(Limerick West): Since the Wool Council have been abolished, does this section give statutory recognition to the fact that the council ceased to operate from January 1 1983? Also, in so far as it repeals section 18 of the Principal Act setting up the Wool Council, would the Minister indicate and give a clear declaration as to whether the wool industry will be safeguarded? Will he ensure that his Department will carry out the functions of the Wool Council as they were carried out by the former council which was set up in 1968? I should like the Minister to assure the House categorically that this will be the case.
Wool Marketing Bill, 1984: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
As I said on the last occasion on which we discussed this matter, there are a number of factors that will not change. One is that the intelligence data will be available on the same basis in so far as marketing arrangments are concerned. I explained on that former occasion that probably this was the most important aspect of the entire wool buying season, so that producers would know exactly what was happening not only in England but all over Europe. I can give the House an absolute assurance that this will continue in the same way. Also the question of inspection of premises will continue at the same level. There were always approximately 24 AOs involved, who will continue to be involved, calling at three, four or six weekly intervals to the various wool-buying premises to ensure that standards are maintained.
(Limerick West): The Wool Council had an additional function in regard to the promotion of the sale of wool and in the conducting of a campaign for its proper presentation. I accept the Minister's assurance that the intelligence data with regard to price and so on will continue to be made available but can the Minister give an assurance that the promotional aspect of the council's work will be continued by his Department?
Again, as I said on the last occasion on which we discussed this matter, it is my view that all of the functions assigned to the Wool Council at its inception have expired. In recent years in particular such has been the information available through the various agencies that the role of the Wool Council has ceased and there would not now be any need for its continuation.
(Limerick West): I must disagree with the Minister. Since the sheep industry is becoming more and more an important feature of agricultural development, sheepmeat being perhaps the only meat not overproduced within the EEC, and since our sheep numbers have been increasing in recent years, rendering the industry lucrative, the Minister should give the House an assurance that the functions of the Wool Council will be continued by his Department. I cannot agree with him that its functions have expired; I say: far from it. I should like to see producers, processors and the industry having an input into wool promotion here.
The irony of the situation is that, since the disbandment of the Wool Council, for one reason or another the actual price paid to Irish producers is between 8p and 10p per pound higher this year than last year. As we are all aware, it is the price the sheep farmers receive for their product at the end of the day that matters, and in that regard this year looks like being one of the best for quite some time. Therefore it is ironic that in the very year in which the Wool Marketing Board has been disbanded the actual price per pound paid for wool has increased by 10p or 11p, depending on grade. The wool business is quite lively this year and I understand that the short term view is that that trend is likely to continue.
All possible assistance will be given by my Department, where there is enormous technical expertise available at present, to any groups in need of such. In so far as the input of producers, retailers and others to the whole of the industry is concerned, I might say there is nothing preventing producers, through any of the IFA organisations or others, from forming a producers' organisation — something not unknown in other countries. However, that is not a matter for this debate. However, as far as sheep farmers and wool producers are concerned, I would consider it a step in the right direction and something to be highly commended.
(Limerick West): The Minister will be aware that there is a proper marketing structure, statutorily established, in most wool-producing countries of the world. Surely what the Minister says would not be acceptable to the processers or producers and that, rather than the abolition of the Wool Council, its role should be strengthened. Is the Minister aware that one of the recommendations of the committee established in 1965 to investigate wool development here was that the Wool Council would eventually develop into a full wool marketing board? Therefore a haphazard approach is most unsatisfactory with regard to wool promotion.
One can appreciate the Deputy's concern about the report he mentioned because at that time there was reference to the eventual establishment of such a wool marketing board. If we consider the position of our British counterparts and their Wool Marketing Board then I do not think too many of our wool producers would be happy living under such a regime in the sense that I understand it costs approximately 12p. or 13p. per pound of wool to pay for its administration. There are many other things one could say about the British system which is entirely producer-orientated. The history of our wool marketing board has been, if you like, an association of various interests. At any given time there will be many differing opinions on who should have the say on an Irish marketing board. As the Deputy is aware, there are varying opinions between the producers, the wool buyers and the retailers. We cannot say that a marketing board is the answer to our problem because of the different systems we have. Under the British system there is a cost of 12p or 13p per pound to the producer. No Irish sheep farmer would be too happy about that. We are making available marketing intelligence and information on world trends and we will continue to make them available. This is a very important to every sheep farmer. Irish sheep farmers avail of this service.
Perhaps we could take sections 2 and 3 together. Section 3 deals with the dissolution of An Chomhairle.
(Limerick West): The Wool Council was abolished as from 1 January 1983. I cannot accept that producers will be charged something in the region of 12p or 13p per pound. The Council was set up in 1968 to safeguard the interests of the producers and the processors. The setting up of that Wool Council was promoted by the producers and the various organisations such as Macra na Feirme and the NFA as it was then known. The income small sheep farmers earn from the sale of wool is a very large part of their entire income.
The Minister hopes to save £100,000 by abolishing this council. This is another attack by the Government on small farmers. I do not blame the Minister. He is not a member of the Cabinet and he has to carry out the instructions which are handed to him. This cost saving exercise is a very narrow approach. The Government are neglecting the rural areas and particularly the western seaboard. This shows a lack of commitment by the Government and the Minister for Agriculture. It is a step in the wrong direction. The council has ceased to exist and the Minister is saying the producers and processors can come together in a haphazard fashion. That is the way the Government are promoting the wool industry.
I want to make it clear that since the wool board was established in 1968 it has done a remarkable job. On the last occasion speakers on all sides of the House acknowledged that. It was set up to do a specific job.
(Limerick West): It is a continuing process.
There was no time limit.
Over the years I have been involved with Macra na Feirme and the wool industry. When the board was set up there was a massive job to be done on the question of clean wool and the proper storage and sale of wool. The wool marketing board were remarkably successful. Every sheep farmer now knows there are two ways to have his wool ready for the market, the way he used to do it and the new way which will get him the best possible price per pound. We then had to consider what was happening on international markets.
This was a bone of contention for many producers. Having sold their wool they found they could have got more for it in another market in another part of the world. The intelligence part of the operation will be made available in the coming months as it was in the past. The wool board have completed their task. If the producer groups want to come together nationally there is nothing to stop them. The Department will be only too delighted to give them every assistance possible.
It is not true to say a marketing board is the answer to all the problems because of our situation vis-à-vis our neighbours in the United Kingdom. Deputy Noonan said this is a step backwards, but I will leave that to be decided by every sheep farmer who is getting more for his wool this year than he got for a long time. That is the bottom line. If a national producers' body feel it is important to have a marketing board for the sale of wool, the Department will give them all the help possible. The wool board have completed their task and the various functions the Department are retaining on behalf of wool and sheep farmers will be more than sufficient to ensure that every Irish sheep farmer gets a fair crack of the whip.
It is pathetic to hear the Minister of State trying to defend a Government decision which is absolutely indefensible. He is trying to put some gloss on that decision and seeking to create the impression that what he is doing is correct. I am afraid he is failing miserably in that attempt. There is no doubt that education is a continuing process. The Wool Council was established to provide advice for sheep farmers to enable them improve the quality of the wool they were sending to the market and thereby ensure they would get maximum benefit for their product. The education and advising of our sheep farmers is not something that can be started and ended over a fixed period. Their education must be on a continuing basis. The young farmers who take up sheep rearing in the years ahead will not, it seems, have the benefit of a body such as the wool council to instruct them on the best method for handling wool and developing and presenting their product to the market. That was what was intended when the wool council was established. I was a Member before the wool council was set up and I can recall receiving many deputations from my constituency, and other parts of the country, seeking the establishment of such a board to provide the necessary advice to help farmers improve the quality of wool. Happily the representations we received from those people were listened to when we conveyed them to the Minister for Agriculture at the time, Deputy Blaney, because he established the wool marketing council.
It is sad that after a short period of years the Government should dismantle that council and bring the excellent work it had been doing to a halt purely on the basis that this was a good way to save money. This is a retrograde step that will have a bad effect in the long term on the returns to the agricultural industry. It will have a bad effect on the continuing efforts to improve the quality of wool. I represent a constituency where difficulties are experienced by hill sheep farmers, particularly those in Connemara and I am disappointed that a western Member has been sent here as Minister of State to seek to justify the Government's decision. The Minister of State in the House has been involved directly in the industry and he must be aware that what he is asking us to agree to represents a backward step. He is aware that he should not be asking us to support this move. We will find it difficult to support the measure.
It is regrettable after so many advances have been made in this area that they are swept aside purely for the expediency of saving a few shillings. That is not the way to develop agriculture but it is another indication to Fianna Fáil Members of the total lack of interest by the Government in anything that has to do with western counties. We could keep the Minister of State all day in the House if we decided to list the schemes introduced over the years to help farmers that are being cancelled out and dismantled by the Government.
Today we are discussing the wool council which was established by Fianna Fáil. It surprises me that those who were so vocal in the National Farmers Association — now known as the Irish Farmers Association — about the need to establish a council and were so full of praise of their work since it was set up have remained silent while the Government dismantled the council. It is an indication that politics exist in the IFA.
Acting Chariman
I should like to remind the Deputy that we are dealing with section 2. What the Deputy is saying refers to section 3.
There is no great difference between the two sections. In fact, I understood we were dealing with the two sections.
Acting Chairman
Is it the wish of the House to take the two sections together?
(Limerick West): If the Chair wishes, the question in regard to section 2 can be put.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Those who made strong representations some years ago for the establishment of a wool council were active in the National Farmers Association and it seems strange that now that the Government have decided to discontinue that council that those people have not been more vocal in their dissatisfaction with that move. The silence from the IFA indicates that their participation in criticism of matters affecting their industry are often tempered by a consideration for the party in power. It is our view that there is a need to continue with the Wool Council and farmers' organisations should have been more vocal in their support for that. Organised farming is not strong in many areas in the west where there are many small sheep farmers whose voice does not play a major role in the IFA council chambers. At the same time they represent an important section of the community and have the difficulty of eking out a living for themselves and their families. The wool industry is a precarious one with prices fluctuating from time to time. The returns are not always very generous considering the amount of effort and risk involved in rearing sheep.
It is disgraceful that a body such as the Wool Council which was set up to help farmers get better prices for their product and develop the sheep rearing industry is being taken from them. I cannot allow the Minister to seek to justify that decision on the grounds that there was no need for the council, that the task they had been given had been completed, that the job they were set up to carry out was now completed. I do not accept that. How can the Minister say that job has been completed? How can the Minister say that the work done over the last 15 years will be of benefit to farmers who are too young to benefit from it? Future young farmers will not have the opportunity to learn more about handling wool or how to ensure that it arrives at the market place in good condition. All the good work that has been done by the Wool Council is now in danger of being lost. There is an assumption on the Minister's part that those who have benefited and are applying the best methods will be able to pass on their knowledge to their successors. That is an assumption the Minister will find difficult to prove. It would be foolish to suggest, for instance, that we could close down our schools and universities on the basis that those who have passed through them will be able to pass on the knowledge they gained to future children. It is ludicrous. I am not satisfied that the Government are serious in the interest they are taking in the industry. For the sake of saving £100,000 this move was a very mean act on the part of the Government. It is another act that is increasing difficulties for those who farm in rural areas. Many schemes were introduced to assist such farmers, give them a better standard of living and a hope of improving their way of life but they are being taken from them by the Government. The Government are stooping once again to another mean low act.
I hope the Government will have second thoughts about the provisions in the Bill. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Connaughton, will agree with the sentiments expressed by the Opposition. It is regrettable that the Minister who agreed to this cut when the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture were being considered at Cabinet level has not had the courage to come to the House and fulfil the obligation he undertook at the Cabinet table. This unnecessary and savage cut will affect small farmers who need more outside assistance. Farmers who are involved in sheep rearing in a big way may be able to employ all modern techniques and qualified staff, but the small man has more or less to eke out a living on his own, work his lonely patch, his hill, mind his sheep and his dog and gather in the neighbours to help him at shearing. He has not available to him the modern machinery and techniques which might be available to a man of greater means who usually has a bigger holding. The small man is hit time and time again and it is he whom we must defend here. He is bearing the brunt of this miserable Government decision to save £100,000. Why has Deputy Deasy, Minister for Agriculture, not come in here himself to explain what he is doing? Why has he sent in a man who was not present at the Cabinet table, or is Deputy Connaughton, Minister of State, so wholeheartedly in agreement with what is proposed here that he has no qualms of conscience in coming in to defend the decision? Does he support this decision 100 per cent or is he just giving us the brief and hoping that it will be all over in a few minutes and we can get on to the next item on the agenda?
I must say these few words because I helped to bring this board into existence. We were very pleased that the campaign which we mounted in the middle sixties resulted in the establishment of this board. I am delighted that even the Minister in his speech had to confirm that it was the right decision to set up the board, and he has heaped praise on the Wool Council, on the staff who worked as they did in giving advice to the farmers, and on the improvements which resulted from their demonstrations and instructions and the overall benefit which has accrued to the wool industry because of the work of the Wool Council. The Minister himself is praising the Wool Council. It is very false praise to come in and thank them and congratulate them on the excellent work they have done and then tell them that he is dismantling the whole outfit and the only reason is that the Government want to save £100,000. Surely the continuation of the wool industry and seeking the highest, most up-to-date standards in the quality and presentation of the product is something which we must always seek and be anxious to improve. We cannot say about it that the task was specific, it has ended and there is now no need to continue to seek to update our methods and techniques. There will always be a need to continue developing the processes and to match those of one's competitors, who are not going to sit back and leave things as they stand.
As I said at the outset, education is a continuing process and it is to be regretted that the Government are choosing to dismantle the Wool Council as they are proposing in this Bill.
I want to refute some of Deputy Molloy's assertions such as that the Government are running away from their responsibilities. I would like to refer briefly to two major points that Deputy Molloy made about young people getting into farming. I assume he spoke particularly about the hill sheep farmers. I had occasion to be in the heart of his constituency at Maam Cross a few months ago when I presented ACOT certificates for sheep husbandry to 50 or 60 young farmers from the hills in that area. That was the first time that that area had the benefit of a very long and involved course, which took in all matters relating to wool. Advisory services through ACOT, the green certificate, 100 and 60 hours courses are all being made available now all over Ireland.
I will let the farming organisations speak for themselves, but one other reason why many sheep farmers are relatively happy at this stage is that, in the last three years, for the first time in many decades, sheep men have been getting a reasonable return for their labour. There are many reasons for that, but at least they are now not the Cinderella of all the farming enterprises. The hill sheep farmers, about whom Deputy Molloy spoke so eloquently, are entitled to the highest payment ever through the EEC ewe premium which will amount to something like £13.8p for every ewe on every Irish farm this year. Some of it has already been paid and the other part has been calculated and will be ready for distribution very shortly. That type of thing, together with our access to the French market, means that because of the expanded markets and the fact that we have now a quality product, our sheep farmers for the first time ever are getting a reasonable return for their lambs and sheepmeat generally. I am not satisfied with that return and I would much prefer that they would get more, but it is far away above and beyond anything that they were accustomed to getting before that.
There is no reason to believe at this stage that some of the educational aspects of the Wool Council's activities will now cease to operate. There are sheep shearing county and all-Ireland finals all over the country, as has always been the case, organised by Macra na Feirme or other interested parties, and many people come out to watch these competitions. In regard to that I see no slack around the country this year as opposed to any other year.
The Department are taking a keen interest in what is happening to wool all over the world. We must keep abreast with developments, and I guarantee to the House today that we will be able to do that. If the graph continues in the direction indicated at the moment, the sufficiency of sheepmeat in the Community will be such that we will be allowed to expand — in fact it is one of the few commodities in which we will be allowed to expand. Deputy Noonan referred to this. While it is always dangerous to crystal gaze at any time, I would say that the future looks quite good for our sheep farmers. The bottom line for any sheep farmer is what he is getting for his produce. Therefore, I refute what Deputy Molloy said. The industry is in a quite healthy state and, because of where I come from, I will do everything possible to ensure that it expands and goes from strength to strength.
(Limerick West): Of course I agree that the industry is in a healthy state.
I never said that it was not.
(Limerick West): Deputy Molloy never said otherwise, but we on this side of the House want to ensure that it will continue to stay in a healthy state. It is because of the Wool Council that the industry is in such a healthy state at present. The Wool Council have contributed a great deal to the whole sheep industry. The Minister has pointed out rightly that the price of wool is on the upward trend. Again, that is due to the groundwork and the foundations laid by the Wool Council since 1968. Now the Minister is prepared to abolish this council for the saving of a mere £100,000. Is he prepared to throw the whole sheep industry out through the door? Is he prepared to throw away the whole wool industry with all that it means to the small farmers on the western seaboard? The council are the only body who have co-ordinated the wool industry in this country since they were set up in 1968. The Minister is throwing the wool industry to the wolves although he knows that small farmers are the backbone of the economy and that they rely mainly on sheep.
At present our sheepmeat is acceptable in the EEC markets and we have many openings for our lamb in France and elsewhere. Therefore, now is the time to have an agency that will promote our sheep and wool industry, but the Government chose to abolish the Wool Council for the sake of a saving of £100,000. I do not accept the assertion that the industry itself agrees with the abolishing of the council, which was set up in 1968. When he said that, the Minister was not aware of the facts. I have spoken to producers and they do not agree with the move. They regard it as a backward step.
When the council was set up in 1968 we regarded it as only scraping the surface in regard to wool development. The UK and many other wool producing countries wisely have progressive wool boards which play a major role in wool promotion, and that makes it all the more difficult for us to accept the Government's move. We have heard that one man in the Department of Agriculture is now doing the work of the council and that four others who were employed by the council have returned to their duties in the Department. No matter how good that one person is it will be impossible for him to do the work of the council to develop this major industry.
There has been an upward trend in the wool market and wool production is responsible for 3.6 per cent of our total agricultural output. In 1982 it was valued at £78 million. These are indications that the industry was progressing strongly and yet the Minister throws it all away for a saving of £100,000. Fianna Fáil always supported the view that small farmers must be kept on the land, and that being so, because they rely so much on sheep and wool, the abolition of the council was a backward step at a time when we should be making every effort to develop it and give it help.
The people know that there is a Government trend, and this Bill is part of it, to downgrade agriculture as a major source of income. We saw the suspension of the farm modernisation scheme; and, no matter what the Minister may say about its reintroduction, the agricultural community do not accept that it is of much help to agricultural development. Another part of the Government anti-agriculture trend is the cut back in the Estimate.
The council, before their abolition, did excellent work to promote wool production but the Government acted without ascertaining the views of either the producers or the processers. At this late stage I ask the Minister to take a look at the industry.
The facts speak for themselves and I refer Deputy Noonan to a number of statistics on the sheep industry.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I wish to bring to the notice of Deputy Noonan some figures which I think will disprove entirely the case he is making. The first significant figure is that there has been an increase of 6 per cent in sheep numbers this year. We must ask ourselves what is the reason for this increase. Obviously, farmers realise that there is money in this line. As I said earlier, it is significant that the past two to three years have been the best in terms of the sheep business. On the question of the wool market, anybody who has a reasonable knowledge of the industry will know that the sale of wool on the world market has been always a fluctuating business. It is almost like the Stock Exchange in that sense. No wool marketing board anywhere in the world seems to have the ability to stabilise the world wool market. Consequently, the next step for the wool market would have to be something to do with a marketing arm either by the people involved, the businessmen and so on, or the producers.
There is no question of our turning our backs on the small farmers. The return from the enterprise last year was the best ever.
Why then abolish the Wool Council?
The board were set up for a specific purpose and they have achieved that purpose. There is no point in having an organisation carrying on a function when time has caught up on them in so far as that function is concerned. I am convinced that because of the new ACOT training schemes, because of the market intelligence my Department will be making available and because of all the other aids to which I have referred, our wool will attract the best possible price on any market.
(Limerick West): The Minister has confirmed my argument by telling us that there is an increase in sheep numbers and that the past few years have been the best ever for the sheep industry. This success can be attributed to the efforts of the Wool Council, which the Minister is abolishing now in order to save a mere £100,000. So far he has not put forward any logical argument as to why the council should be abolished. All he is saying is that because the wool industry is on the upward trend there is no need for an advisory service. The Minister should take note of the point made by Deputy Molloy that education, whether in agriculture or otherwise, is a continuing process. Surely that continuing process is all important in the promotion of the sheep industry and in educating our farmers to produce at the highest levels possible. In abolishing the Wool Council the Government are failing those involved in the industry.
I wish to reply briefly to the question of the advisory service. I wish it to be known that there are in progress between my Department and ACOT negotiations with a view to ensuring that there is an even stronger link with sheep farmers by way of the provision of sheep-shearing courses and so on. I must refute the argument that the advisory service as such will not be available. Regardless of the light in which the Opposition would like to show this Bill, the vast majority of our sheep farmers know that in the past year clipped wool has increased from between 10p to 12p per pound. There is a very lively trade and we have access to various markets. It would be difficult to argue the case that because of the achievements in the industry in 1983 it would be to the detriment of farmers in Leitrim or anywhere else to abolish the Wool Council. Because of the changing fortunes in the sheep industry the people involved are beginning to demand a type of livelihood that they should have enjoyed many years ago but which for one reason or another was not possible to achieve.
The record of the old board was excellent. We all accept that but there comes a time when a programme has outlived its aims and objectives. That is the position at present. I do not believe there will be any kick back provided that what I have outlined to the House is carried out. I have given a categorical assurance to the House that it will be done. We are here to protect the sheep industry.
Bureaucracy takes over.
(Limerick West): I am more and more amazed at the lack of information. Surely the Minister of State knows that the allocation to ACOT was reduced by the Government and that the approach by ACOT, as far as advisory services are concerned, is geared to a certain section of the farming community. Sheep farmers will not be in that category. The ACOT advisory services will not replace the advice given by the board which the Minister is abolishing. Irrespective of the arguments the Minister makes, he cannot disguise the fact that this is a backward step or that ACOT will take over where the Wool Council left off. Far from it. As a result of the Government's approach and because of their lack of financial support for ACOT, they will not be in a position to provide the services they provided heretofore.
I am surprised at the Deputy's allegation that ACOT will not be making specialist instructors available. One of the reasons why ACOT was formed was so that there would be a specialist client based advisory service. This was a deviation from the general purpose type of approach we had. We will now have specially trained sheep specialists. This is an important development. The specialists are giving an outstanding service. I compliment the gains made by the old Wool Marketing Council. We are talking about two different types of advice. At this stage what we want is specialised instruction for sheep farmers by specially trained advisory staff. I refute what Deputy Noonan said because it is at variance with the facts.
Can the Minister tell us the number of specially trained officials and the areas to which they are designated? We cannot depend on ACOT to provide additional services, information or advice. They are hamstrung for funds. Last year, many local authorities were reduced to such an extent that their activities were greatly curtailed. In my county we are trying to develop the growing of fruit and vegetables. This council was abolished to save a very small sum of money.
Hear, hear.
It was not abolished because it was inefficient or unnecessary. It is regrettable. Anyone who is involved in farming or represents a farming area knows that there is a "chop, chop" attitude in relation to farming. It is easy for the Minister to say there is an upturn but it is not the time to withdraw support. Rather the support should be increased to ensure that we derive the maximum benefit.
I cannot answer the first part of the Deputy's question because I do not know the number of staff involved offhand. On my journeys around the country, particularly in the Wicklow hills, Connacht and Galway, I spoke to various groups of people who had an association with the specialist sheep advisers. They all agree that this is a step in the right direction.
(Limerick West): The abolition of the Wool Council is a step in the right direction?
It is important to make the best possible use of available resources. They are now in the right place to spark off production. We have been successful in that there has been an upturn of 6 to 7 per cent in sheep numbers. ACOT together with other interested groups, will do all that is necessary to maintain progress. My Department will ensure that important things are done properly.
The Minister seemed to imply that the work done by the Wool Council will be done to the same extent by ACOT yet when he was asked to give the number of ACOT officials who will be involved he did not know. The Minister is making a contribution to the debate and trying to sustain his arguments without having too many facts to substantiate what he is seeking to convey. In the Minister's words, the Wool Council undertook a task and were carrying it out successfully.
The council are being abolished to save money and that is the only reason for it. The Minister for Finance dictated to the Minister for Agriculture and told him there would have to be cutbacks. We have seen the effects of cutbacks in other areas such as in the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. These resulted in the complete disruption of the farm modernisation scheme, the cessation of the lime subsidy scheme and the land drainage scheme in the west, a reduction in the income limit to qualify for cattle headage grants which were introduced by a Fianna Fáil Government, a cutback in farmers dole and now the abolition of the Wool Council. The Minister seeks to justify what he is doing by saying there has been an increase in the number of sheep and in the return to sheep farmers. The sheep industry is now profitable and is going through a period of strong marketing. That is all very satisfactory. All of this is as a result of contributions made over the years. A valuable contribution was made in developing the wool industry by the Wool Council. The Minister acknowledged that and praised them for their work. If the work was well done why abolish them? If the work they were doing was valuable, why stop it? If the work they were doing needs to be continued, surely it should not be stopped and the board abolished?
I would like the Minister to give more details on what he saw as the specific task the Wool Council were given when established, how he considers that task has been completed, why there is no need to continue the type of work they were doing, and what he sees happening in the future in regard to educating and advising young farmers in the techniques of husbanding wool, such as the cleansing of wool, sheep shearing, presentation to the market place and the need to continue to improve and keep abreast of developing techniques in that area. What does the Minister see as the specific role the Wool Council got and which could be deemed to have been completed? It seems to me that the work they undertook was of a continuing nature, was beneficial, and should be continued. It would be helpful if the Minister would give some idea of what he interprets as the specific task of the Wool Council and why that task need no longer be undertaken.
Would the Minister agree that the indications are that in future we will be looking to sheep production to pick up the slack in many areas at a time when there will be an overproduction of milk? Immediately after the discussions on the super-levy many people predicted that they would be facing the same problems in beef production in the next few years. When sheep prices were low the prices the sheep producers got for wool was a great boost. Would the Minister agree that there is not sufficient emphasis on sheep production generally, because it looks as if it will be a fairly remunerative enterprise for farmers in the future?
I will answer the point raised by Deputy Molloy first. It is important to go back to the sixties before the board were set up and to have a quick look at the situation then in the sheep industry. We were tied to a very restricted market. It was very difficult to sell land during the sixties and the fashion trade began to look at synthetic fibres. As a nation we had a very fine sheep flock but our presentation of our meat and wool products was very bad. One of the aims and objectives of the Wool Council was to grade wool. This was the talking point up and down the country. On the positive side it was decided that there would have to be a bonus system introduced and, on the negative side, a deduction system. If a person put up for public auction a product which did not meet the market requirement, such a person would be penalised; or, in the case of a product which did, compensated. That was the beginning of the Wool Council.
To the extent that this created an educational awareness among all farmers, the Wool Council have been spectacularly successful. That is why I pay the board this compliment. This system had not been introduced before, but at that stage some farming organisations got involved with the work of the board. This was a huge exercise. It was a familiar sight to see a farmer shearing his sheep in the corner of a green field with grass mixed with the fleece. In years past a farmer was paid as much for a product of that description as he was for a product he had spent a lot of time on. The board went to great lengths, through their wool graders and educational activities and through liaison with the farming organisations, to ensure that that was done. In that area the board's work is done, and has been done for a number of years. There are very few Irish farmers who do not understand the mechanics of the wool business. When they are shearing their sheep and presenting their wool for sale they know the type of wool they must produce to get the optimum price.
There were many other activities in which the board were involved but they are too numerous to mention now. They had the visual displays, publicity, advertising and co-operated with Macra na Feirme over the years for the all-Ireland sheep shearing competition. Some years I saw 8,000 or 10,000 people at the sheep shearing finals. This was an event at which the sheep shearing champions of Ireland came together to show what could be done by training. The old board also dealt with problems between the trade and the producers and the question of storing wool on wool buyers' premises. This is something we will continue because it is of paramount importance.
In the last 13 or 14 years the board have achieved their goals and there is no need to tackle the same job in the same way now. That is not to say that there is not a necessity to make advice available to sheep farmers for wool husbandry and so on. That aspect is being looked after through the various courses I mentioned, such as that at Maam Cross. These courses are available to young sheep farmers. It is against that background that I have to say that the objectives of the Wool Council have been achieved and from now on a different approach will have to be adopted.
(Limerick West): I want to take issue with what the Minister said about specialist advisory personnel. These sheep specialists were always available. It was not today or yesterday that they were appointed. I would also like to take issue with him on his statement that the advisory services will be taking over the role of the council so far as giving advice is concerned. I want to reiterate what Deputy Leonard and I have said. Because of the depleted finances of ACOT the number of specialists giving this advice will be substantially reduced. Irrespective of what the Minister says, the people about whom we are concerned now will not get the necessary advice because more often than not they will not seek it. Under the new regulations concerning ACOT unless there is a demand for the services they will not be provided. These services are now being geared to a special category of farmer — is the Minister aware of that?
With regard to the functions which were carried out by the board, who will now devise ways and means of increasing wool export and who will now be dealing with the maximising of home produced wool by our manufacturers? I understand that the Wool Council were considering setting up a processing industry. Are there any plans in the Minister's Department to do this for the industry? These are the areas to take note of if we are interested in wool production and in continuing the upward trend in sheep numbers. There is also the other important aspect of job opportunities in this industry which is coming more and more to the forefront, which opportunities will be available if we set about expanding this industry and setting up a processing industry. Would the Minister comment on this?
First, I return to the question of the advice which is available. I want to make it very clear — and Deputy Noonan is quite aware of this — that the specialist sheep advisers about whom I am speaking, and whom so many inside and outside this House have welcomed, are a group of agricultural advisers who are available specifically to sheep farmers. This is something new. That is not saying that they were not able formerly to give advice, but it is now specialised advice and many sheep farmers are happy with this.
Does the Minister know how many there are and where they are available?
Of course, everybody understands that there is no point in having a sheep adviser in a dairy county.
How many are there? This is a big country.
They are scattered all over the country on the various ACOT committees.
But what number?
I would not be able to give the Deputy the exact number. That is a question which would have to be put down to me. One could not expect anyone to know the exact number of advisers all over the country. That would be an unfair question.
We are dealing with sheep and would expect the Minister to know.
The point that I am making is that the advice is now available and as the Deputy will be aware——
(Limerick West): That advice was always available.
——through the new group system the advisers are imparting knowledge to various interested groups and are able to get across to a larger group of farmers at a specialised level.
(Limerick West): No individual attention.
As the Deputy is well aware, their approach now is through a group system, in the sense that these are people of like minds who have the same type of project. This is catching on extremely well, in particular in the hill sheep areas. There is a demand there which is being shown up through the various ACOT seminars and courses, and that demand will be met. As never before, sheep farmers will have at their disposal sheep specialist advice.
In so far as the export of wool, and indeed sheep, is concerned, the same applies as with any other product. If the producers get paid for what they are doing, and if the markets are there to absorb their products, one will get the response from farmers that one always got down through the years — if there is profit in it, the farmers will be there. At present, the sheep industry is quite profitable, although I should like to see it improving. It is certainly starting off in the right direction. The EEC live premium is a very important addition to any sheep farmer's profits and is his profit base. At the moment we are doing quite well out of that section. In certain parts of this country sheep farmers are now getting £23 per ewe, depending on the type of disadvantaged area.
(Limerick West): That is not because the Minister's Government are abolishing the Wood Council. That is irrelevant.
It relates to sheep profitability. If it were not profitable to sheep farmers, if there were five wool marketing boards the interest would not be there. The Deputy should be well aware that the bottom line in farming is profitability and for the last three or four years there has been profit in sheep.
Quality has a big part to play in that.
We predict that in the near future, in so far as one can predict those things, there will be a reasonable level of profitability. Everything we can do as a Government and a Department will be done to maximise profitability.
The Minister is talking about the welcome for specialisation, and we did welcome it. We demanded specialisation from this side of the House. However, there must be money to pay for it. If one were to ask for an ACOT officer to be sent out on a fairly extensive campaign to sheep producers, one would be told that the funds are not there and it cannot be done. The Minister has indicated that if groups got together — producers, farmers, ACOT advisers and so forth — it would be ideal. Would it not have been better if that matter had been examined prior to this Bill and prior to the abolition of the Wool Council? That would be the time to set up an alternative structure and improve and expand this industry in the context of the present time.
I want to state quite clearly that that specialist advise is there and is continuing, as many Deputies from the sheep areas will know. It is important to point out, as I said earlier, that many of the functions which were previously carried out by the Wool Council are now being carried out by my Department——
We will get back into creeping bureaucracy.
——in our view, the ones which make a difference. Market data will be available to the very same degree and will have as great an effect as ever.
The truth is coming out now.
The agricultural officers — numbering 24 — are at the disposal of farmers throughout the country. They are checking byres, premises and so forth. A great deal of help can be given from the Department and will be available in every possible way. My contention is that the sheep farmers will see that, although the Wool Council as they knew it is not now in existence, the activities of the board are being taken up by many other agencies, including the Department of Agriculture.
Will the Department continue the competitions?
I have never had any reason to believe that they would not. I understand that the all-Ireland final of the Macra na Feirme sheep-shearing competition will be on next week or the week after, and this is the second year after the abolition of the Wool Council. However, that is a matter entirely for Macra na Feirme.
(Limerick West): May I ask the Minister once again——
I think we are in danger of repetition.
(Limerick West): The Minister did not reply to my previous question. The functions of the Wool Council under section 13 of the Wool Marketing Act of 1968 are to consider, devise or implement methods to increase exports of wool and to consider methods of securing the maximum use of home produced wool by manufacturers in the State. Who will take over those functions now?
The people who have been taking it over so far have been private individuals involved in that business. The wool board never got involved in this except through advice. That same advice is now available to any person who wants to do that. I understand that there are people who would seek a future from an industrial point of view in that type of business. The Department of Agriculture will give them all the help they can in that connection.
Reference is made in subsection (2) and the following subsections to property and the assets of An Chomhairle. It is stated that ownership will transfer to the Minister on the passing of this Bill. Could he give the House some indication of the extent of the property in question and also some information about the liabilities of An Chomhairle at this point?
We will come to that in later sections. If the Deputy would like to wait I will give him more details then. The premises the wool board had were leassd premises.
We are dealing with section 3.
The property the Wool Council operated from was a leased premises. A number of years were left in that particular lease and I understand there is a dispute vis-à-vis the lease and compensation. That is included later in the Bill. I would like to make it very clear that the Wool Council never owned the premises they operated from. The premises were leased and that is subject to legal proceedings. I will cover that in greater detail as we go through the various sections.
I understand we are on section 3.
We are on section 3.
I am not sure what the Minister of State is referring to when he says we will be discussing it later. Section 3 (1) (2) states:
All property, whether real or personal (including choses-in-action), which immediately before the commencement of this Act was vested in or belonged to....
This is the appropriate section to discuss the property and assets of An Chomhairle.
An Chomhairle had very little property. The premises were leased and the office furniture and a van had already been transferred to the Department of Agriculture. There were various other smaller items like equipment, tents, fencing, gates and all the things one associates with sheep handling, which were sold by public auction and the proceeds have been credited to the Department's Vote.
The Minister implied earlier that the competitions would continue and his Department would take over some of the work the former Wool Council were carrying out, such as advice and demonstrations which had been undertaken for the benefit of sheep farmers and those engaged in wool marketing over the years. If the equipment which the Wool Council owned has been disposed of it is difficult to see how the Department intend to continue with that aspect of the work which the Wool Council were previously undertaking. I understand over the years the Wool Council had built up a complete set of equipment for use at sheep shearing competitions throughout the country. I understand the equipment consisted of pens, shearing boards, shearing machines, a tent and equipment for putting on educational exhibits and a van for transporting the materials around the country. The sheep shearing competitions and demonstrations, as we have been saying, were responsible for the very great improvement which has taken place in sheep shearing techniques over the past few years. It seems from what the Minister said that this equipment will no longer be available for that purpose because it has been disposed of. If all that area of advice, demonstration and assistance given to sheep farmers in developing knowledge and techniques in this area cannot continue because the equipment has been disposed of by the Department how can the Minister expect us to accept that this valuable work will continue in the future?
All the people who had an interest in this type of equipment we were talking about were informed prior to the auction of the equipment that it was being sold. I had the pleasure of organising two or three of the All-Ireland sheep shearing competitions and much of the equipment involved had nothing to do with the wool board. The sheep shearing machines were always supplied by manufacturers of such machines.
Did the Wool Council not own sheep shearing machines?
In the All-Ireland competitions I organised a private company supplied them.
We are dealing with section 3 which refers to property which was formerly owned by the Wool Council. I have asked the Minister to tell us what this property consisted of. I am asking him specifically if it included sheep shearing machines.
The wool board owned four obsolete machines. That is all they owned. On the occasion of the All-Ireland sheep shearing finals the machines used were always provided by certain firms interested in that kind of business.
The word "obsolete" puzzles me. Why would the Wool Council own obsolete sheep shearing machines? The Minister is trying to play down the fact that he has already disposed of all the equipment used for demonstrations and holding competitions. This indicates that there is some intention on the part of the Department to drop all that aspect of the work the Wool Council were previously carrying out. In view of the Minister's statement that he was involved in organising some of those competitions I am sure he must have seen some merit in holding them. It attracted the interest of young farmers who had the opportunity to study and learn from the techniques employed by the experts who participated in those competitions. This would have been to the benefit of the wool industry in relation to the assimilation of knowledge and experience. If the property, including the van, has been sold it seems that all the work the Wool Council were doing, which has been praised so lavishly during the course of the debate by the Minister, will no longer continue.
Some aspects of the activities of An Chomhairle were carried out so well over the years that there is no point in extending them or else they have been taken over by somebody else. Some of the responsibilities of An Chomhairle are so important that they have been integrated into the Department.
(Limerick West): Could the Minister indicate who is now carrying out those functions which have not been taken over by the Department?
There was a board made up of various interests which met at regular intervals. Obviously that will not now happen. The wool board had a very close connection with the all-Ireland and county sheep shearing finals but they were organised primarily by Macra na Feirme who decided last year and this year to run those competitions themselves. I understand they were very successful last year and that every effort is being made this year to achieve similar success. Some of the functions carried out by the board in conjunction with another agency will now be carried out by the agency alone if they so wish.
The Minister's Department have withdrawn from all this. It would appear that the only equipment that would be of direct benefit to sheep farmers in improving the quality of their wool has been disposed of by the Department. The Department are pulling back from the whole area of education.
From sheep shearing, yes.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
(Limerick West): Subsection (1) (b) states:
The Minister shall cause to be prepared a report of the proceedings of An Comhairle during the year 1983.
When can we expect this report?
As soon as this legislation is finalised in both Houses the report will be made available and laid before the House.
(Limerick West): Is the Minister talking about a month or two months?
It is hard to give an exact time but I would hope that it would be within a few months.
Would the Minister give details of any claims pending against the Wool Council or the Department?
There is a malicious damages claim for approximately £20,000 against Dublin Corporation in respect of premises formerly occupied by the comhairle at Greenhills Road, Dublin 12. These premises were destroyed by fire in 1981. On the enactment of this Bill the claim will be continued in the name of the Minister rather than An Chomhairle.
Is that the only claim outstanding?
I am unable to relate the exact situation to the House because there is a legal case pending and it is sub judice. It is not for a very large amount but a court case is pending on it.
On what?
In relation to the premises.
In regard to the lease?
That is right.
Would the Minister care to give the House any information?
I am sorry. I cannot.
Is the Minister saying there are no other claims?
There is only one other case in which there are negotiations at present. It is to do with a member of the staff employed by the board who was not a civil servant. Because of the termination of employment he has a claim against the Department and active negotiations are going on. I would hope that they would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
This refers to the wool grader formerly employed by the Wool Council. Is it true that he is suing the Department?
No, that is not correct.
The Minister is very reluctant to tell us anything at all.
These are sensitive matters because negotiations are currently taking place. One would hope that through the efforts of the Department of the Public Service and the Department of Agriculture the claim would be met to the satisfaction of all.
We would hope that the Minister would deal generously with this former employee of the Wool Council who has to suffer the ignominy of redundancy because of a Cabinet decision to abolish the Wool Council. In view of that decision and his lack of guilt in the fate which has befallen him, we would appeal to the Minister to exercise justice and bring the negotiations to a fair and speedy conclusion and to be generous in his settlement to a loyal employee of the board who in no way can be deemed responsible for the redundancy which is now his fate. It is caused by the decision of the Coalition Government to cut back in this area, as in so many other areas, thus contributing to the dreadful tragedy of unemployment. This decision is throwing more people on the unemployment heap.
Every individual suffers an indignity when he is deprived of the opportunity to exercise his skills and ability. When somebody has been loyal to an organisation, particularly a semi-State organisation, it is a matter of great regret that he should not be treated in a just and fair manner. He should be relieved of the trauma and the distress imposed on him by the Department. It is clear this is an area the Department are seeking to bring back under their own wing and it is further evidence of the extension of bureaucracy which is something all of us decry. Whether the loyal people in the Civil Service like it or not, it is the wish of the people that we manage our affairs with a greatly reduced number of public servants and obviously any attempt by the Civil Service to increase their area of influence will lead to a further increase in their numbers. That is not something the country or the economy needs at the moment.
I ask the Minister to take a personal interest in the matter. If any more former members of the staff feel aggrieved at the decision, I ask him to deal with the matter in as humane a way as possible and to bring it to an early conclusion. There is nothing more distressing for any man and his family than to have negotiations of that kind protracted over a long period. When dealing with a large Department such as the Department of Agriculture the individual is a very small and weak person to compete against-that type of establishment. It can be very intimidating. I ask the Minister to exercise his humanity in ensuring that there is a quick solution to this matter.
I share the concern expressed by the Deputy for the individual involved and I can assure him I have been giving my personal attention to the matter. The man in question was excellent at his work and I am delighted to say that he has got employment. However, because of the particular circumstances outlined by Deputy Molloy regarding one man who did not have a job to which he could return, I share the concern of the Deputy. I can assure the House that everything possible that can be done is being done to ensure that this man will leave on a mutually satisfactory basis. I hope that in the near future agreement will be reached on the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
Question, "That the Title be the Title to the Bill" put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question, "That the Bill do now pass" put and agreed to.