Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Jun 1987

Vol. 116 No. 8

Agriculture (An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta) Bill, 1986: Committee and Final Stages.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

The Minister of State has said that a service will not be denied to anybody who is unable to pay — in other words, that the service will still be available to everybody. The Bill states that the Minister can vary or terminate any charge proposed by ACOT. How does the Minister see himself, or indeed any other Minister, in the position of knowing when he should terminate charges? First, we will have farmers who will not be willing to declare their hand. But, if some farmers who are willing to declare their hand say, "Look, I require this service but I am unable to pay for it", will it be on an individual basis or will it be based on a category of, say, a certain income? How does the Minister feel that he will be in a better position to decide than the local ACOT committee? I believe it is the reverse and that the local ACOT committee or the local adviser who would be in a far better position to know whether that farmer can afford it. I cannot understand how the Minister can see himself as being able to decide whether a farmer can afford a charge or not. I cannot envisage the Minister being called upon to either reduce or to terminate a charge because the category of farmer we are talking about here is not organised. It cannot be done in that way. It will have to be done on an individual basis. Even if it was coming through an organisation, I believe that most farmers would not be prepared to show their hand as to their financial position or otherwise through their local organisations.

I should like to say in response to Senator McMahon that, in the first instance, it is a matter for ACOT to draw up a formula in relation to the introduction of charges. Then in consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Food and subject to his approval, a package would be devised on a level of advisory services. Nobody who indicates his inability to pay will be denied an advisory service. In the package — I do not want to pre-empt what ACOT will draw up by way of a formula — there will be a level of service available to people and, in any case where it would cause undue hardship, people will not be denied an advisory scheme or service.

The Minister has not satisfied me. I am sure if we were to stay here all day I would not be satisfied. First, I would like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment; I overlooked that when I stood up because I did not expect to be called so quickly to speak. I wish him well in his position. I am sure, if his Administration lasts long enough, we will have many a tussle. However, that will be for the betterment of debate and for the farmers generally.

The Minister's answer has not satisfied me because the category I am concerned about will not be asking for the advisory service, or if they ask and they are told that there is a charge, they will back off. My concern is that these people will back off and they will not use the service any further. We could argue about that all day and we would get nowhere because it looks as though it is going to happen anyway. I hope I will be proved wrong in what I said earlier and in what I am saying now; I do not want to be proved right. At the same time I feel so strongly about it that I have to voice my opinion. Can the Minister indicate to us if there will be a uniform charge throughout the country or will each county devise its own charges? He is reluctant to say if it will be a package deal.

I believe that if it is left to individual areas they will go for a package deal. That is putting the advisers in a most invidious position. There are people they have been serving down the years and if these people do not enter into that package deal and require the service, the advisers will have to say: "I am sorry; you are not in the package deal; I cannot talk to you about that; I can talk to you about the weather but I cannot talk to you about your crops or how they are progressing, or whatever problem you might have with them." Could the Minister elaborate as to whether there will be a uniform charge throughout the country, whether it will be on an individual phone call or farm visit basis, or package deal? Obviously it has not been determined yet, but I would like to know at this stage if people in County Dublin and County Meath will be paying the same amount as people in Leitrim and Sligo.

Again, I must say I am not in a position to give a categorical reply to this question because I do not want to pre-empt what ACOT will come up with. It is their responsibility in the first instance to draw up a formula for the introduction of charges. The basis for this enabling legislation is that there should be a contribution from the farming community who can afford to pay. That will be in their terms of reference, to bring in a relatively small amount of money from people who can afford to pay. That formula will be devised and drawn up in consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Food and, subject to his approval, it will then be introduced. Again, if any hardship is caused I would assume that the Minister for Agriculture and Food of the day will be aware of this from his various contacts, meetings, clinics and so on. He can instruct ACOT to modify, change or ameliorate the formula, which is subject to his approval in the first instance.

I am sorry the Minister is not a bit more forthcoming. Quite honestly, I cannot believe it has not been gone into in greater detail. Where do we get £1 million from? Surely we must know how many people, approximately, will contribute to that £1 million. If we make a charge, how do we know it will not bring in £2 million? Some backroom work must have been done. I am disappointed that the Minister is not giving us more information in that regard. There must be some planning. Surely, it would not do any harm if the Minister gave an indication as to what the charges are likely to be. The sooner the farmers know about it the better because farmers are planning for next year. It would be as well that we should have as much information as possible, as soon as possible, about the proposed charges.

If I were Minister for Agriculture in a year or two — it is most unlikely — I do not see how I would be in a position to say that you cannot impose this charge; it is creating too great a hardship for a particular farmer. Am I going to get the farmers' accounts on an individual basis? This category of farmer is not organised in that way. They cannot say: "There are 28 farmers in this county who cannot afford it" or "There are 210 farmers in this county who belong to this category and they should not be charged."

My real concern is that that person will never ask for the service. We are frightening him off from availing of the service. That will have an effect on our national cake and on the national income. That is my real fear. This charge is a niggardly way of getting £1 million. The Minister's predecessor was doing the same thing; I am not just saying this to the present Minister because he is not a member of the same party. I would have said the same thing to the Minister's predecessor if I had had the opportunity, and if the Bill had got that far.

It is a niggardly way of looking for £1 million. In seeking this £1 million we will lose much more. Surely the Minister can give us some indication of what is planned. Where does he get the figure of £1 million? He must know the estimated number of farmers who will contribute that £1 million. Otherwise he could not come up with the figure of £1 million. I am pressing the Minister to give us some information on what the charges are likely to be, or how they are likely to be imposed.

I feel Senator McMahon is a little unfair to the Minister. I doubt that the Minister could say exactly how much the charge will bring in. It could be £1 million; it could be £2 million. Senator McMahon is worried that people will be afraid to avail of this scheme and afraid to look for free services. Every county has an ACOT committee of agriculture and a number of advisers who know their people. They know the people who will have to get the service free and the people who will have to pay for it. If they do not know, there will be a committee also. In passing I would like to say how sorry I am about the committee of agriculture which was there since the Department of Agriculture was established back around 1900. That committee was always regarded as the most important committee in every county. It is a sad thing to have to say that today it is the one committee in every county that has no money to pay the travelling expenses of the members to attend meetings. The members of the committee in each county are prepared to make a sacrifice but they would like to see everyone else making the same sacrifice, which is not happening in other committees in the counties not involved in agriculture.

As far as the charges are concerned, we all know that at one time farmers were paying rates and getting this service free. There are no rates now and it is only right that there should be a charge. Unlike Senator McMahon, I am not worried about who is or is not able to pay. I am convinced that people who are unable to pay will be looked after. We have a number of agricultural advisers and a good committee in every county who will see to that in the same way as is done with other services under other Departments.

I am not in a position to give any further information because it is a matter for ACOT to introduce a system of charges which essentially will be derived from farmers who can afford to pay. I want to reiterate that there will be no instance of any hardship being caused because of this. The approval of the Minister for Agriculture will be necessary before any package of charges can be introduced.

At present you have charges introduced for farm visits from the farm development office. A system was devised there very quickly and at present farmers receiving grant aid pay a contribution towards the cost of the visit by the farm development service. As everybody knows, in the creamery industry there are various levies paid each month by farmers for particular services. I want to compliment the farming organisations and some of the co-ops because they have set a headline by contributing to scholarships. The IFA, FBD, Kerry Co-op are already allowing farmers and farmers' sons to avail of scholarships to various agricultural colleges because they realise that they are in the business of developing Irish agriculture, not restraining it. In that context they are making a contribution to the overall level of service. I would envisage that this legislation will allow ACOT to have a broader range of services and that a relatively small amount of the contribution will be paid for by the people benefiting most from it.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

This Bill has gone through faster than we expected and the next item was to be taken at 12.30 p.m.

Is it still envisaged that the charges will come into operation on 1 September?

I am advised that, on the passage of this Bill, ACOT will immediately have consultations with the Minister for Agriculture and Food and that there is no firm date for their introduction yet. It will be subsequent to consultations taking place. It is hoped to have the scheme introduced this year.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are 15 minutes ahead of schedule. Is it the intention of the House to go on to item No. 2?

I understand the Minister is on his way, but the people who wish to contribute to the debate think it is due to commence at 12.30 p.m. To be fair to those people I suggest we adjourn until 12.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 12.15 p.m. and resumed at 12.30 p.m.
Top
Share