(Limerick West): I am appalled that the Minister for Agriculture is not here to present this Bill which will affect the vital interests of agriculture over the next number of years. The advisory services are paramount in relation to future agricultural development. The careless way in which the Minister has treated this Bill leaves a lot to be desired. Where is the Minister for Agriculture this morning? Is this job not important enough for him? It is not good enough for the Minister to be missing and to treat this in such a cavalier fashion. I also draw the attention of the House and the Chair to the lack of Members on the Government benches. This illustrates the light way in which they treat agriculture.
This Bill will push back the cause of agriculture for many years. It proposes an unusual and sinister taxation on farmers and it proposes to negate the powers of the board of ACOT irrespective of what the Minister of State said in his brief speech this morning. The Minister did not outline the fact that in this legislation the Minister has powers not alone to levy and vary charges to farmers, but he also has power to direct ACOT to impose charges irrespective of the decision of the board of ACOT. This Bill contradicts the national plan. It will not produce any worthwhile revenue to the Exchequer as it will cost more to collect the charges than the amount of revenue that will accrue as a result of them. As a result of this Bill the cream of ACOT advisers will leave the public service. The Bill is anti-farmer and reflects the penny pinching short-sighted defeatist attitude of the Government to agriculture. The Bill should not have been introduced here. It is an insult to ACOT, to the farming community and to anyone with the interests of agriculture at heart. Fianna Fáil strongly oppose this Bill and propose that it be refused a Second Reading.
I know the commitment of the Minister of State, Deputy Hegarty, to agriculture so he could not be in favour of this Bill. The Minister of State must be unhappy with the introduction of this Bill and I ask him to use his influence with his colleagues to have it withdrawn. There are many reasons why ACOT services should be provided free of charge. A means test in reverse is what is proposed here. Those who can afford to pay will benefit from ACOT services and those who cannot afford to pay, those who need ACOT most, will be denied the benefit of this State service. This is neither just nor democratic.
Imagine the outcry if it were proposed that those attending AnCO industrial training courses should have to pay. ACOT are the AnCO of the agricultural world and they provide more direct and more meaningful advise and education than AnCO could ever provide. Endless funds are pumped into AnCO year after year. I know we must have the most highly trained industrial workforce in the world, but most of them are without jobs. However, a highly trained workforce is not the Government's motivation for providing AnCO training courses. They are motivated by the fact that every person on an AnCO training course is one less on the dole queue, temporarily at any rate, and this keeps unemployment figures down. Small farmers struggling against the odds at a time of Government cut backs, EC quota restrictions and price freezes do not increase the numbers of unemployed and they are an easy target for this greedy Government.
The charges proposed in this Bill are an unusual and sinister form of taxation on the beleaguered farming community. I know the Minister of State will accept that. Section 1 (3) (a) of the Bill gives the board of ACOT power to charge for their services. However, subsection (3) (b) enables the Minister for Agriculture to vary those charges as he sees fit. Here I wish to contradict the Minister's statement that the Minister for Agriculture can vary or reduce the charges as he so wishes. That is so, but this Bill empowers him also to direct ACOT to increase the charges over and above those recommended by the board of ACOT. In other words, the board of ACOT may, in their wisdom, reach a decision with regard to charges if the Minister so wishes but, by reason of the terms of this Bill, the Minister may then direct ACOT to increase those charges.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. He can hardly set up a board and then direct them as to what they should do. It has been my understanding always that it is the function of the Minister for Finance to levy taxes, yet this Bill empowers the Minister for Agriculture to levy taxes on farmers. I have no doubt that, in line with our experience of this Government in the past three and a half years, there will be an annual increase, an extra budget item specially for farmers. That should go down well with the Minister of State's friends in Dublin 4.
Unfortunately it seems that once again the Minister for Agriculture has allowed his Finance colleague to wipe his eye just as has been happening since the Government took office. The Minister has presided over successive cuts in the State's supports to agriculture, some £200 million to date. In other speeches in the past months I have outlined the areas from which that money has been withdrawn. The Minister comes here this morning and proposes a further burden of taxation on farmers. One must ask whether the Minister for Agriculture is calling the shots in his Department or whether he is merely carrying out the orders of the Department of Finance. The Minister's absence today is noticeable and suggests that I am not far wrong in assuming that he is merely carrying out directions from the Department of Finance.
A few months ago the Minister appointed a new ACOT board. On two occasions since then he has cut drastically the amounts to be allocated to ACOT and now he presents a Bill that will have the net effect of reducing further the board's powers while at the same time reducing their influence and effectiveness. Ultimately the Minister and not the board will decide the level of charges and only an elite group of wealthy farmers will be able to avail of ACOT's services. The Minister's claim that nobody will be denied ACOT services is only wishful thinking because, for the reasons I have outlined, he no longer calls the shots in his Department. It is a sad day for agriculture that the Department are dictated to by the Department of Finance.
A short time ago the report commissioned by the Minister for Agriculture to consider the proposals for the future of ACOT and of AFT was completed. That report should be made available to Members of this House. It is synonomous with this legislation. I trust the Minister will respond to this point when he is replying.
It is deplorable that as spokesman for my party on agriculture I must rely on the newspapers in the matter of finding out what the report contains and how the committee regard the future of ACOT and of AFT. I appeal to the Minister to use his influence to ensure that the report is published so that we may have the benefit of a considered opinion while discussing this Bill.
There are some welcome aspects of the report. I welcome in particular the recognition that both bodies concerned should remain separate and independent. Each has an important and individual role to play in the development of agriculture not only through the eighties but up to the end of the century. I welcome also the call for a higher profile for food processing in a new linkup between AFT and the industry. That move is very much in line with this party's policy on the food industry.
There are some aspects of the report about which I would not be happy. For instance, I am concerned about the recommendation that the role of the chief agricultural officer be dispensed with and that the county committees of agriculture as we knew them when they were worthwhile and comprised democratically elected members are to be downgraded further with the liaison posts between AFT and ACOT being scrapped. This party regard these moves as very backward. For this information I am relying on a report that appeared in The Irish Press of March 24 last.
I welcome the recommendation in the report that ACOT's structures should be decentralised with increased resources deployed throughout the country. That recommendation is in line also with my party's policy. However, an aspect of the report that must cause concern is the cutback mentality that permeates it. This has all the hallmarks of the influence of the Department of Finance. It is unsustainable given the comparatively low level of State investment in research and more particularly the low level of investment in education in the area of agriculture. I am not criticising the cutback mentality. I am merely pointing out that it contrasts sharply with the unchecked millions of pounds spent on the IDA and on youth employment programmes, none of which has the economic potential of the agricultural and food industry. I am making that comparison to show the approach by the Government with regard to the agricultural industry which I think has potential for the future. Therefore, I strongly condemn the negative approach of cutting back on services offered by ACOT and AFT. Both bodies have already been severely and adversely affected by cutbacks of more than £2 million in the recent budget. That budget is very low and inadequate for those bodies. I am annoyed and this party is very upset that this report is not being made available to the Members of this House. I wish to ask the Minister when this will be done so that we can discuss constructively the contents of this Bill.
As I have said, it will only be an elite group of farmers who will now be able to avail of the services of ACOT. The Government's national plan, Building on Reality, suggests that semi-State bodies should be allowed to act without interference from the Government. This Bill blatantly contradicts such a worthy philosophy. That is a disturbing aspect. Building on Reality states:
Farmers who can afford to pay for an advisory service which is tailored to their individual needs will be required to make an appropriate payment for the service.
That is certainly a far cry from this proposed legislation which will require all farmers, whether they can afford it or not, to make payment for services. This Bill, if passed, will place ACOT in the impossible position of being required to implement two conflicting Government directives. Firstly, in accordance with Government policy ACOT's advisory staff are concentrating on developing the middle segment of farmers, a high proportion of whom could not or would not pay for the services and certainly not at this juncture. Secondly, in being required to raise income by charging for their services ACOT will now be compelled to redeploy their resources so as to provide the more commercial and developed farmers with a high quality service capable of commanding fees. That is the contradiction. I will expand on those points by quoting some more from Building on Reality:
The Government believe that efforts to accelerate growth in agricultural output must concentrate on that segment of the farming population which has real development potential. ACOT is, therefore, being asked to concentrate its advisory services on those farmers who have the resources and motivation to achieve such development.
In their proposal for the national plan, the National Planning Board point out:
There is a significant number of farmers who have considerable potential for development that can be realised with the support of an intensive advisory service, which only the State is in a position to provide. It is the existence of this group which justifies the continued involvement of the State in the provision of farm advice.
I have argued adequately the contradiction in this legislation. If proof is really needed the Four Year Plan for Agriculture published in 1984 comes back to this point. It states:
There are some 40,000 to 50,000 farmers in the country who have the potential and the capacity to expand production ... these must be the primary focus of any plan aimed at accelerating growth in agricultural output.
As noted in the Government's national plan:
The re-organisation and restructuring of the advisory services with a new emphasis on client/enterprise advisers organised on a local basis, will provide the best framework within which assistance can be provided to those with the greatest potential.
ACOT are now concentrating on some 70,000 farmers who have been identified as having the potential to develop. About 25,000 are currently receiving planned intensive advisory packages.
A sizeable number of this middle segment of farmers up to recently have not been regular users of advisory services, apart from the various schemes. We all know that. I support this laudable approach by ACOT. At this stage many farmers would almost certainly do without advice if they had to pay for it. This is particularly true of dry stock farmers. The introduction at this point of direct charges for ACOT's intensive advisory service will jeopardise the Government's own stated objective of getting the middle segment of farmers with resources to develop. It will be particularly damaging to the concerted effort currently underway by ACOT to develop the cattle and sheep sectors, in my opinion the major areas of potential growth in the years ahead.
I wish to refer to the development of the cattle and sheep sectors. The sheep sector certainly has potential for growth because it is the only sector where there is under-production within Europe. Here we have a golden opportunity to develop the sheep sector thereby providing a very worthwhile and necessary income for our small farmers. It is mostly small farmers who are involved in sheep rearing. Because of the cutback in the advisory services and the imposition of charges, these farmers are now going to be denied advice by ACOT.
Our beef cow numbers have potential for development. This contradicts the Government's plan, Building on Reality. This year the Government have introduced grants for the increase in beef cow numbers in disadvantaged areas. This is contradictory in so far as if there is going to be an increase in beef cow numbers those farmers are going to need intensive advice and attention. This is necessary in so far as agricultural development, particularly in the beef sector, is concerned. We should develop the value-added aspect of beef. As I have already pointed out time and time again, there is vast potential in that area provided we have a positive approach and the political will of this Government. Irrespective of the lack of a political will or a positive approach, if we do not have the advisory services which are necessary for the development of that sector all our efforts would be wasted. The money being spent on increasing our beef cow herd would be wasted because of the lack of advise and planning.
The introduction of these charges for advisory services run counter to the key role set out for ACOT in the Government's plan. First, in identifying farmers who have the capacity to develop and, second, in encouraging the necessary technical and management adaptations on the basis of individual farm assessments. It will be detrimental, therefore, in relation to the major strides that have been made in the restructuring of the service to provide what the Government plan describes as "the best framework within which assistance can be provided to those with the greatest potential". Ultimately, it could impair the competitive strength of Irish agriculture relative to our major competitors. It is a sobering thought, in view of the widespread disruptions these charges will cause, that they will not yield any significant income to the Exchequer — certainly not enough to make a worthwhile contribution to maintaining the present level of services — nor will such measures result in any significant savings unless the number of farmers serviced and the number of advisory staff are seriously reduced. I would compare those charges with the property tax introduced by this Government for its own selfish reasons——