When the debate adjourned yesterday evening I had been summarising the observations made by Deputies during the course of the Second Reading and commenting on the paucity of the material that their contributions contained. The former Minister, Deputy Clinton, having said that he would not be bitter about the subject, proceeded to make an extraordinarily bitter contribution that was extraordinarily devoid of any constructive thinking. To support his case, such as it was, he quoted copiously from the Irish Farmers' Journal. There is a great irony in the former Minister quoting from the editorial matter in that journal having regard to the fact that the editor was the person designated by the Minister on the last day of the tenure of office of the Coalition Government to be the chairman of the National Agricultural Authority. He was a member of a great many other State and semi-State boards under the tutelage of the Coalition Government. It is worth noting without comment that the close friendship and neighbourliness between the former Minister and the editor of the Farmers' Journal was common knowledge for at least 30 years. It is not to be wondered at that the former Minister had sheaves of quotations favourable to him and the regime he stood for and he quoted them copiously. Apart from showing this friendship very clearly, they threw very little other light.
I agree with Deputies on both sides of the House that the need now is to get the Comhairle established and working as quickly as possible. It is difficult for me to edit the widely diverging views expressed by Deputies opposite on such important matters as whether or not the Foras should be integrated with the other services. If I understood Deputies Hegarty and Bermingham correctly, there is a better way to do it. In making that assertion they agreed with what the Bill proposes to do. They proceeded to raise smaller objections which did not really amount to anything and which were sometimes based on obvious misapprehensions, such as the misapprehension about the charging of fees for advisory services. It was alleged that this is provided in the Bill and it is not the case. This demonstrates the paucity of the objections raised by the Opposition, although they were slightly more vocal in opposition than they were last year during the debate on the Bill setting up the National Agricultural Authority. During that debate only two Deputies spoke on the Minister's side, only two spoke on Committee Stage and they were against the Bill rather than for it. I am pleased to see that since the situation has been corrected they have recovered their eloquence.
A point was made by Deputies Woods and Callanan and possibly by others about the formidable amount of paperwork associated with the farm modernisation scheme which now confronts agricultural advisers. This point has been made repeatedly both inside and outside the House but we must ask how true it is. Is it true that the individual adviser is snowed under with application forms for the farm modernisation scheme, of which I have personal experience as a farmer? I have to say that I find no great difference between the documentation for the farm modernisation scheme and that for the old farm improvement scheme of long ago. I had no difficulty whatever in handling these forms in a very short time. Deputies and others should be sure of their facts before making bland assertions that it is not possible for advisers to get out on the land because they are stuck in offices coping with vast quantities of paperwork. I doubt that is the case. If it is the case, the Comhairle will deal with the question of providing clerical assistance. I do not think this matter gives rise to serious difficulty for advisers, especially in the western counties where a great many farmers have not applied for classification under the farm modernisation scheme.
