When I spoke on this Estimate the other evening I referred briefly to the beef cattle incentive scheme of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and I said there were serious problems in the western parts of the country regarding the second inspection under this scheme. In the interim quite a few people have made representations to me in regard to this problem.
It appears that the second inspection, which is necessary before farmers are paid grants, is being carried out much later than is desirable from an agricultural point of view. In west Mayo the second inspection has not yet taken place. This means that the farmers who are involved in the scheme are penalised regardless of how they opt. If they decide to sell at an earlier stage they will not get the grant, but if they hold their cattle until a very late inspection they are engaging in very poor agricultural practice and are also losing. I would urge the Minister to arrange an immediate review of the scheme. There are two or three simple options. In certain parts of the country where the problem is intense one might opt to arrange to have only one inspection or, alternatively, it might be possible to arrange that the second inspection takes place much earlier. At any rate, it requires redress.
In his speech the Minister referred to the small farmers' bonus scheme. I am pleased with the development of that scheme and, as someone from Mayo, I am proud I come from the county in which there has been the highest level of participation in the country. This may tend to give the lie to some suggestions nationally that people in that part of the country are not interested in working.
There is a problem at the moment with regard to the advisory services in County Mayo. The farmers are intensely involved in the bonus scheme but the programme is being delayed because the county committee of agriculture require additional agricultural instructors. Planning and instruction in agricultural methods must go hand in hand and it appears somewhat illogical to allow the present situation to continue. I would urge the Minister to arrange for sanction to the employment of the extra instructors the county committee of agriculture seek.
The Minister referred briefly to problems in the poultry industry. I might add a few comments to up-date the situation since he made his speech, because there has been tremendous concern in Northern Ireland at the most severe outbreak of fowl pest there for very many years. This is causing great concern both in the North and in Britain. Whether we like it or not, we know there has been a great deal of traffic, much of it illegal, between the North and the South, involving the merchandising of poultry products, including eggs, broilers and other commodities. To date it may have been not unreasonable to turn a blind eye to certain things that were happening but at this time in the interests of the poultry industry in the Twenty-Six Counties it is absolutely critical to ensure that every step possible is taken in Border areas to stop this traffic. Not alone is it illegal but if it is allowed to continue at the present time it can be totally detrimental to the poultry industry in this country.
The poultry industry has had a fairly rough time for the past few years. Many years ago there was State support for the export of eggs to Britain but that is not the situation now. We were engaging without subsidisation in a fairly archaic method of production which did not bear comparison with methods adopted in Britain and Europe. The result was that the industry went into tremendous decline. In more recent years intensive husbandry has developed but that, in itself, has had problems not entirely unconnected with the lack of adequate inspection in Border areas.
There have been substantial increases in the prices of compound foods and this has led to increased costs that were not reflected until recently in higher prices. This has been corrected but if fowl pest breaks out in the Twenty-Six Counties the present happier situation for the poultry industry will decline to a most unhealthy position, with the result that many interests in the industry could be forced out of business.
The Minister referred to the problem of compound foods and he spoke about the price position, which has been appalling. It must be said that the question of price control in compound foods is a matter that has been entirely outside our control. It has been due to world prices, to the politics of the American and Russian situation and the failure of the Russian harvest. For those reasons the price of compound foods has increased drastically. However, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, in co-operation with the Department of Industry and Commerce, might do more to inform the public to a greater extent about the reasons for the substantial price increases. It seems some people are not entirely aware that the general public should get information from time to time about commodity prices, cereal prices, about the soya bean and the fishmeal position. There is a danger in this time of fluctuation: during a period of substantial increases there can also be substantial decreases in certain commodities. It is important that the Department monitor very carefully the prices and relate them at all times to the prices being charged for animal compound foods so that they may be satisfied margins are equitable—but no more than equitable —and that the farmer can purchase his compounds at the going price, based on the price of commodities entering the country.
The Minister referred briefly to trees and forestry development. There is a substantial difference in the approach to forestry development here in comparison with most countries where there has been considerable development in this area. The essential difference is that investment here has been almost entirely directed by the State. While there may be grants available to farmers to develop the forests, it is a fact of life that the extent to which they have taken up this option has been minimal. In a relative sense, there has been practically no forestry development through the private initiative of farmers. This fact has been commented on and decried by commercial interests involved in forestry who would like to see more private development. As a Deputy, I should like to support a move towards more private development.
I think it impinges on the area of the function of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in the sense that while the Department of Lands may be concerned with substantial forestry development programmes covering large tracts of land, one of the areas of advantage of private planting of trees is that, due to the farm structure and the small size of many farms, and the fact that there is a great deal of sub-marginal land on many of these farms, if the incentives are sufficiently good the planting of trees on such small tracts of small farms could be of benefit to the farmers concerned. In an environmental sense this would enhance greatly the beauty of the country over a number of years. There would appear to have been more trees in this country in past centuries than there are at the present time. Increased planting would be desirable.
I am glad to note that the EEC are bringing in a special premium over a three-year period for beef and sheep production. I note that this will be on an acreage basis. The horse may have bolted at this stage. It may be too late to do anything about it. It would seem to me that in Ireland, with a very limited acreage, we might benefit to a greater extent if payment were on a headage basis. I should like to hear some comments about this. I accept that there may be a fait accompli and that we cannot have everything our own way.
I note that the EEC is considering a special system of aids for handicapped agricultural areas and the Minister states that this would apply, if implemented, to a substantial part of Ireland. I should like to urge the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to bring to the attention of the relevant authorities of the EEC certain work which has been carried out in this country with regard to the development of land resources, farming activities and the betterment of farmers in handicapped agricultural areas. I refer specifically to the report on agriculture in the west of Ireland entitled "A Study of Low Farm Income Problems", which was produced by Professor John J. Scully who was at that time western regional officer of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. This is an immensely interesting volume which spelled out the structure of western farms in terms of population, social structure, acreage and potential.
At that time it was generally accepted as a marvellous statement of the position. Allied to that report at the time was the development of the pilot schemes. There is an immense amount of documentation available in Professor Scully's report and in regard to the work carried out in the pilot areas which may be of interest in considering the question of special aids for such areas. I would merely remind the Minister that Professor Scully, who was very highly thought of in western areas, is at present working in the EEC and effective liaison there would be in the interests of this country. It may well be taking place at present.
I welcome the three EEC directives in the area of farm modernisation, retirement benefits and socio-economics. I welcome particularly the fact that the directive covering farm modernisation states that priority for land which will be available from the State land bank, from the Land Commission, will be given to progressive farmers and to farmers who are prepared to plan their future under a farm modernisation scheme. This is entirely as it should be and in the interests of agricultural development and production and also in the interests of farmers who are concerned about farming and about developing their farms and improving their own position.
I welcome also the development of the benefits in the retirement area and would like to compliment the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Lands, Deputy Fitzpatrick, on introducing retirement benefits at an even higher level than is contained in the EEC directive. This, of course, can be the key to the development of our land resources because, as Professor Scully pointed out in his report, and as more recently farming organisations have pointed out, there is an immense amount of land which is still under-utilised. If one looks at all the resources of the nation in regard to any area of economic activity one realises that the greatest underdeveloped resource is land. That deserves top priority.
Unfortunately, the scheme introduced by the then Minister for Lands about five years ago was unsuccessful. I believe the reason was that the incentives were not pitched sufficiently high or made sufficiently attractive for older farmers to consider joining the scheme. Let it be said in fairness that the present Minister has the advantage of our involvement in the EEC to help this scheme. This matter must be examined very closely, in a social sense, to find what the barriers are if the scheme is not working as it should. Too much time should not be allowed to pass without a review of the effects of the retirement benefit scheme. All the tools of public relations and effective communication with the farmers concerned should be used in order to ensure that the scheme will be successful. I would urge the Minister to arrange for a review of the scheme after a fairly short period and for continual reviews thereafter, in order to ensure the success of the scheme.
The mere introduction of a scheme is not enough. We must judge by the results. The results of the scheme introduced about five years ago for retirement benefits have been very poor. We do not know whether the new scheme will be successful or not. I would urge the Minister to arrange for constant review and to avail of all the resources of his Department in regard to communicating to elderly farmers the advantages of the scheme to them and the immense advantage to the nation involved in the flow of land to young farmers in terms of production and exports.
I welcome the socio-economic directive which I believe is of greater concern to this country than to any other country in the EEC, with the possible exception of the south of Italy, because of our farm structure and population. The intention of the directive is to arrange for information and guidance for farmers by agricultural and other advisers so that their socio-economic situation can be improved both within agriculture and —a significent phrase—outside agriculture. I believe it to be so terribly important because of the imbalance of the population structure, the degree to which the structure is different from that of most developed countries in Europe and the fact that we know, if we are to be pragmatic in this area and if we are to learn from the history of what has happened in developed countries and our own recent history, there will be a continuation of certain trends in regard to population. Taking the period from 1960 to approximately 1970, whereas family farm income increased from £112 million to £170 million and State expenditure increased from £26 million to about £80 million or £90 million, the total farm labour force decreased from 382,000 to 306,000. So, the problem we are facing is that referred to by the Minister when he said that the continuing decline in labour requirements due to increased modernisation means that this increased income is being shared amongst fewer people.
Today we have a very healthy agricultural industry which is bound to improve over the next few years in terms of export production. There will be immense improvements in methods and in mechanisation. The result of this will be that whereas many people at present engaged in farming may aspire to work in farming for the next generation or two there will be a disappointment at a human level when it is seen that the increased production in agriculture is not resulting in increased employment. It will result in a decrease in employment if trends continue. We should use international comparisons when we discuss a matter such as this; it is not enough to look at our performance over the last ten or 20 years. When we look at the population structure we will find that agriculture and fishing have resulted in employment for 7 per cent of our people. In western areas we find that over 40 per cent of our population is involved in agriculture and fishery employment.
In all of Europe there are only two countries, Spain and Portugal, with a higher proportion of people involved in agricultural employment. Denmark, a country with intensive agricultural industries, have only 11 per cent so employed. That 11 per cent in Denmark is approximately the average of the developed European countries. To compound the problem, we see violent political activity at times in farming circles in these developed countries. We hear people saying that one of their major problems is that 11 or 12 per cent engaged in farming will decrease. This poses a major problem for them.
We are beginning to understand the intense problem which this country has and will continue to have in a social sense in the area of agriculture because of the population structure. For that reason I welcome particularly the development of this socio-economic directive. I urge the Minister to arrange that his advisers, as they have been doing, should examine this from a human point of view and consider the needs of people. The opportunities for such people, especially small farmers with many children, should be made quite clear to them. They should be assisted to get jobs in local factories or shops or in the cities. This is a very important matter and it is probably more relevant to this country than to any other country in the EEC.
In this regard we can welcome our involvement in the EEC. It is obvious that there is no area of national activity which will benefit to a greater extent than agriculture. Even in the area of sheep, hoggets, lambs and wool, where it was thought we would do badly, we find that the position is better than we had thought possible. As a new Deputy I would like to compliment the Minister on his approach, on his introductory speech and on his recent personal victory in Brussels where he achieved substantial benefits for Irish farmers.
I should like to continue by referring to an area in which I believe there can be dynamic growth—land resources development. If we are successful in the retirement plan area there would be great benefits. We should be aware that if we are talking about land resources development there are substantial tracts of land which are entirely under-utilised. I refer to tracts of marginal and sub-marginal land, such as bogland in the western areas. I know the Minister has visited Glenamoy agricultural station and was very impressed with the work done there. It is the Minister's intention to do something in this area. I believe it to be of immense importance. It is an area where investment would be directly followed by an increased production leading to increased employment and increased exports. It is an area of potential dynamic growth. This area should be of great interest to the Minister and his Department. It is an untapped source about which we can do much. Vast sums of money will be needed if investment is to be made on a scale which will result in such growth. Such investment would be of immense gain to the country. It is something that must be done particularly having regard to the social conditions in the western counties.
It appears that the position on the other side of Ireland is brighter today than it was before. There are three factors here. One is the increased price of agricultural land. Another is the increased prices for agricultural produce and the third and most important factor is the advance made in research and development, which has resulted in new methods of husbandry and modern machinery for developing land which was not thought to be of value some years ago. I would like to advise farmers who own such land to be wary of selling it at prices which may seem attractive based on prices paid five or six years ago. I would advise the farmers to take advice before selling unless there is real necessity to do so.
I should like to refer to the other land which is more immediately capable of development under the land project scheme. There has been considerable dissatisfaction about this land because with increased prices farmers are keen to use it as much as possible. They are finding that there is a considerable portion of their land which must be drained and which would come under the ambit of the land project scheme but such land does not normally come under the aegis of the Office of Public Works. That office are largely concerned with the larger drainage schemes. Such land also can rarely be drained under the local improvement scheme because in most counties a very small proportion of the money is used for such purposes. The buck must stop at the land project offices. Unless those offices start working on this problem the farmers will be held back. I know these offices have an immense number of applications and severe problems concerning staff. I urge the Minister to arrange, particularly in western areas, for a substantial increase in the number of officers who investigate the problems and examine applications. They should arrange the implementation of schemes more rapidly.
Investment in this area is not social, it is economic and should be directly followed by benefits to the nation. The money will not in any sense be going "down the drain". I noticed in a newspaper lately that reference was made to the possible disbandment of the county development officers. These officers were appointed a number of years ago under a central development committee. They were involved in 12 or 13 of the western counties and in all the areas of economic activity under such local authorities.
It is the view of many of us that the development officers have been very successful. The county development officers have served as most useful liaison officers between the various sections of the local authorities and the various State agencies. This development was a decentralisation of an economic function. A county development officer has been concerned with the counties under his care in helping agricultural interests, cooperative movements and individual farmers with projects. He has worked closely with the county committee of agriculture and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. A rash decision should not be made. The Minister and his Department should examine this question relative to the needs. They might look favourably at what has happened to date. That might reinforce the view which I am expressing and which has been expressed by other people.
Finally, I would like to suggest that the whole question of agricultural development is part of an overall approach to regional development. We are hopeful that if we get substantial funds from Europe in the regional area this will also be of benefit to agriculture. I welcome the Minister's philosophy under which it is his view that farmers should continue to have a level of income which is comparable with that in urban areas, and I have no doubt that his heart is in the right place.
