local authority housing: they reduced the local burden on ratepayers from £43.2 million in 1972-73 to £32.4 million in 1973-74. The amount for such services in this relevant nine-months' period is £16.2 million. The Government are aware that local rates should not be increased except where necessary and desirable and the reliefs granted to ratepayers of all classifications are immense.

Reference was made by Senators to assistance from EEC funds. By virtue of our membership of the Community, conditions so far as farming is concerned, have changed drastically. There is an obligation on us to get anything that is going in the agricultural field and I can assure the House that the Minister and his Department are mindful of that. Any funds that can be lawfully obtained by our Minister will be obtained during the transitional period up to 1st January, 1978.

Senator Cowen was worried as to whether the Minister was giving as much thought and attention to this matter as he should. I can assure him the Minister is giving thought to and is concerned for all such matters. The House is aware that the Minister spends almost half his time in Europe advancing the cause of the Irish farmer. He does not want any bouquets for that. He is doing a really good job and I am glad that that viewpoint was held even by someone not of the Minister's party, Senator Brennan. He accepted the fact in the course of his contribution that the Minister was and is doing his best for our people.

What we like to see happening—this is the aim of the Minister and something, I am sure, he would say himself were it possible for him to be here for this discussion today—is a unified effort. We want to see co-operation between all groups interested in the development of our agricultural economy, stemming from the farmer, the man in the field, the man Senator Brennan knows in Monaghan, the man similar to the man in Schull, in Skibbereen and west Cork, with his few sows and his litters of bonhams who is trying to make a few pounds from them. We want to see all these people participating with their organisation, whether it be the IFA, ICMSA, Macra na Fierme, or any other group, whether public or voluntary bodies, which have our agricultural interests at heart. The fact was mentioned—I am sorry I cannot recollect the Senator who mentioned it—that, no matter where we are, whether here in Dublin or down the country, agriculture plays a part of our lives. It is our main industry and everybody in this relatively small State, with a population of some 3,000,000 people, is dependent on it. If agriculture is doing well, money is circulating and people are able to buy goods. More money is generated through the whole circle of our population and that, in turn, creates more employment. It is to everyone's advantage if agriculture is doing well.

I was very pleased by the many constructive suggestions and criticisms. Senators naturally dealt at great length with the activities of the committees of agriculture. In general, the majority, if not all the speakers, were reasonably satisfied with the activities of the committees of agriculture. The advantages of providing an educational centre for our farming community, young and old, was emphasised again and again. There was general approval of the new arrangement whereby there will be a deputy chief agricultural officer attached to each committee whose sole role will be to provide educational advice to and an educational service for farmers. That was adverted to by several Senators. We must try to get the confidence of the farmers. I like the phrase used by Senator Kilbride in the course of his remarks because psychology plays some part in this: an instructor to discharge his duties efficiently and effectively, irrespective of what qualifications he may hold academically, must come down to what Senator Kilbride has described here as "the level of the farmer". He instanced some person— perhaps he was illustrating by relating to some non-existent person—in plus fours or Oxford bags, a long cigar and so on. If such officers did exist, I would have to agree with Senator Kilbride that our farmers would not have too much time for discussing problems with them. I agree with the viewpoint expressed by the majority of the speakers that our advisory services are giving sound advice and results are quite good; our farmers are much more inclined now, to avail of advice and help from these officers than they were in the not-too-distant past. I made that point at the Cork Committee of Agriculture. I am sure it would not be 20 years ago that it came to our notice that the services of the small number of instructors we had were being availed of by a very limited number of farmers. It was, in fact, as low as 5 per cent in my own area. There was a feeling then that the farmer himself knew as much about managing his farm as any instructor sent out to him by a committee or by the Department. That has all changed. It was a mistaken belief held sincerely by many farmers. Now the boot is on the other foot and there is so great a demand and so many requests for advice that it is very, very difficult for the number of instructors, large as it is, to be available to get to the farmer within a reasonable time following on the request from the farmer.

I know the farm modernisation scheme will throw a big burden on committees of agriculture and I am not overlooking the part played by members. We had, rightly so, a great deal of comment on the part played by the advisory services, but we must not forget the part played by the members of those committees. They have practical experience. They know what they are talking about and they have a great deal to offer. The best place to go for advice is to the man who was brought up as a farmer. Because of their long experience of agricultural life the members can make valuable suggestions at meetings and can offer valuable criticisms.

I do not know if it is necessary to go into detail on the comments of the different speakers. I will refer to them in a general way. The activities of the committees were referred to. Mention was made by Senator McCartin of enough agricultural scholarships not being availed of. I took a special note of that. Agricultural scholarships are made available annually by the 27 committees for boys and girls. One Senator from the midlands complained they were not being availed of. Apparently that is happening in other areas as well. I am rather surprised at this. The Minister is very anxious about this because he emphasises strongly the desirability of getting as many boys as we can into our agricultural schools, particularly boys who are returning to their own home farms. Senator Butler spoke about the value he got from the 12 months he spent in an agricultural school. Naturally it is desirable that these scholarships should be availed of. In the case of home management, which was also referred to, and where sex enters the question, home management is of vital importance. Many successful farmers are successful because of the help and assistance they get from their better halves and wives need training in home management just as much as husbands do in agriculture.

I will conclude by saying I am grateful for the constructive nature of the debate and the views offered by those Members who contributed to the discussion. The Minister is naturally disappointed at not having been with Senators today to hear their views. All the views and all the statements will of course, be available to him through the Official Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.