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.