This Bill is certainly needed. The contribution to the west is reasonably satisfactory. I would point out that this is not the first time the contribution has been raised for the west but there is a reason for that. The rate in the £ in the west is much higher than it is in the rest of the country. The west is, therefore, entitled to a bigger slice of the cake.
The reason why the Bill is necessary now is because last year the Government received on our entry into Europe £30 million which they did not reinvest in agriculture. That was a mistake. It would have been a good reinvestment because a better all-round situation would now prevail in agriculture. Senator McCartin tried to put good face on agriculture despite the appealling conditions which prevail in agriculture. The situation is unparalleled. Certainly my generation have never seen such a depression. That fact must be faced because, if it is not, we are only codding ourselves.
The county committee of agriculture is a very important body. It has always been so. It is a body which distributes information on agricultural matters. There is a great need for that kind of information particularly in the west. The ratepayers are asked to pay, but the ratepayers do not mind paying provided that the net result is an improvement in our agricultural economy and a consequential improvement in incomes. For the remaining part of this year ratepayers, particularly farmers, will find it desperately hard to meet their commitments due to the situation that prevails in agriculture. My county is already at its maximum. Indeed, we are in the "red" so this contribution is absolutely necessary.
County committees of agriculture have always played an important role but they will have to play an even greater role now. They will have to expand. We have always in our committee tried to explain to our farmers exactly what is going on in agriculture. We hold night classes. We hold field days to show why can be done. We have tried to explain what should be done in sheep because we carry one-fifth of all the sheep in the country. Our money, to date, has been well spent.
There is a great deal of respect in our county for the county committee of agriculture and for the officials and staff who work so diligently for an improved agriculture. The same can be said for most committees of agriculture in the west. They have worked very hard in difficult circumstances. The going has been hard but they have succeeded in disseminating a wealth of knowledge. The fact that we have to go to our ratepayers is sad but we must get the money. As I said, some of the EEC money last year could have been reinvested in agriculture. We have lost out from entry into the EEC. Regional policy seems to be at a dead end. Britain, in her typical role of either wanting to command or to break, has adversely affected us by stopping EEC regional policy. Agriculture has lost out. There is need for a big injection of money, particularly for the small farmer for whom the regional policy was really designed. However, the ratepayer is asked to pay, he will pay, but I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that he will find it desperately hard to pay.
The sheep situation is acute at the moment. We all know why. The French market is closed. This is an embarrassment to us. Cattle are in a very bad state also. We see what is happening with milk and one can foresee a situation two or three years hence when we will have a great surplus of milk. The cost of the rising input in milk is about the only salvation at the moment for the farmer because other forms of agriculture are so depressed. I am not blaming the Minister for that but more could and should be done.
I put down a motion in this House concerning the Farm Modernisation Scheme and I remember saying it would be very hard to implement it. It will be even harder now because the calculations made last January or February and sent in to the Minister, as he requested that time, are now hopelessly out of date. Something was obviously slipped across on us. I asked then that the directive be re-negotiated and my arguments then have been borne out. Despite all that has been said in favour of the farm organisation scheme, the onerous task that falls on the agricultural advisers and the small farmers to become viable is too great a burden. Forecasts can be quite crazy and a situation may prevail in six months time that cannot now be foreseen, much less forecast. There is not a Senator who could forecast what the price of cattle will be next October. Neither could he forecast the price of sheep or potatoes next October. Yet, we were asked to make that forecast. It is most unfair. In the prevailing situation the county committees of agriculture should now be asked to review the situation. The Department should also review the situation with regard to the farm modernisation schemes.
The advisory service needs to the strengthened. In my county we need ten new advisers. There are long delays but they cannot help that because they cannot be everywhere at the same time. In a county so thickly populated with small farms the demand on advisers is very great. We are losing out because some avenues of agriculture are neglected owing to the total absorption of the agricultural advisers on farm modernisation. In the past we had field days dealing with sheep, wheat, beet, potatoes, particularly certified seed potatoes. These have been dropped. Why? Because our agricultural advisers simply do not have the time for this very important work.
I have great faith in the Agricultural Institute but they seem to specialise on a narrow aspect of farming and the broad spectrum of agriculture is left in abeyance. The advisory service needs reorganisation and new thinking. It needs a broadening in scope. The ruination of agriculture is that one year a farmer specialises in cattle, the next year in beet, two years later in milk, and two years later he switches all over again. There is no levelling off. Trends here are vastly different from trends in Europe.
It is our duty, and particularly the duty of the Government, to instruct county committees of agriculture which in turn should instruct the farmers in a new positive approach. Chopping and changing has played too big a part in agriculture for the past 50 years. This must cease and, to bring an end to it, it is absolutely necessary to reorganise the whole advisory service.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the staff of the agricultural advisory service now numbers 650 officers. He referred to the new deputy chief agricultural officer who will have responsibility for educational matters. Education is half the battle; if a man is educated he has some chance but, if he is not educated, he has no chance Agricultural education is very important. There are ways and means of achieving that education but the county committees of agriculture have a responsibility where less well-off farmers are concerned who may not be able to get a proper agricultural education. This could be done in a variety of ways. Indeed, some of that £30 million should have been invested in this aspect of agriculture.
One must admire the advisory services for their refusal to implement the farm modernisation scheme. It was not, as has been suggested, a strike. It was a refusal to implement a particular scheme to draw attention to certain existing defects. The Parliamentary Secretary glossed over the situation. He said that there was a considerable expansion in staff. He pointed out they were making a new post of deputy chief agricultural officer. I do not think this post was part of the bargain to put an end to the dispute between the advisory service and the Department. It is not fair to say the Department in their forward-thinking way would have found this solution without the pressure brought to bear by the advisory service.
I read an article in the Official Journal of the EEC which stated that the intensification of store cattle and beef should be furthered and nurtured. The Department should not have allowed a situation to develop in which we are totally dependent on agriculture. Our dependence is much greater than that of any other country in the EEC, with the exception of Italy. We are definitely in "slumpland" where beef is concerned and there does not seem to be any way out. Yet, only 16 months ago, Brussels told us—we accepted it as fact—that we should intensify our beef and store cattle production. The results of that intensification can be seen today. We really must be on our toes to ensure that these situations are not allowed to develop in the future.
Senator Keegan rightly said that it was a public disgrace that the door to the French market for our lamb should be closed in our faces, the windows shut up and we shot out when, in fact, we are a good supporter of French produce. A protest is not good enough. Something positive and concrete should be done to let the French know that we have a greater dependence on agriculture than they have. That should be done and I would certainly lend my support to some way in which both the French and the other members of the EEC could be shown that our dependence on agriculture is very important.
Coming back again to the last paragraph where the Parliamentary Secretary said he could see an advantage in having the statutory upper limit abolished entirely, even though this sounds daring, I do not think it is the answer. He is wise in not doing this. The county committees of agriculture must be protected. The only way they can be protected is by legislation in the two Houses of the Oireachtas. County committees of agriculture all their lives have played an important role and they have an even more important role to play. Therefore, they are entitled to protection from the Houses of the Oireachtas.
We have seen the rise and fall of many organisations which, at the outset, were classified as great agricultural organisations. We have seen them lead and mislead. The one outstanding organisation that has stood all the tests of time has been the county committee of agriculture. I certainly would uphold those committees. It was suggested that there would be an advantage in having the statutory upper limit abolished entirely. I do not agree. This would be losing sight of the principles for which the county committees of agriculture stand.
So, with a half-hearted welcome—I think that is the word—one has to accept this situation, one has to accept this Bill. It does not go far enough. It is not without mistakes. Enough is not being done in agriculture and, in particular, in this field of agriculture. A reorganisation of the advisory services should be looked into immediately. The scope of the county committees of agriculture should be investigated. It should be broadened. They should be given a far more important role. Definitely, a greater slice of the national cake should be given to the county committees of agriculture. The ratepayer is now certainly being asked to pay. These committees have a great job to do and they need money to do it. This money should be forthcoming willingly from the Government of the day.