I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister on his appointment to this very important Ministry. I knew the Minister long before I came into Dáil Éireann. Knowing his ability and knowledge of agriculture and of farming in general, I have no doubt but that, as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, he will be a leader and an example for agriculture in this country. While the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, in so far as decision making is concerned, is not as important as it was before our entry into Europe, nevertheless it is important in that we must now have a Minister and a Department who are very much aware of what is happening in Europe and in the world. While major decision-making is not now a function of the Department there are other decisions to be made there, perhaps of a minor nature but nevertheless important. We must remember that while the number of people engaged in agriculture is decreasing, as it is in all countries of the world today, we now have a lesser number of people producing a greater amount than was being produced ten, 12 or 15 years ago.
Our entry into Europe has changed the pattern in so far as marketing and the financing of agriculture are concerned. The Minister and his Department have a major role to play in the implementation of the many directives which will affect agriculture and indeed will affect people engaged in industry and elsewhere. The implementation of these directives would seem to require much co-operation from large numbers of people and tremendous planning. It seems that in the future a very large number of farmers will be keen to participate in implementing EEC policy directives.
I should like to refer to the farm modernisation directive to which the Minister also referred. He said it has two major objectives—to provide for a selective system of aids to "development" farms and to regulate the type and level of investment aid which may be given to farmers outside the "development" category. The World Bank loan already in operation requires great documentation and great planning. This brings me to the advisory services in so far as they have to meet these commitments. Farm accounts are also involved under this directive. As time progresses our farmers are realising more and more the value of modern methods and are anxious to avail themselves of the incentives which are now available within the EEC.
There is a question as to whether the advisory service can meet their commitments. There is also a question in regard to specialised advisers for farm planning, farmyard planning, cattle housing, milking layouts, beef layouts and the many aspects of a good farming plan. Is our advisory service geared to meet those needs at present? Is it qualified to meet the needs in a specialist manner? Have we sufficient specialists in the advisory service? In the past the agricultural advisers have done a tremendous amount of work, but I wonder if the number of advisers being appointed by county committees of agriculture is keeping pace with the volume of work, which seems to increase as each day goes by. Apart from our entry into Europe the demand for the advisory service is growing and this is a good thing. It must continue to grow because, no matter what we say about industry, for a long time agriculture will be, as it has been in the past and is at present, the very bedrock of our economy. If agriculture fails the whole economy will fail. We can see the importance of a sound, well-trained corps of advisers. We must continue to work towards that and in that way we can compete with any of our European counterparts. Many of those countries have been held up to us in the past as examples, but I have no doubt that we have in this country farmers as good as, if not better than, some of their European counterparts. Our problem is that they are too few. We must bring up the mediocre farmer and the poor farmer to the highest level of the farming pattern in this country. In doing this we shall be helping the economy in a major way.
While the problem of the marketing of agricultural products confronted this country before our entry into Europe, it is not as great a problem now as it was then, in that markets are available. On the other hand, our responsibilities are as great, if not greater. We must, first of all, consider the question of processing our products. It is in the processing and, just as important, the presentation of our agricultural products that we failed and failed badly in the past. In the past our milk and beef products were literally dumped on any market we could get and left to work out their own salvation. Through the advent of the various marketing boards like Bord Bainne and the beef board, this aspect of it has been tackled. Through our different processing firms we can present a commodity which is attractive to the continental housewife or to the housewives in any of the countries where we market our products.
However, all this needs planning and specialist advice. This brings me back to the important role which our advisory service must play in the future. The Minister, as he has said in his brief, is considering many aspects of the advisory service, and I asked last year that a White Paper be issued on the restructuring of this service. I would like to hear what the Minister and his Departmental officials are thinking on the restructuring of this vital service to agriculture and ultimately to the community.
Many suggestions and many papers are presented to the Minister by the relevant organisations, farming organisations, county committees of agriculture and, indeed, the organisation dealing with the advisory service itself. I still think the Minister should issue this White Paper and let all the relevant associations come together and consider how the Department and all the other agencies can best serve the farmer by way of specialist advice and otherwise. I know the Minister says he has had sufficient information, but since the restructuring of this service is so important and since whatever new organisation has emerged will be with us for many years, a great deal of thought should be put into the question. The best brains possible should be picked so that we can have in the end an advisory service of which this country or any country can be proud.
The advisory service served the community well in the past. Many attacks have been made on the system, more especially as operated by the county committees of agriculture. No matter what has been said about the members of those committees, a great deal of worthwhile work has been done by them. What worries me at present is the question of control. These committees had one thing going for them: they had control of their destiny in their own counties. It is vital that we try to continue this control at local level in order to maintain the confidence of the farmers in the advisory service.
As a member of a county committee of agriculture, I have seen situations in which we had to wait months, perhaps closer on a year sometimes, for a decision which could not be made locally. This is what worries me in regard to the restructuring which is envisaged, and we must consider it very carefully. I would like to see the present committees continue, and I would like to see them having the same authority as they enjoy at present, if not more. Personally, I would like to see machinery being made available whereby these committees could have representation from the different farming organisations.
I can appreciate the problems involved when there are so many organisations dealing with different aspects of farming. There are the economic, educational and cultural organisations and, indeed, an organisation dealing with all aspects on a much wider basis altogether. It should not be beyond the capacity of the Department to devise ways and means of ensuring proper representation of farming organisations on the county committees of agriculture. The importance of authority at local level cannot be over-emphasised, first, so that decisions can be made on the spot and, secondly, so that we can maintain the confidence of the farming community in the advisory service, a confidence that took a long time to build up. I trust that the Minister will consider very carefully any change that may be proposed in relation to autonomy at local level. I acknowledge that the Department must retain certain controls but the level of this control should be as little as possible.
The Minister referred to the question of proficiency courses and award programmes that are being carried out by the advisory service in relation to specialised aspects of farming. In this context I am glad to note that Macra na Feirme are playing a vital role in the promotion of this programme. It is of vital importance that education in farming be a continuing process for any young boy who stays at home and hopes to inherit the family farm. Young farmers have available to them the agricultural colleges as well as the winter farm schools and the agricultural classes organised by the advisory service but this aspect is merely a drop in the ocean in so far as a general education in agriculture is concerned. I hope that these courses and also the proficiency award programme will continue.
We must make every effort to provide our young farmers with the skills required to equip them for modern-day farming while at the same time having regard to the various types of farming that are traditional in particular areas. Good farming methods and practices will ensure that our country can gain the greatest advantage possible by reason of the markets that are open to us in Europe and elsewhere.
In talking of young farmers' organisations I would like to compliment Macra na Feirme on what they have achieved in the sphere of education in agriculture. This organisation, working mainly on a voluntary basis, are carrying out work that is vital to the future success of our agricultural industry. Therefore, it was with regret that I read a newspaper report recently to the effect that the Minister is not considering an increase in the grant that has been made available to this organisation down through the years. Perhaps there have been some developments in this regard since I read that report but I appeal to the Minister to increase this grant and take a particular interest in the work being done by the organisation.
I know that the Minister has a keen interest in agricultural education and that is why I am confident that he will endeavour to solve whatever problems there may be as between the Department and Macra na Feirme. This organisation are appointing development officers and organisers and are organising the rural communities to be better members of the community. Their activities are not confined to the farming community. For these reasons any money that can be provided by the Department to help Macra na Feirme can be regarded as being money well spent. Perhaps when the Minister is replying he will have something to say in relation to this organisation.
Many Deputies mentioned the question of animal diseases and in particular their eradication. The Minister mentioned the increase in the number of reactors that have been detected as a result of the tuberculin test. This is a source of worry not alone to the Department but to the farmer. He has to suffer the loss when the animals are removed from his herd. The compensation paid by the Department is completely inadequate when one considers the cost of replacing, for instance, a dairy cow. The maximum amount which the Department can pay is £200. To replace that animal would cost nearer £300 or £350. The Department must set itself the task of eradicating this disease as quickly as possible. We must have disease free herds because the cattle industry is a very important industry.
The brucellosis eradication scheme is very important. As the Minister said, we are now living on borrowed time. How right he is. The fact that he mentioned this is proof, to my mind, that the Department are making very poor efforts to eradicate this disease.
I should like to comment on this scheme as it affects Limerick and neighbouring counties. The Minister said in Volume 268 of the Official Report, column 1451:
Outside the compulsory eradication area, herdowners have available to them a free breeding heifer vaccination scheme, a brucellosis certified herds scheme under which individual herds cleared of the disease are registered as brucellosis free and a new voluntary pre-intensive brucellosis scheme which aims to reduce the incidence of the disease in all the counties outside the brucellosis free and clearance areas. The new voluntary scheme is based on milk ring testing. It will permit herd owners to phase out their reactors gradually and with a minimum of disturbance to the economy of their holdings.
I take issue with the Minister on this. He goes on to say:
Herdowners are required to dispose of reactors for slaughter at whatever time best suits them. A headage grant is payable on slaughter of each reactor plus a further grant when all reactors in the herd are disposed of.
In the early days tuberculin testing was free to the farmer. I cannot see why this scheme which operates in Limerick and other counties cannot be free also. I previously mentioned the question of the replacement of animals purchased by the Department under the bovine tuberculosis scheme and that the compensation paid by the Department was inadequate. The Minister is asking the farmers to eradicate this disease on a voluntary basis. He is providing a headage grant once the scheme is completed. It may take six to eight years to eradicate this disease. The incentives are not good enough to ensure that farmers will avail of the scheme.
The Minister knows the importance to this country of animals which are free of disease, particularly tuberculosis and brucellosis. If the Department agreed to pay the costs of testing by the veterinary profession, it would go a long way to meet the demands of farmers and increase the chances of their participating in the voluntary eradication of this disease. It is important to advise and point out to the farmer the nature of this disease, the source of infection and the standards of hygiene required for its control. Milk ring testing is another problem. It is difficult to identify individual reactors. To put it mildly, the farmers are very dissatisfied with the incentives to dispose of brucellosis reactors. The Minister should give careful consideration to this scheme and look into the aspects of it which I have mentioned. They are important if we are to eradicate this disease.
As the Minister rightly pointed out —and it is worth repeating—we are really living on borrowed time because, in four years' time, we will have to comply with the full veterinary requirements of the EEC in regard to our domestic and export trade in live cattle. Therefore, we can see the necessity for speeding up the eradication of this disease. Provided the incentives are there, and provided we get the co-operation and goodwill of the farming community, we can speed up the eradication of this disease which is costing the country, agriculture in general, and farmers millions of pounds each year in the loss of milk and calves. I want to emphasise the importance of taking a fresh look at the eradication of the disease which affects the areas and the counties which are now doing it on a voluntary basis.
When one speaks about agriculture the subject is so wide and so varied that one can only pick out and deal with certain aspects. On the question of pig production the first thing one asks oneself is: is bacon production economic for farmers when one considers the ever-increasing cost of foodstuffs week after week? We have seen the number of sows which have been disposed of over the past 12 months because pig production is no longer economic for farmers due to increased costs in feeding stuffs and other overhead charges. We have seen the amount of grants which were made available down through the years for the erection of sow houses, fattening units, and so forth. I am afraid many of these houses will be empty in the future.
