Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak in this important debate and I welcome the Minister back to the House. I was disappointed by some of the off-the-cuff remarks about the Minister's predecessors made by a number of Fianna Fáil Party speakers. As Senators from all sides of the House have stated in various debates on agriculture during the past 12 months to two years, since our entry into the European Economic Community in 1973, stretching back to the first Minister for Agriculture to negotiate at EEC level, the late Mark Clinton, our farmers and agricultural sector have been superbly represented in Brussels and every Minister for Agriculture has obtained every possible pound, shilling and penny from Community funds. The current Minister, too, has always done his best, including in the current reform project. It is petty to accuse previous Ministers of failing to do certain things. Agriculture, alone among the various sectors of industry, has been superbly well served during the past 30 years in Brussels.

This debate should be the first phase of a wider debate on the future of agriculture and farming. The question we need to pose is whether agriculture is an industry or a way of life. When one talks about agriculture being a way of life, one can be accused of being a hopeless romantic in that one is talking about what has been and gone. Things can never be the same as they were 40 or 50 years ago. If we continue to choose to regard agriculture as no more than an industry and no longer a way of life in rural areas, we will, unfortunately, arrive at a position in which our townlands will have a single farmer instead of being home to a number of farmers.

Although we are debating the detail of the European Union proposals and trying to set in stone a policy which will attract money to agriculture in the coming years, we will also need to debate the future of farming. We have not had an in-depth debate on agriculture for almost a generation. Politicians, particularly those who represent rural constituencies, must ask how many farmers we want to have in ten to 20 years. We must set a figure and try to gear our domestic agricultural policies towards ensuring that this number of farming families can be sustained in our rural areas. While I accept this will be a major challenge for the Minister and his officials, it must be done. Unless we can set out a route map, the trends of the past 20 years will continue with the number of farming families continuing to decline sharply until we are left with one farmer, rather than several farmers, in each townland, which would be a sad development.

One of the interesting aspects of the debate on decoupling was that our farmers were well ahead of the farming organisations and, I concede, the politicians. We wondered how the ball would roll and what way we should hop, whereas farmers quickly made up their minds. From day one, the vast bulk of farmers with whom I spoke favoured any change that would eliminate bureaucracy and red tape and try to simplify a complicated system. It was surprising that it took some of the farming organisations some time to catch up. We are, I hope, now singing from the same hymn sheet and the general policies contained in the Minister's proposals are broadly welcomed.

A number of fundamental questions still need to be answered. The Minister informed the House that Senators' clinics will be slack on Saturdays from now on. During the next 12 months, however, we will receive a large number of queries from farmers who are retiring or who have leased their land, all of which will need to be answered. The booklet we received from the Department two or three weeks ago was helpful and while I accept that it is not yet in a position to answer all questions because they have not been answered in Brussels, I look forward to the loose ends being tied up in order that we will be able to provide specific answers to specific queries.