Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Jun 1967

Vol. 228 No. 15

Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1967: Second Stage.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Blaney)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

It is a very simple Bill. Its purpose is to preserve what has been the normal practice relating to the composition of county committees of agriculture.

The members of the committee of agriculture in each county are appointed by the county council in every local election year. Since the enactment of the Agriculture Act, 1931, the rule which applied to all such appointments was that every committee of agriculture must be composed, at the discretion of the council, either wholly of persons who are members of the council or partly of persons who are, and partly of persons who are not, members of the council. In 1964, when the Agriculture (Amendment) Act was passed, dealing with a number of matters affecting committees of agriculture, it was thought well to provide that it should be mandatory on the county councils to go outside their own ranks for at least 50 per cent of the membership of committees of agriculture. There have, of course, been no local elections since the 1964 Act was passed, so that this particular provision has not actually come into operation.

On further consideration of the whole matter, it has been represented that the provision is too rigid and restrictive. This is the view of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture, which represents all the committees of agriculture. The County Councils' General Council, and individual committees of agriculture and county councils have also expressed similar views. It is pointed out that the large majority of county councillors are of farming stock, are well conversant with the problems of the farming community, and are vitally interested in promoting its welfare. County councillors, too, being the elected local representatives of the people have usually a keen sense of their duties and responsibilities in the service of the people—mostly the farming community in the rural areas. I believe that there is force in these representations. While a number of county councils do, in fact, appoint a good few non-councillors on committees of agriculture, I am satisfied that it would not be desirable to oblige all the councils to fit into a rigid pattern— at the risk of depriving able men and women willing and anxious to serve on both bodies the opportunity of acting on the committees of agriculture. Taking everything into consideration, my view is that the long established and democratic system, which leaves the discretion in this matter to each county council in its own area, is the one calculated to be of best advantage all round. I believe that the county committees of agriculture as at present constituted are doing good and constructive work which benefits the whole farming community and that tinkering with their membership will not increase their effectiveness and might well lessen it.

I propose, therefore, by means of the Bill that the amending provision in the 1964 Act—which as I have said has not in the meantime actually become operative—requiring 50 per cent of the members of committees of agriculture to be non-councillors be rescinded; and that the position which allows the county councils to decide for themselves in this matter of the appointment of outsiders on committees of agriculture be retained.

I commend the Bill to the house.

Mr. Clinton

I rise to oppose this Bill. I do so for a number of reasons which I believe to be sound and which I now propose to put forward. As the Minister says, prior to the passing of the 1964 Act, the position was that the county councils elected all the members of county committees of agriculture. They were free, under that legislation, to elect as many people as they liked outside the county council, people who were not members. Now, I think it is right to say that the 1931 legislation was not precise in so far as it did not state the number of members who were to be council members and the number who were to be non-council members. In practice, I think this varied very widely all over the country. There were quite a number of councils that appointed no outside members and retained the entire membership for members of the county council. In other cases, some members were appointed. I have had the experience myself of failing to get elected to the county committee of agriculture—the then chairman of the largest organised group of farmers in the county. On another occasion. I failed to get the President of the Hereford Breeders Association elected on the committee of agriculture. It might be no harm to mention that it was well known that this man was not a Fine Gael supporter. However, I am indicating this to show exactly what has been happening over the years.

In 1964, Deputy Smith, the then Minister for Agriculture, who had long experience both as Minister for Agriculture and as Minister for Local Government, decided to have regard to the change that was taking place generally in agriculture and to give this change some chance of showing itself by ensuring that people who had a real contribution to make to agriculture would get an opportunity of bringing the benefit of their experience and their knowledge of agriculture generally to county committees of agriculture. A large proportion of county councils are, in fact, farmers, and quite experienced farmers who have a lot to contribute, but I think we must recognise that there are many people who make a considerable contribution to the advancement of Irish agriculture who would not stand for election to the county council and who, at the same time, would be in a position to make a valuable contribution to the work of county committees of agriculture and agriculture generally.

Deputy Smith decided to bring in this legislation, having consulted the various parties concerned and having, at that time, consulted the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. He told this House he had got general support for his decision in making it mandatory on the county councils to provide 50 per cent of the places for people who were non-members. That Bill, at that time, received the unanimous support of every Party in this House. It was introduced in 1964 and it was intended that it should come into force in the 1965 elections which, as we all know, were postponed for reasons that have been discussed here and elsewhere. They were postponed again in 1966.

In the meantime, Deputy Smith resigned his position as Minister for Agriculture. His place was taken by Deputy Haughey who also gave this measure his support and was prepared to give it a trial. We now have the extraordinary position that a third Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture is coming in to throw this out before it gets a trial. It is worth recalling to the House what Deputy Smith had to say about this legislation at the time and, as well, what Deputy James Tully of the Labour Party had to say about it. It is unnecessary for me to quote Deputy Donegan, who supported it as well.

As reported at column 887 of the Official Report of 9th June, 1964, volume 210, Deputy Smith said in support, in connection with this particular section of the Bill:

There have been considerable changes in recent times, notably in the emergence of new voluntary rural organisations, the extension of the co-operative movement, the growth of the educational and advisory services and the development of new techniques and ideas generally. There can hardly be any doubt that committees of agriculture would benefit from some members drawn from the voluntary rural organisations and the co-operative movement or from among prominent local individuals who for one reason or another do not wish to stand for election to the county council.

I believe that the time has come to re-shape our legislation so that persons, who are not members of county councils but who are playing a leading part in the improvement of our agriculture, and in raising our rural living standards, will have a greater opportunity to participate in the membership of committees of agriculture. I feel sure that the change now proposed will bring to committees a new source of inspiration and strength and that it will lead to a more general acceptance of the educational and advisory services by the rural community.

It is not necessary to continue reading what Deputy Smith had to say in support of this change. I have said sufficient, I think, to indicate his reasons for bringing in this legislation and for giving it his full support.

I think I have said that the various people in the House and the various Parties in the House gave it their full support. The only regret that was expressed at that time was that it was not sufficiently specific to ensure that these non-members, when being appointed, would definitely be people who had a close association with agriculture and who had a contribution to make and would not, in fact, still be selected on a Party political basis. That was the only regret expressed and that was a general regret. Even the Minister for Agriculture at the time expressed the same regret but he did not see how it was possible to tighten it up any more without perhaps depriving some people, who would have a contribution to make and who would have a considerable knowledge of farming and farming practice, of the opportunity of appointment.

As reported at column 891 of the Official Report of the same day—9th June, 1964—Deputy James Tully spoke about the first part of the Bill and then, when he came to this part of it, had this to say:

The second matter is somewhat more complicated. In most sensible county councils, and I include the one in my own county in the number, politics crop up only once in the year. That is on the day the chairman, vice-chairman and the committees are elected. After an election, when certain committees are being appointed, the vocational committee, the agricultural committee, and so on, we have politics right along the way. When I heard this Bill was being introduced, I thought the Minister would have gone a long way further on this line. I have not discussed the matter with Deputy Donegan but I think there is a great deal of sense in what he has said.

It is really too bad that people who do not know anything about agriculture should find their way on to these committees, simply because they are members of a political Party and must be given some kind of position, either because they have been defeated for election to the county council or they have topped the church gate collection. They must get recognition and the recognition is membership of a committee. Now, that is wrong and I shall be very glad to support the Minister if he devises some other system of appointment.

It will be seen from what happened in 1964 that this measure was welcomed by all the Parties and they gave good and sound reasons for supporting it. The Minister has come in this morning and given no reason whatever why he has changed his mind in the meantime. What has happened to bring about this change? We have had further development in agricultural organisation and, in fact, generally outside politics, and it would be a great mistake on the part of the Minister to insist now that this piece of legislation, which I believe was well-intentioned and would have its effect, be thrown out before it gets a trial.

In considering this whole matter, we should ask ourselves what is the work of committees of agriculture and who are the people most generally useful on such committees. We all know that the main function of committees of agriculture is in regard to the agricultural advisory services. More and more in the future the most important work of the advisory services will be drawing up planned programmes of production on individual farms. That will require a great deal of co-operation from the farming organisations and it would be of great assistance to us if we were assured that a large proportion of the members would not only be progressive farmers but, better still, if they were members of farming organisations. This would naturally give them a wider appreciation of the needs of agriculture in any particular area.

I know that County Dublin is an exception in so far as there are only a few people on the county council who have any association with farming. We have the job of providing the committee with a county committee of agriculture. There is an immense amount of important work to be done in the county and in fact a great deal of important work has been done. We have the situation that out of the total membership there are only a few people having any connection with agriculture. We have politics entering into it to the extent I have already described. It is not just possible, as long as it is not mandatory on the county council, to eliminate politics. We have a few members outside, but only a few. We should all be anxious not only to include among the members prominent farmers who belong to farming organisations or men, or women for that matter, who have shown that in their own right they have a real contribution to make. It is too bad if we do not ensure that such people are appointed. There is also a definite place on these agricultural committees for farm labourers. This is something that has been left out of the picture and it should not be left out because the livelihood of many farm workers is involved and their future depends on the prosperity of agriculture.

This is a retrograde step and I would appeal to the Minister not to go ahead with it. Certainly, if he does, we on these benches will oppose it. He has failed absolutely to make a case for the change he proposes. An excellent case was made for it in 1964 when it was introduced and no change has taken place except a change that might indeed warrant its retention, and indeed its strengthening, to ensure that there will be no mistake about the type of persons who would be appointed afterwards, that they would not be appointed on a Party political basis. I do not mind people being political as long as they have the knowledge required to promote and encourage the work of county committees of agriculture. As Deputy Tully said on that occasion, politics enter into it perhaps once in the lifetime of the committee and then very rarely afterwards. That has been my experience.

Mr. Corish

Unless there is a resolution condemning the then Minister for Agriculture, or something like that.

Mr. Clinton

If the Minister for Agriculture cannot take that——

Mr. Corish

It is a question of the row that goes on in the county committee of agriculture.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister for Agriculture is usually tough enough to take resolutions of that kind in his stride. On such occasions you do have a line-up, but this sort of thing has no effect on the work of committees. However, the knowledge and experience which members have, the contribution they can make to the organisation, control and advancement of the work of the advisory services, is of great importance. If the members are not knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the work of the advisory officers, it is difficult to expect results from the advisory officers. Frequently we have noticed the feeling that is abroad that these committees of agriculture are purely political. I do not agree that that view is correct, but it is there and what we should be doing is endeavouring to eliminate that sort of view and produce evidence to show that we are there to ensure that the people who act on these committees know what they are doing, that they are progressive farmers and have a contribution to make. As I said, I consider that farm labourers should also be included in the membership of these committees and in addition many schoolteachers have an important contribution to make. They have also an important function to play in bringing to the knowledge of their pupils the work the advisory officers are doing. There are many other people who could well act on these committees, such as the local bank manager.

This definition is perhaps a little too conservative in so far as it excludes people of that sort who have a considerable contribution to bring to the work of these committees and who should be included. While the qualifications of people eligible for these committees are quite precise, no case has ever come up of a person being disqualified. In the 1931 Act, it is stated, and this still obtains, that no person shall be appointed to be a member of any agricultural committee unless he has a practical commercial or technical knowledge of land, or has an estate or interest in some agricultural land in the county or has special local knowledge of agricultural matters. The last one is the hard one to define, special local knowledge of agricultural matters. He does not need to be a farmer, as we know, to have such knowledge. Perhaps that allows people in and I think it should be retained but we should make it mandatory. We should give this legislation that was brought in and considered to be good legislation not only by the then Minister for Agriculture and his successor but by all the Members of the House in 1964 a chance to operate. I appeal to the Minister to withdraw this Bill at present.

Mr. Corish

Deputy Clinton has quoted Deputy Tully very extensively and while I respect the views of Deputy Tully and also those of Deputy Clinton, I think none of us can afford to be positive in regard to this proposal. If we are to arrive at the type of representation on committees of agriculture that Deputy Clinton advocates, we would have to recast the whole system of local government. Members of my Party, as individuals, may have their own views because, again, I do not think this need be a political issue in the House but I favour the proposal made now by the Minister. As long as our local government system remains as it is and as long as the councillors are elected in the present manner, I believe they themselves should have power to decide what will be the composition of the various subsidiary committees. I do not say this of Deputy Clinton exclusively but I believe that there is an impression or a view held in the country that local public representatives such as those now putting themselves forward have something wrong with them, that they are somewhat subnormal and that even in respect of the committee of agriculture, we should supplement the committee with people who have expert knowledge of this, that and the other thing.

The original proposal in 1964 was that 50 per cent should be co-opted from outside and that only 50 per cent of the representatives could be members of the county council. There is room for experts in agriculture as there is in vocational education or in library committees but nobody has made a move to ensure we shall have experts on the vocational education committees or the library committees, the harbour boards or any other subsidiary bodies, health committees, mental hospital committees and so on. The Minister has rightly said that quite a number of people representative of the agricultural industry present themselves for election. I do not think there should be special places set aside, so to speak, for those whom people say have special knowledge of agriculture. I am not talking about any of the voluntary associations. There is no easy way, and there should not be, to public representation and the few thousand people offering themselves now for election on 28th June in my view, so far as local government is concerned, should decide matters such as are being discussed here today. If these people are experts in agriculture, in vocational education, in health or something else why do they not be good citizens and present themselves for election?

The proposal is 50 per cent but what is sacred about 50 per cent? Why not 40 per cent, 25 per cent or 60 per cent? I do not think the Minister should decide on the percentage of outsiders. At present in County Wexford, County Kilkenny, County Leitrim and County Roscommon they decide themselves what extra help is needed from those who are not councillors and who might be regarded as experts. As far as I can gather, these experts or specialists in agriculture who are co-opted to county committees of agriculture in many cases are inclined to look down on the "yahoos of public representatives", particularly those from town areas. I do not agree that county councillors who are elected from town areas should be debarred, as was suggested on one occasion, from county committees of agriculture. These are councillors who were elected to represent the people and who are concerned about the rates, about expenditure, about income and all the various facets of their county council in their own functional area. They are also concerned with how money is spent on agriculture, whether the advisory services are good, bad or indifferent.

It does not necessarily follow that because they are from an urban area they would not be able to take an intelligent interest in agricultural advisory services. If that were the case we should have violently objected— I do not say I am an expert in criticism in this respect—to Deputy Haughey becoming Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. He is reputed to know a lot about horses and I am sure he does, and about hens, but he has never been regarded as a farmer in an extensive way. I do not know much about the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. I know only that he comes from what would be regarded as an agricultural county and, as far as I know, he is not an extensive farmer. I do not know if he has ever been on the land himself to the extent of taking a reins in his hands to plough. I did that myself but I do not consider myself a farmer: I did it for a pastime. I do not think a Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries should be condemned because he is not an active farmer. Neither can we say the representatives on the committees of agriculture should be condemned because they come from urban areas. So long as they have the courage and good citizenship to present themselves for election they are entitled to be represented on any subsidiary bodies of the county council.

I know only my own county and I know there is adequate room for those who are not county councillors. These selections are being made, as they would be under either of these two proposals, on a political basis. The proposal of the former Minister, Deputy Smith, would not ensure that the representation which Deputy Clinton says might be on these committees of agriculture would, in fact, be there because, with 50 per cent, you would have Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party trying to get their own men on. We should be completely honest about this and admit that as far as all these appointments are concerned, chairman, vice-chairman, rate collectors and so on, the county councillors behave in a political manner and if 50 per cent were to be selected they would still behave like that.

Apropos of what Deputy Clinton said, there was a member of my Party who was a member of Dublin County Council and who is now its chairman, Paddy Murphy. He has taken a tremendous interest in agriculture and did a tremendous amount of work on the county committee of agriculture in County Dublin. He was somewhat ignored and perhaps put off the committee——

Mr. Clinton

Never.

Mr. Corish

I withdraw that. He was responsible for a particular undertaking——

Mr. Clinton

No, he was not.

Mr. Corish

It is a matter of your view against mine.

Mr. Clinton

He did his share of work.

Mr. Corish

More than his share. In any case, I do not see any particular case for reserving on the county committees of agriculture seats for those whom people say have expert knowledge of agriculture because, as I said at the outset, if this were to be brought to its logical conclusion, we should do the same thing in regard to vocational education committees, library committees, health and mental hospital committees and so on, that is, try to ensure that experts in these fields would be members of these committees. I support the Bill which in effect retains the status quo. As I said at the beginning, those who present themselves for election, who have the guts and the courage to do so, should not be deprived of membership of the subsidiary bodies.

Mr. Gilbride

As a member of a county committee of agriculture since they were started, I support this Bill. I do so because our county committee of agriculture in Sligo, which is dominated by Fine Gael, opposed this decision and passed a resolution to that effect. Therefore, I am amazed at some of the things said here today. I am in complete agreement with Deputy Corish who said that anyone who has not the courage to go forward for election is not entitled to be a member of any committee. That may be a wild statement but I believe in it.

Let us examine what happens at the appointment of these committees. Some years ago Sligo committee appointed some men, men who had been turned down by the people. The same thing would happen again if this 50 per cent became effective. The men going up for election as representing whatever Party was in power would be offered the 50 per cent and there would be no word about whether they knew anything about farming or not.

I have long experience and this has been my experience. I am old enough to remember as a small boy the jubilation in this country when the people got the system of local government into their own hands and when the jury system was done away with. We have all read of the Grand Jury system. They were the landed gentry who ran the affairs of this country in their day and the ordinary people had very little say. In my opinion, this was an attempt to go back to that system and to deny the rights of the people who were elected by the people to manage the affairs of the county committees of agriculture. Again, I am completely in agreement with Deputy Corish when he says that anyone who has not the guts to go forward for election is not entitled to representation on those committees.

Mr. Corish

In case there is any misunderstanding, I said he is not automatically entitled.

Mr. Gilbride

He should not be automatically entitled. I would suggest to the Minister, or anyone else, that if he wants these county committees to be controlled completely by agriculture this can be done but I do not agree with it. I agree with Deputy Corish that the men in towns who take a keen interest in agriculture and who get votes from farmers are as much entitled to sit on committes of agriculture as anyone else because they are voted there by the people of the town and of the county. The farmers who go up for election get votes in the town as well. Anyone who has not the courage to go forward and face the people on 28th June should not be on those committees. Let them go forward for election on that date and if the people elect them, well and good.

I do not believe those people have any God-given right, any more than anybody else, to be elected to these committees. The public representatives are elected by the people but there are often slurs thrown on them. They always work for the people but slurs are thrown at them.

Mr. Crotty

The Deputy is not innocent.

Mr. Gilbride

There is no one innocent on that score. I have been in politics for close on 50 years and I find that we are responsible for that kind of opinion around the country. Again, I wish to say that I am in complete agreement with this Bill. Let anyone who wants to change this say so.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): What about the 11 Members of the Seanad?

Mr. Gilbride

They are elected.

Mr. Carty

You were all for upholding the Constitution earlier.

Mr. Clinton

You changed this in 1964. Why did you not say this then?

Mr. Reynolds

Anybody listening to some of the speeches here this morning would be inclined to ask, as Deputy Clinton asked, why was this not said in 1964.

Mr. Carty

In 1931.

Mr. Clinton

In 1964.

Mr. Carty

In 1931 you brought in a Bill.

Mr. Reynolds

You brought in a Bill in 1964. It was brought in by Deputy Smith, a former Minister for Agriculture. The reason you are amending it now is that you do not want to give the NFA any representation on these committees.

Mr. Davern

You are as much offside as ever.

Mr. Reynolds

I am not.

Mr. Davern

You are. That is what it amounts to.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Reynolds is entitled to speak without interruption on the matter before the House. He should be allowed to speak.

Mr. Clinton

Deputy Carty does not know what we are going to do.

Mr. Carty

I do.

Mr. Reynolds

They are now changing their minds. One Minister for Agriculture brought in a Bill in 1964 and it was he who said that there should be 50 per cent outside representation. Another Minister comes in this morning and says we should keep our representation inside, and confine it to our elected representatives.

Mr. Carty

That is not what he said.

An Ceann Comhairle

Why must Deputy Reynolds be interrupted on every occasion? He should be allowed to speak without interruption. Other Deputies will have a chance to speak later.

Mr. Reynolds

We know that on committees of agriculture there are no outside members.

Mr. Carty

There are in Galway and Roscommon.

Mr. Reynolds

I am not talking about Galway or Roscommon. I want to make the case as I see it in my own constituency. I am reporting this matter as I see it, and if Deputy Carty does not like that, I cannot help it. Quite recently we had the National Agricultural Council formed and outside rep-representation on vocational committees, on library committees and on old age pensions committees. Therefore, why deprive the farming community of representation on the committees of agriculture? Is that not exactly what this means?

Mr. Carty

No.

Mr. Reynolds

There are only seats for roughly about 75 per cent of the members and they are all anxious to get on to the various committees. They all get on to the agricultural committees. There is no point in the Minister telling us he got a recommendation from the General Council of County Councils, from the General Council of Committees of Agriculture or from the committees of agriculture themselves because these are members of the county council and would be anxious to hold seats for themselves.

Mr. S. Collins

Is this not really stupid and unnecessary legislation?

Mr. Reynolds

That is the situation. If the local elections had taken place when they should have in 1965, this Bill would not have been in existence and was outside representation not given? If the elections had taken place last year, this Bill would not have been in existence. There was only the Act and there was then no word of amending it. There was no word of amending it until the recent activity of the NFA. The Minister said—I quote from yesterday's Irish Independent:

It would be a great relief to all, even at this stage, if the NFA "abandoned their current tactics and decided to work constructively with other organisations and with the Government." There was no need to tell the NFA how they might do that, and if they did they would be welcome to their two seats on the NAC.

Surely if the Minister, or the Fianna Fáil Party, are sincere about getting co-operation, even without outside representation, this is not the ideal time to amend the Act? It is being done for the sole purpose of carrying this fight a bit further. It has been carried far enough and Deputies on all sides of the House are fed up with it. I suggest to the Minister that he should compromise and give at least 25 per cent representation to outside sections of the community. We have other organisations who are anxious to get representation, and who have no hope of getting it, such as the Irish Countrywomen's Association, Muintir na Tíre and others.

Mr. Corish

And the Federation of Rural Workers. You would have 100 per cent if they were all represented.

Mr. Reynolds

At least they would be getting an opportunity of acting——

Mr. Corish

The House can decide that.

Mr. Reynolds

The House decided in 1964. Why change it now? Why not leave it there? I suggest to the Minister that he should withdraw this Bill.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Carty)

It is very convenient for the Fine Gael Party to make the occasion of this Bill a Fine Gael platform, seeing that they have so many policies—one for by-elections, one for general elections and one for Presidential elections. Now they have no ready-made policy so they found the NFA a convenient platform which would help them to give the Government a wallop. All their other policies failed signally when they were tried out in different parts of the country. I was greatly surprised to hear Deputy Reynolds denigrating county councillors in Leitrim and in Roscommon because of the fact, he says, they denied representation to outside bodies on their county committees of agriculture. It has often been cast up to Galway County Council that we deprived the Opposition members of representation, which was untrue, and that we certainly gave no outside representation to organisations other than the elected members, which also is untrue. We have representation of farming organisations that I know of and, indeed, the agricultural colleges are represented on those committees.

Mr. Reynolds

Why did you change your mind between 1964 and now?

Mr. Carty

These county council candidates offered themselves for election; they faced the public in a free vote; the public picked them and in many cases, if they are not directly members of the farming community, they represent the farming community, having been elected by them. In fact, in rural Ireland in any of the counties west of the Shannon, and I presume the same goes for most county councils, most of the councillors have a knowledge of agriculture, theoretically, anyway, if not factually. They are entitled to serve on the county committees of agriculture. Why should they not, if they are elected by the people? Having regard to the manner by which they are chosen these are no back-door elections, which cannot be said for other organisations of whose methods we know quite a lot and whose methods of election we do not approve; in any case they are not the essence of democracy.

Mr. Clinton

What are those organisations?

Mr. Carty

The Deputy should know them; he is very good at picking them. I am an elected member of a local authority for over 25 years, since 1942, and a member of a county council for many years and I think I am familiar with local affairs. While I am not a farmer, I meet enough of the farming community to know about their problems and the things they are looking for and the objective they have in mind, which is an improved standard of living. All of us, whether farmers or teachers, or whatever the profession a councillor may have, do our best for the farming community and we are no fools, as some of the speakers on the opposite benches would like us to believe. Any man who offers himself for election and succeeds in getting chosen is no fool, despite the fact that a reverend gentleman on the Late, Late Show the other night would have us all believe that we have no democracy in this country. Our system is democratic, which cannot be said for the systems whereby many organisations elect their officers.

Mr. Collins

I am sure nobody described the Deputy as a fool.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): To what offices is the Deputy referring?

Mr. Carty

I know the Deputy is not a fool: he is a smart man. He is a member of a local authority who attended municipal conferences years and years ago and nobody needs to put words into his mouth.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Deputy would qualify for the programme “What are they talking about”.

Mr. Clinton

He is a very gracious fellow.

Mr. Carty

This system was changed by the 1964 Act. Deputy Clinton has said that we had no local elections since and no opportunity of electing county council representatives. We have had elections every time we needed them.

Mr. Collins

You had no elections; you are a bit slow.

Mr. Carty

Hope springs eternal in the human breast. I now commend this Bill, and we in the Fianna Fáil Party think it right and proper that the county council should have the right to pick the county committees of agriculture and if their knowledge and experience merit places on these committees for outsiders they should not be denied them.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): This Bill is introduced to amend the Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1964. Between 1931 and 1964, it was open to county councillors to elect to committees of agriculture either members or non-members of the county council. That was the position from 1931 until 1964. After the experience of 33 years, it was apparently thought advisable to change that procedure and to make it obligatory on county councils in a democratic way to elect at least 50 per cent of the members of a committee of agriculture who were not county councillors. The law was changed in 1964 by what was virtually an agreed measure. The Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1964, introduced here by Deputy Smith, went through the Oireachtas as a virtually agreed measure. There may have been discussion on whether the percentage should have been 25 per cent or 50 per cent and there were discussions as to whether rural organisations, or agricultural organisations, should have the right to nominate directly on to committees of agriculture, but, by and large, it was an agreed measure.

Therefore, it surprises me very much to hear Deputy Gilbride and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach speaking so strongly in favour of this Bill, and denouncing so strongly the Act of 1964 which their Party sponsored and their Minister piloted through this House. What has happened in the meantime, because the method which they advocated so strongly in 1964 has never been given a chance? It has had no chance of working. I can only think there has been some sinister intervention between 1964 and 1967 to prompt the present Minister for Local Government to repeal the measure which he and his Party favoured so much in 1964.

Of course, there is nothing undemocratic about conferring on county councils the right to appoint non-county councillors to committees of agriculture. There is nothing undemocratic about that at all because, if there is, there is certainly something very undemocratic by conferring on the Taoiseach the right, by a stroke of his pen, to put 11 Members into Seanad Eireann. Surely if it is wrong to elect non-county councillors to these committees, other than by what is strictly a democratic process, it is equally wrong to confer on the Taoiseach the right to elect 11 Members of what is the Upper House.

It can be said in favour of Deputy Smith, when he introduced the Bill in 1964, that at least he made a case for it. The Minister said here this morning:

I believe that the county committees of agriculture as at present constituted are doing good and constructive work which benefits the whole farming community and that tinkering with their membership will not increase their effectiveness and might well lessen it.

Deputy Smith in 1964 said in the Seanad, on this measure, in volume 57, No. 16, column 1368 of the Seanad Debates:

I think I can say to the Seanad that I did not look at this matter with any hostility towards elected representatives of members of Parties in local bodies. I did have in mind one thing, and I believe many people had it in mind in common with me. County committees of agriculture, in the main, did not seem to be serving the purpose they were intended to serve as well as one would like them to. They did not appear to have the confidence of the people, the degree of confidence they would require to be successful in their work. I am not saying all this lack of confidence was justified but it is true to say that it existed.

That was what Deputy Smith had to say when recommending a change in the law to the Seanad in 1964.

There were differences, and there was a division as to the percentage of non-councillors and as to the method of recruiting them, but there was general agreement that there was a necessity for the Bill. Yet the Minister has said this morning that the county committees of agriculture were against the change in the law effected in 1964 That is not quite correct. According to Deputy Smith, the then Minister for Agriculture, the county committees of agriculture were prepared to go some way with a change in the law, as brought about by the Act of 1964, because, in the same volume, at column 1371, Deputy Smith had this to say:

I must admit that they——

They being the General Council of Committees of Agriculture——

——were reasonable up to the point that they would go as far as 25 per cent.

They were prepared to agree with the Minister that 25 per cent of the members of committees of agriculture should be non-councillors.

Again, when Deputy Smith was introducing the measure in 1964, the Agriculture (Amendment) Bill of that year, he was very anxious that rural organisations, voluntary organisations, should have representation on committees of agriculture and the only thing that prevented him from giving direct representation was the difficulty in appointing them because speaking at columns 1381 and 1382 of the same volume, he said:

I know in certain counties, when fairly outstanding leaders of the NFA, or some other rural organisation, were mentioned, they have been co-opted to county committees of agriculture.

The better the organisations are organised in the districts, the more likely they are to make themselves felt with the county councils in securing representation. If they have not the standard of organisation, it is their fault. They have often claimed to me to have, and I am now going to put them to the test and say: "You can get 50 per cent one way or another. It is for you to go after public men and to ensure that you will".

That was Deputy Smith, as Minister for Agriculture, speaking of the NFA in 1964: Get after public men and see that you get 50 per cent representation on county committees of agriculture. I want to know what has brought about the change?

Deputy Smith, again speaking as Minister for Agriculture, said at columns 1355 and 1356 of the same volume:

While I am suggesting the rural organisations and the co-operative movement as a likely source of suitable members for committees of agriculture, I have not found it practicable to provide in this Bill for giving them direct representation, although I have given a great deal of thought to the matter. In view of the large number of rural organisations in the country, the varying strength of these organisations from one county to another, and the varying number of members on individual committees, I do not think that a statutory formula could be worked out which could be applied equitably to all counties. I hope, however, that county councils will keep the rural organisations and the co-operative movement in mind when choosing members for committees, and that this broadening of membership will lead to a more general acceptance of the agricultural advisory services throughout the country.

The then Minister had decided that 50 per cent of each committee of agriculture would be non-county councillors and he advised the county councils to select them from rural organisations. As I say, there was a difference when the Bill was going through the Houses of the Oireachtas as to the percentage of non-council members and as to the method of selecting them. There was even a division on it but there was general agreement in principle. That was the case made by the Government three years ago in support of section 2 of the Act which they now wish to repeal, without ever allowing it to come into force.

The local elections were due in 1965 and they did not propose to repeal it then. They were due again in 1966 and there was no talk of repealing it then. I want the Minister to say what has brought about the change, what has brought about the new thinking. As I have said, the General Council of Committees of Agriculture agreed to a change in 1964 but differed only on percentage. They agreed, according to the Minister's predecessor, to 25 per cent non-elected members while the Minister's predecessor insisted on 50 per cent. It was only a matter of degree. That is very important.

The strongest case that can be made in favour of having non-councillor members of committees of agriculture is that you are likely to get onto these committees highly qualified and experienced people in the field of agriculture whom otherwise you will not get. There are many well qualified, experienced farmers, farmers specialising in various fields, who are not prepared to stand for election. Indeed I would go further and say that if they stood for election, they would not get elected. Nevertheless they have a valuable contribution to make to these committees and I think it a pity that they are not given a chance of getting on such committees under the Act of 1964. I know that when some people such as I speak of become members of committees of agriculture they do not adopt a Party line. They adopt a constructive line. They put forward suggestions which they think, from their experience, will benefit the agricultural industry and when matters of a strictly Party nature come up, they take no part.

I repeat that when this measure went through the Oireachtas in 1964, it was for all practical purposes, an agreed measure. It was agreed without question in this House; it was agreed in principle in the Seanad without any division on the Second Stage. I am fully aware of the fact that in the Seanad there was a discussion on Committee Stage, that some members of the Seanad thought that a register of rural organisations should be compiled and that membership of one of these voluntary rural organisations would be a necessary qualification for nomination as a non-councillor member. The Minister for Agriculture did not agree with that because he said it would be impossible to compile a register or to define qualifications. I am quite well aware that there was a division in the Seanad on that particular issue, as to whether section 2, as it was then drafted, should stand part or whether it should be altered so as to meet the wishes of members of the Seanad who advocated that a register of rural organisations should be set up and that membership of one of these rural organisations would be necessary to qualify a non-councillor member for nomination to a committee of agriculture. However, that was the only issue in the Seanad and there was no issue at all in the Dáil.

It is particularly unfortunate at this time, when the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture are seeking the goodwill of all sections of the farming community, that they should introduce a measure like this which, on the face of it at any rate, would seek to prevent farmers with a specialised knowledge being co-opted on to committees of agriculture. It is particularly unfortunate that it should happen at this time. It would appear as though the Minister and the Government intend and hope to try to retain a political grasp of all advisory councils in the country such as committees of agriculture, just as the people of the country think the Minister has exercised a political stranglehold on the National Agricultural Council, which was put beyond doubt when he himself became chairman. I think that is deplorable. It is not calculated to lead to a better relationship between the agricultural community as a whole and the Government. It cannot be denied that there are very many people who would ornament a committee of agriculture who would have a worthwhile contribution to make, who are not prepared to allow themselves to become involved in the system of election today which involves Party politics.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Davern)

Deputy Corish's approach to this Bill was by far the sanest I have heard in the short time I have been in the House. Deputy Fitzpatrick seems to wonder why there should be any amendment of or any change in the present legislation. The Deputy is no doubt aware that since the 1964 Act there have been a number of changes in the country. He himself has moved from the Seanad to the Dáil. The Minister for Agriculture has changed and the personnel of the Government has changed. Indeed the position of the entire House has changed to a considerable degree. Therefore everybody is entitled to view things in the light of what they consider to be best and what they consider to be just. Deputy Fitzpatrick in the Seanad emphasised that he considered the 50 per cent representation from outside the county council which was mandatory under the 1964 legislation far too high. He also emphasised that the Bill, while making it mandatory that 50 per cent should come from outside the county councils, made no provision that any of these people, this 50 per cent, should necessarily have any qualification.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not want to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary but I specifically stated that it should be 25 per cent outside representation as a minimum and 50 per cent as a maximum.

Mr. Davern

I quoted from the Official Report of the Seanad Debates of 1st July, 1964. "Therefore, I feel 50 per cent is too high". Those are the Deputy's words.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I will get it in a moment.

Mr. Davern

The Deputy said that there are people who would be ornaments on committees of agriculture. Surely people who have something of value to contribute would not be ornaments? Public opinion is one barometer, and certainly the ballot box is a positive barometer. If a person takes it upon himself to present himself for election by the people and is successful, surely he must represent a fair cross-section of opinion in the county council area for which he stands? By making it mandatory that 50 per cent must be from outside the county council, you are depriving people who are elected of representation.

I am a member of one committee of a local authority and in the county council we have a situation in which every Party has at least one representative. In some places we find that there is a Fianna Fáil man only in a particular area or a Fine Gael man only in that area, and due to the fact that outside people are nominated they would be precluded under the terms of the 1964 Act from being represented. It does not matter what Party or what councillor, every councillor is entitled to be represented if he so desires on those committees, especially a councillor who stands on a Party ticket because he reflects a considerable weight of opinion in that area.

The benefit of an elected representative being on a committee such as an agricultural committee is very obvious. He is charged with the responsibility of striking the rate and of ensuring that value for money is obtained. If he is negligent, he can be dismissed quickly by the electorate at the next election, whereas a person who has no such responsibility can completely disregard the consequences of any proposal he might make, in the certain knowledge that he does not have to render an account of his stewardship at the end of the term of the committee. I am not saying this would be the case, but it is a likely case. Most of the Fine Gael Senators seemed to be very much against the 1964 provision.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the bottom of column 1374 and the top of column 1375 of the volume from which he has been reading and he will see that I supported a minimum of 25 per cent and a maximum of 50 per cent.

Mr. Davern

I have quoted from what the Senator said at column 1375: "Therefore, I feel that 50 per cent is too high".

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Parliamentary Secretary took that one sentence out of its context. Read the whole column.

Mr. Davern

I have quoted what the Deputy said.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Part of it. In typical Fianna Fáil tradition, the Parliamentary Secretary is quoting part of what I said.

Mr. Davern

In typical Fine Gael tradition, the Deputy wants to have the best of both worlds.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Parliamentary Secretary is quoting part of what I said.

Mr. Davern

Exactly what the Deputy said.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Read the whole column.

Mr. Davern

Senator Fitzgerald said——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Senator Fitzgerald is not a Fine Gael Senator.

Mr. Davern

I am not saying what his politics are. He said: "I repeat that this section is loaded too heavily against the elected representatives." He felt that this would militate against the elected representatives. There is no initial but to the best of my knowledge that was Senator Garret FitzGerald.

Mr. S. Collins

Not at all.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): There was only one Senator Fitzgerald in the Seanad at the time and he was Senator Jack Fitzgerald of the Labour Party. That is what I was trying to put the Parliamentary Secretary right on.

Mr. Davern

The Deputy does not have to put me right. There is no initial and I quoted what he said without referring to his politics. He said the section was loaded too heavily against the elected representatives. I think it should not be mandatory that 50 per cent of the committee should be composed of people outside the elected representatives.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Deputy Smith could give the answer to that.

Mr. Davern

If that were the case, surely there should also be a provision to ensure that those 50 per cent were people of worth who would be able to contribute? There was no provision to ensure that those 50 per cent would, in fact, contribute anything.

Mr. S. Collins

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary's argument about the ballot box must hold?

Mr. Davern

It is the 50 per cent outside the elected representatives that I object to. That is what this Bill proposes to repeal.

Mr. S. Collins

No, it is not. It is a piece of colossal nonsense.

Mr. Davern

The view of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture is that the provision to make mandatory on county councils the selection from outside their own ranks of 50 per cent of the membership of committees of agriculture is going too far and resolutions to the same effect were passed or adopted by a number of individual committees of agriculture as well as the General Council of County Councils and individual county councils.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): What is the Parliamentary Secretary quoting from?

Mr. Davern

The point I want to make is that it has always been standard practice that county councils were free to enlist the aid of experts if they were available and if they were felt to be necessary. They always did this, but under the provisions of the 1964 Act, they would be forced to have 50 per cent. It was mandatory.

Mr. Clinton

Would the Parliamentary Secretary read subsection (5) (a)? Qualifications were clearly laid down in it. It is obvious that the Parliamentary Secretary has not read the 1964 Act. We will get it read out later.

Mr. Davern

If the 1964 Act were to remain, any group outside elected representatives would have 50 per cent representation on committees.

Mr. Clinton

Qualifications are specified.

Mr. Davern

The majority of elected representatives fulfil all the qualifications. By virtue of the fact that they are elected representatives they have come from farming stock and they are intimately connected in one way or another with farming interests. They are as well qualified as anybody from outside their ranks. They fulfil their duties on county committees of agriculture in the knowledge that they have been selected by the people to do so—in the knowledge that they are charged with definite responsibilities. Members of county councils, particularly at rate-striking meetings, are pressurised every day by various people with vested interests of one kind or another. They are pressurised to a great extent and they take cognisance of this by ensuring beforehand that their deliberations will stand the acid test of full responsibility. The same holds true of elected representatives who are members of county committees of agriculture. They do not pander to anybody and, therefore, do not find themselves in the invidious position of having given way or of having favoured any particular aspect.

Though the majority of the members of county committees of agriculture have strong political affiliations, to their credit they spend 90 per cent of their time disregarding their political affiliations and acting for the good of agriculture as a whole. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with the present composition of these committees. I feel that the provisions of section 2 (1) (a) would be to the detriment not merely of elected representatives who, to a degree, would be precluded from acting on these committees, but also to the detriment of agriculture because the people with the greatest interest in the community at large might not be allowed to serve on these committees.

Deputy Fitzpatrick used the phrase "sinister motives". Nobody can say how many people with sinister motives might find themselves among the 50 per cent of county committee members outside the elected representatives. The Minister had no such sinister motives as have been attributed to him by his proposal to repeal this section. When the 1964 measure was going through the same people opposed it who are now opposing this repealing Bill. For their own personal reasons, I do not know what they are, they have now turned about and are completely misrepresenting the purpose behind the Bill now before us. There has been no local election since 1964.

Mr. S. Collins

You saw to that.

Mr. Davern

Therefore, the disastrous effects of the 1964 Act have not been felt. This is something which should be outside politics. This is in the national interest.

Mr. S. Collins

Are we not getting naive?

Mr. Davern

Deputy Collins would be more appreciated if we had from him a responsible contribution on the subject of such an important industry as agriculture.

Mr. S. Collins

I spent 20 years trying to get it out of politics but nobody would help me.

Mr. Davern

To get out of politics?

Mr. S. Collins

No, to get agriculture out of politics and to have an integrated national policy on it.

Mr. Dowling

They would not listen to the Deputy when they were in power.

Mr. Davern

Under the present composition of committees of agriculture, members may occasionally become partisan but they spend the majority of thei time and of their deliberations working for the common good of the agricultural community, refusing to take peculiarly Party or selfish lines. This has been the case in the past and I see no reason to change the representation system in regard to the composition of committees of agriculture. We had this system of composition from 1931 until 1964. It has stood the valid test of time and I cannot agree that the 1964 legislation was wise. I do not see the reason for it. I should not like to find myself committed to decisions made by other people at other times. If I did, I should disregard modern methods of transport, for instance, and suggest that we revert to the time when a man walked in front of a car with a flag.

The 1964 legislation, to my mind, militated against the best interests of agriculture because it tended to decrease and to lessen the importance of elected representatives. Indeed, it may well have influenced people not to participate as candidates in the local elections now coming up because many may have taken the notion that if they are not to be regarded as good enough as public representatives to be on county committees of agriculture they are not good enough to go forward for election. I fully support the Bill, feeling that through its introduction we shall revert to an obviously worthwhile position in regard to the constitution of county committees of agriculture.

Mr. S. Collins

It was amusing to hear the Parliamentary Secretary conclude with an argument that is complete rubbish. The 1964 Act has never been tested. In 1964 Fianna Fáil brought in this measure on their own initiative. Since then, their political acumen has led them to refuse to hold the local elections so that, in fact, the provisions of this Act have never been tested. For some queer reason—discernible, of course, to those who keep a finger on the pulse of the present situation—we want to revert to the old position in case rising embarrassment might become more acute if certain well-recognised organisations, such as the ICMSA and NFA, were to play an effective part in the development of agriculture at local committee level.

I am a realist, and I think this Bill is codology. I want the Minister to tell me what it has cost the taxpayers to have this bit of foppery and nonsense this morning. I am sure it would have spread artificial manure on a good many holdings in West Cork, which would have been of some assistance to the land rather than to the talkers. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to live up to his own argument and go along with the times, the purpose of the 1964 Act was to allow organisations who could contribute something of value to rural Ireland to get representation that would not normally be available to them from the ballot box. We all know well there are certain types of people who have a valuable contribution to make in various fields who have about as much chance of being elected as those who do not stand at all. It takes a hardy breed to face the electorate and all the hazards of the ballot box results. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary, who, like myself, can be partisan when his point of view is challenged, knows perfectly well there are many people of good standing in Tipperary who could make a valuable contribution on the local committees of agriculture, but who would have no more chance of being elected than people dead for many years.

Mr. Davern

As it stands, many of them are on the committees.

Mr. S. Collins

We have come to face realistically the fact that Fianna Fáil are becoming a self-deified organisation who want to put the Party machine with all its sequelae into effect. Nobody should be naive enough to talk about a change of heart in the Fianna Fáil Party. In many ways the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is the political genius of the Fianna Fáil organisation. He can see that some of the largesse they might be able to distribute by virtue of their majority would disappear because of this Act and this Act, therefore, must be scrapped.

Mr. Davern

Suspicion haunts the guilty mind.

Mr. S. Collins

It is not a question of suspicion as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned. They have built up a megalomaniac organisation. I have experienced all the hazards and vicissitudes of political life and I have come back smiling and fighting. I am not a bit afraid, and never have been, to say what I really think. I am not saying that Fianna Fáil are not right according to their own lights, but it is time they told us what the real object of the exercise was and not try to cover it by the pretentious nonsense and verbose tautology we have listened to all morning.

Let us come to grips with the net issue. This child, born in 1964, has not been let out of the pen. It has never been tested. But the political perspicacity of certain people has discerned a realistic danger in that certain organisations, which we say are of great assistance to the community, might become on the agricultural committees an effective block to the Party machine. There is no doubt that organisations such as the ICMSA, the Beet Growers Association, the NFA, Macra na Feirme and even Bantracht na Tuaithe can make a most valuable contribution to the betterment of agriculture generally, not only from the point of view of improving productivity but also from the point of view of the integration of rural communities, the development of the social side and the promotion of homecrafts in rural Ireland. Outside of politics, is there anybody who does not appreciate that fundamentally such contributions could be very helpful at agricultural committee level? I am able to talk on this with objectivity, I hope, because in my lifetime I have never been a member of a local authority. I have seen people nominated to membership of committees of agriculture who proved they had a worthwhile contribution to make to these committees. We should encourage as far as we can the integration of these big organisations into our agricultural scheme of things.

This Act should have been given a fair chance. I have always been a great believer in the dignity and effectiveness of elected public representatives. I believe completely in the power of the ballot box and in the representative voice it gives the person deemed worthy of representation. We at the highest level in this House are the custodians of national policy. In the final analysis, it is the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries who lays down the broad policy lines. But surely nobody must realise more than the Minister himself that, with goodwill and co-operation from the various sincerely progressive farming organisations, he could derive considerable help in moulding policy for this most vital of all our industries? No matter what people talk about in this House, it all comes back to the fundamental reality that basically, fundamentally and extensively, it is on agriculture that the survival of this nation depends, in or out of Europe, in or out of the GATT.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Davern, was protesting that agriculture be removed from the caprice of ad hoc decision and vicarious decision in difficult circumstances. I want to see agriculture, as I have always advocated here, put on the basis of an integrated progressive plan where the necessity for immense investment was recognised, where the various types of production would be stepped up to expert productivity, to the most keen economic productivity that can be reached. That can only be done if we get the co-operation——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is going outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. S. Collins

That can only be done——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please listen? The Deputy will get no opportunity to start a debate on agriculture on a Bill that relates solely to the composition of county committees of agriculture. That would be going outside the ambit of the Bill.

Mr. S. Collins

With due respect, I am going to make a submission and I would ask you to listen to it. My submission is that this Bill deals with county committees of agriculture and the various rural organisations' representation on committees and the part they have to play in the ultimate escalation of an agricultural policy must be relevant to this discussion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It need not be relevant and is not relevant.

Mr. S. Collins

That is the submission I make. I am going to pass from it now. As I suggested to the Minister, on local committees of agriculture, in a spirit of co-operation and understanding, they could be valuable contributors to the immense effort that has to be put in. I think the Minister will agree that local committees of agriculture and up from them the General Council of Committees of Agriculture, have a vital part to play and if that part is played with goodwill and understanding, the contribution will be all the greater.

I am not going to delay the House any longer except to say—and I say it deliberately—that there is some indecency in the annihilation of this statute at this stage because we are all aware of the fact that there are certain esoteric undercurrents in the agricultural field that, at least, arouse a very serious consideration as to whether there is any genuiness in the Government's argument and lead many of us to the belief that there is an ingenuous type of argument to cover a reversion to power politics and control at all levels by the Party machine.

Mr. Fahey

I fail to understand why the Fine Gael Party are so perturbed about this amendment of the 1964 Agriculture Act and, in particular, this provision dealing with the composition of the committees of agriculture. When the 1964 Bill was passed in this House, while I was not a Member of the House, I was then chairman of a committee of agriculture, as I am today, and I was also a member of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture.

Deputy Fitzpatrick gave a very clear picture of the mounting opposition to that provision in the 1964 Act. The reason that opposition was increasing all the time, was simply that county committees of agriculture throughout the country and the General Council itself did not realise that the measure was before Dáil Éireann or that it would go through without a division. That happened and I doubt if the Members of this House were fully aware that the measure was going through at that time because I am sure that if they were, there would have been opposition to it.

Mr. Dillon

They were fully aware— if the Deputy reads the debates.

Mr. Fahey

Perhaps so. When the Bill was going through Seanad Éireann on Second Reading, there was opposition to it and I suggest that that opposition was brought about by reason of the pressure from committees of agriculture and from the General Council itself. It is on record that many committees passed resolutions opposing the measure. The General Council of Committees of Agriculture passed a resolution opposing it and, if my memory serves me aright, they also appointed members from the General Council to lobby Senators in order to create opposition to the measure. That was how they felt about it at the time.

It is true to say that they were willing to accept that 25 per cent of the members of committees of agriculture be people outside county councillors. They were willing to accept that as some relief from the drastic measure, as they considered it, that had been passed here.

Deputy Dillon has said, and perhaps he is correct, that the Members of this House were aware that the measure was going through but they were not aware that it was going to meet with such stiff opposition from county committees of agriculture throughout the country and from the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. It has met with stiff opposition—no one can deny that—and it is only right that we should acknowledge that opposition and should agree to alter something that the Dáil did on a previous occasion, and did without the knowledge that it would bring about the type of opposition that it did meet with.

I see nothing wrong in now meeting the wishes of the elected representatives who serve on committees of agriculture throughout the country. At the present time there is nothing to prevent committees of agriculture from co-opting persons who they think would be useful to serve thereon. It is high time we appreciated and respected the qualities of the elected representatives, people who have gone before the public, who have got the confidence of the electors and who have been given responsibility through the ballot boxes. These are the people for whom we should have respect and whose views we should honour. These people are fully capable of making decisions. If there are persons, and we know there are in every county, who would be an asset to a committee of agriculture because of their specialist knowledge, we know that the elected representatives will avail of this knowledge and will co-opt the persons concerned to the committee without any compulsion from this House or anywhere else.

The elected representatives are responsible to the ratepayers. The funds of the majority of committees of agriculture are contributed as to 50 per cent from the rates. Somebody mentioned the composition of a vocational education committee. In the case of the vocational education committee, there is a difference inasmuch as the county council representatives are the people who have the final say in deciding the amount of the rate for that committee. There is no such provision in relation to county committees of agriculture in the 1964 Bill. If we were to be serious about it, there should be such a provision because the elected representative is responsible to those who elected him and, that being so, he will always be conscious of his responsibilities because he will be aware that on the occasion of the next election, if he has not worked in the best interests of the people who elected him, they will deal with him and he will not be able to hold his place on the committee of agriculture.

If I had been a member of this House in 1964, I would have opposed the measure because I would resent strongly the fact that anyone should try to debar elected representatives from taking their place on committees of agriculture because this is exactly what the 1964 measure meant. In my own county at present we have people who are so interested in being on the committee of agriculture and serving the agricultural community that they decided not to go forward at the county council elections. They felt by doing that they had a better opportunity of getting on the committee of agriculture because, as things stand, only 50 per cent of the county councillors would be allowed on as members of the committees.

Therefore, it is very advisable to bring this change about, and I congratulate the Minister on meeting the wishes of the elected representatives. As I said, these are the people who are responsible to the ratepayers. These are the people who have gone before the public, and these are the people who will appreciate anybody within their own areas whom it would be helpful to have on their respective committees. I have no doubt they will avail of the help and advice these people can give by co-opting them as members of the committee. However, I think we should leave them that right, and I cannot understand why the Fine Gael Party are opposed to this, why they have so little respect for the elected representatives. Deputy Clinton, as a member of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture will appreciate the interest that body has shown in opposing the 1964 measure, and it is only right that we should not stand in their way and that we should allow this amendment to go through.

Mr. Dillon

There is a history attaching to this Bill. The Deputy who has just spoken is probably not aware of the fact that it was I who established the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. My recollection is that when Deputy Smith introduced the 1964 Bill to this House, he informed us that the General Council of Committees of Agriculture approved the proposal he was then recommending to the House. What I want to remind the House is that when Deputy Smith, who was then the Minister for Agriculture, recommended this proposal that 50 per cent of the members of committees of agriculture should be drawn from representative farmers and farm workers who did not happen to be members of a county council, he said at column 888, volume 210 of the Official Report of the 9th June, 1964:

I believe that the time has come to reshape our legislation so that persons, who are not members of county councils but who are playing a leading part in the improvement of our agriculture, and in raising our rural living standards, will have a greater opportunity to participate in the membership of committees of agriculture. I feel sure that the change now proposed will bring to committees a new source of inspiration and strength and that it will lead to a more general acceptance of the educational and advisory services by the rural community.

I believe that our present agricultural advisory system, which consists of a partnership between the Department of Agriculture and the county committees of agriculture, supported by the results of the research work undertaken by An Foras Talúntais and the universities, is basically a good one and that, subject to the improvement to be effected under this Bill it is calculated to make a great and vital contribution to our further agricultural progress and development.

Deputy Smith clearly had in mind when making that recommendation to the House, which I can assure the Deputy who has just spoken, was fully debated here and carefully considered, that there are a great many farmers, large and small, and a great many farm workers who are not called in the ordinary sense to public life. I hope Deputy Fahey shares with me the belief that our participation in public life is, in some sense, a vocation for which not everybody is suited. Nevertheless, there are a great many people who have a great deal to contribute on a committee of agriculture who may not share our vocation to public life. It is not everybody who is suited to the dust of the arena, but I think Deputy Fahey will agree with me that a lot of people who think they are and believe that they could——

Mr. Fahey

May I say that I agree with Deputy Dillon, but I think we should leave it to the discretion of the local county councillors whether these people will serve on committees or not? They would be in a better position to judge.

Mr. Dillon

I can see Deputy Fahey's point of view, but there are a great many people who make the prodigious mistake of believing that with the specialised knowledge they have, they should enter public life in order to make that knowledge available for the betterment of the society to which they all belong, and they discover that the rigours of public life are quite beyond their capacity to endure. They get broken up by public life because, as we all know who are experienced in it, it has its rough side as well as its deliberative side, and unless one is prepared to accept the dust, one must not seek the laurels of public life.

The fact remains, however, that where you are dealing with committees of agriculture you do not necessarily require altogether people who have a vocation to public life. What you want is people who understand the agricultural circumstances of the area in which they work and live; and what you especially want, or certainly what I especially wanted when I was Minister for Agriculture, was to get on the county committee of agriculture not only farmers who did not feel able to enter the arena of public life, but farm workers whose primary interest was in agriculture and working on the land and whose prospect of getting elected to the county council, never mind the county committee of agriculture, was relatively remote.

When this proposal was made by Deputy Smith, I must say I saw in it the chance of getting certain farmers and certain farm workers on to the county committee of agriculture so that every problem would not be considered exclusively from the outlook of the farmer himself but would be reviewed at the county committee of agriculture by farmers and farm workers sitting together.

I observed the reform in Deputy Smith's approach to agricultural organisation with edification. I said: "This man has learned a very valuable lesson, and there is no one better pleased than I am that he should have learned." If ever there was a man who had a vocation in public life, it was Deputy Patrick Smith of Cavan. It was the dust he liked; he was not so concerned about the laurel wreaths. But when I heard so rough an operator as Deputy Patrick Smith—I remember him as a Parliamentary Secretary telling us to chuck the Supreme Court out if they did not do what we wanted them to do—you, a Cheann Comhairle, were then sitting on the Labour benches. When I heard Deputy Patrick Smith, with that record, say he believed the time had come to reshape our legislation so that men who were not represented on the county committees but who were playing a leading part in our agricultural economy and raising our real standards should have a better chance to participate in the county committees of agriculture, I said: "Here is a Daniel come to judgement." Remember, there was a Daniel once cast into the lions' den.

I listened last night with edification and admiration to a powerful speech delivered here by Deputy T.F. O'Higgins. He was speaking in a very much wider debate than we are participating in now. He urged on farmers that the most powerful weapon they have to vindicate their point of view is not the road blockade, not the breach of the law, but in our democratic society, the vote in the ballot box. My mind went back to the interesting fact that we are celebrating a most interesting anniversary; it is just 20 years, almost to the day, since Deputy Patrick Smith made a famous pronouncement in the history of agriculture. I invite Deputies to compare what I quote him as saying on 9th June, 1964, with what he is on record as saying on 19th February, 1947. He was speaking in Navan then, with the dust rising round him in clouds and this is what he said:

I would have had inspectors tucked after them, and I would have tucked them out into fresh land, and I would compel them to break fresh land, and if they did not do it, I would tuck in the tractors through the ditches and through the gates and tuck out the land for them... If the Lord Almighty provides us with good weather that will enable us to make a start, and if there should be a necessity next season to be as rigid as heretofore—and there may be—I am going to tell them here and now that I will recruit the full of ten fields of inspectors, and I will spend plenty of money in paying them travelling expenses and everything else, and I will hire all the tractors and machinery I can get and I will go down and pick every one of the "cods" out, and I will say: Take down that piece of wire and put it around the other corner. ...When I do that, you can call me a thug or a clod or a driver, whatever you like, I do not care.

An Ceann Comhairle

From what is the Deputy quoting?

Mr. Dillon

I am quoting from a speech made by Deputy Patrick Smith, Minister for Agriculture, at Navan on 19th February, 1947. Consequent on that speech no roads were blocked; no demonstrations were held. Silently anonymously and effectively, the farmers went to the poll and, using the most powerful instrument of which any man disposes, be he great or humble, in a democracy, they wrought a marvellous reform. Deputy Paddy Smith was put out on his ear. Now, here is the lesson—I have preached it again and again and again in this House, and outside it; farmers should not attack the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister for Agriculture represents the farmers in the Government. If the Minister for Agriculture is not doing his job, then that is the Government's fault. In 1948 the farmers recognised that——

An Ceann Comhairle

This does not seem to be relevant.

Mr. Dillon

——and produced a marvellous reform. That operation on the Government to which Deputy Patrick Smith belonged produced in Deputy Smith the astonishing reform that, in 1964, when he got back to office, he was all solicitude to see that the farm organisations should be adequately represented on the county committees of agriculture, even though they were not men who normally participated in the tough life of politics.

I think Deputy Blaney, the present Minister for Agriculture, is the spiritual heir of Deputy Smith—the spiritual heir of the Deputy Smith of 1947. The reason is not far to seek. Twenty years is a long time, though, perhaps, it does not look so long to the Ceann Comhairle and myself as it does to Deputy Blaney; he has forgotten the lesson that Deputy Patrick Smith learned 20 years ago and he is beginning to say again in 1967 the kind of things that Deputy Patrick Smith was saying in 1947. Organisations representative of farmers are now, in the eyes of Deputy Blaney, the enemies. Deputy Blaney, Minister for Agriculture, feels that he should tell them here and now that, if they do not do what he tells them to do, he will recruit ten fields full of inspectors and he will spend plenty of money and pay travelling expenses, and everything else, and he will hire all the tractors and machinery he can get, and he will go down and pick every one of the "cods" out.

The purpose of this Bill is to give all and sundry notice that Deputy Blaney, Minister for Agriculture, is on the warpath. He is going to go down and pick all the "cods" out. If you are a member of the NFA, or of any farming organisation that does not make obeisance to his sovereign will, if you do not attend cap-in-hand when he calls, if you do not repudiate your colleagues and become his true and faithful servant, he will go down to pick you out as one of the "cods" who does not realise that the Minister for Agriculture is a god, before whom everyone on the land of Ireland must bow. He is Rimmon and all who call themselves farmers must bow low before him. That was not my view of the job he occupies. I believed the Minister for Agriculture was the servant of the farmers. My view was that, even when the NFA was being at its most difficult, and, God knows, they were often difficult enough, I was still their servant; there was one rule in the Department and that was that, any time the President of the NFA wanted to see me, his requisition for an appointment took precedence.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be travelling very far from the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

I do not doubt that it is not easy to discern the implications of this Bill, but does it not strike you, a Cheann Comhairle, as rather odd that the Minister for Agriculture in a Fianna Fáil Government should bring in a Bill to provide that 50 per cent of the members of the county committees of agriculture should be drawn from outside the membership of the county council and that that Act should come into operation after the next local election and that, before the next local election is due to take place, his successor in office is engaged in exactly the same kind of wrangling with the farmers that Deputy Smith was engaged in 20 years ago and that he seeks to repeal the Act passed by his predecessor, Deputy Smith, before it has ever come into operation or been given a trail?

Deputy Fahey has now disappeared. I would ask any Deputy of the Fianna Fáil Party if he does not think it is a good thing that the county committees of agriculture should be representative mainly of those who are primarily concerned with the land, if he does not think it is a good thing that the county committees of agriculture should primarily be constituted of farmers and farm workers, if they are effectively to administer the various schemes committed to their care. I would ask any Deputy of the Fianna Fáil Party if he does not think that that situation is more likely to be realised under the 1964 Act than under the situation which would be created if this Bill is passed.

Deputy Fahey is—I do not blame him—consternated. He asked how it was that thos Bill ever went through, that it cannot have been debated. He asked how it was that the whole Party to which he belongs voted for this Bill. Deputy Fahey must not have known what was going on. I admit that Fianna Fáil often do not know what is going on in the House but on this occasion they were made to know because Deputy Donegan explained it carefully to them. It is going a little far when even so constructive and civil a Deputy as Deputy Fahey comes in here and asks: "How did the Bill pass? Did anybody know what was in it?", when it was a Bill introduced by his own Government. I can assure Deputy Fahey that everybody knew what was in it. Everybody knew that there would be a conflict of view. It is on record, however, that Deputy Fahey said that the council of county committees of agriculture was opposed to it. The then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, when introducing the Bill, said that the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture was in favour of it.

I think everybody knew what was in this Bill and, on its merits, were determined to give it a trail. I am still in favour of the 1964 measure. I think it ought to be given a trail. However, I believe this Bill has political overtones. I do not believe the Minister seeks to improve the county committees of agriculture by the introduction of this Bill. I think this is another case of a Fianna Fail Minister announcing that some people are more equal than others. There is the carrot and there is the stick. The carrot is now spelled Taca in this country. If you are prepared to pay £100 a plate for dinner, then you are more equal than others but if you do not agree, if you do not submit, if you do not come back in sackcloth and ashes when you are called, then you are no longer to be regarded, in the words of Deputy Smith, "as a person who is not a member of a county council but who is playing a leading part in the improvement of our agriculture and in raising our rural living standards." Surely, if this belief of mine is correct —and I think it is—surely, if we are serious in trying to bring to an end a situation which is deplorable and which should not exist, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is the last man on God's earth at this time to introduce a Bill of this character?

Bear this in mind. The local elections have long been postponed. The Minister has been a member of the Government during the whole of that period. If this is a desirable reform, there was plenty of opportunity between 1964 and 1967 to bring this matter forward and to have it considered calmly and deliberately or are we in the situation that Deputy Blaney, as a member of the Government, sharing joint responsibility, was urging this course down the years and was overruled by the Cabinet? What has happened that substantially the same Cabinet has changed its mind? Is it because Deputy Blaney, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, has got himself involved in this acrimonious struggle with the NFA? Does he expect anybody seriously to believe, when he introduces a Bill within a month of the next local elections after which the 1964 Act provides this new arrangement is to operate, that the decision to do that is divorced from the current acrimony which exists between himself and the NFA? Does anyone in this House want to see fuel heaped on the flames of the ructions that are at present going on?

Is there any justification of expediency or anything else which could possibly justify the introduction of this Bill at this time except as a proclamation by the Minister that, in so far as lies within his power, he is determined that members of the NFA will not be, in any substantial number, members of county committees of agriculture? Observe that the NFA have declared that it is part of their policy not to participate in politics. They do not want to go into political elections—and county council elections have become political. Now, that may be right or that may be wrong but it is part of their declared policy. Therefore the numbers, if they are members, who are likely to become members of the county council is minimal. Yet, on the eve of the county council elections, the Minister introduces this Bill and assures us that he does not want Dáil Éireann to adjourn for the summer recess until the Bill becomes law because he wants it to operate promptly so that the provisions of the 1964 Act will never even be given a chance.

Well, Sir, there is a moral to be drawn from this situation, a moral which was drawn by Deputy T.F. O'Higgins last night, and which I have no hesitation in endorsing emphatically. He said that there is no language this Government understand but that of the vote and the ballot box. If an independent agricultural organisation such as the National Farmers Organisation—which I am happy to recall I urged the farmers at a meeting in Robertstown to organise as an independent body, representative of the farming community—are to survive and are to function, they have got to make it as clear in 1967 as they did in 1947 that they will not suffer any Government to trample them into the ground. Their resolve, however, must not be directed primarily to the Minister for Agriculture, who is only one member of the Government; it must be directed to the Party who constitutes the Government by whose authority he acts. If the farmers make it manifest by their votes—and they have a unique opportunity in the local elections—that they resent the attitude adopted by the Minister, of which I have no hesitation in saying this Bill is a peculiarly provocative example, I guarantee, and I speak from long experience, that the Minister who now feels himself to be the master of the farmers will come obsequiously with hat in hand to those same farmers if he is made to feel the lawful, democratic spur of the vote.

There is one thing the members of this Government cannot dare to contemplate: power gives them access to the loot and one thing which would strip them of that access is the vote. If that power is used, their minds will be haunted by nightmares of what might subsequently happen at a general election. Just as Deputy Smith phrased his description of the farmers as the "cods" through whose ditches he would drive tractors, whose gates he would break down and through whose hedges he would deploy ten fields of inspectors, and so on——

An Ceann Comhairle

We have that in two other lists.

Mr. Dillon

——but he came to recognise these same farmers as people, who are not members of county councils, but who play a leading part in the improvement of our agriculture and raising our rural life and standards, so the nightmare of being separated from the loot will bring Deputy Blaney, as Minister for Agriculture, to discover himself suddenly to be a servant instead of a master. If the farmers cannot wake up or be awakened to that fundamental fact of life, then they must expect to be treated as Deputy Smith thought it right to treat them in 1947. If they do wake up, they can walk again, as I am happy to think I played a part in enabling them to walk after 1947, with their heads erect, independent men with no ambition but to be given the opportunity of earning their living in their own home in dignity and peace.

This Bill seeks to undo what was done in 1964. The Bill of 1964 opened the doors of these committees not only to farmers but to men who worked at farming and whose voices ought be heard in the settlement of the policy of county committees of agriculture. The effort to undo that is an effort not made with merit but as part of a vicious vendetta. I want to convey to those against whom that vendetta is directed that they have the weapon and the means to make that vendetta fail. No one can make them use those weapons; all we can do is tell them how to defend themselves, in the certain knowledge that if they take our advice, this will be the last of this kind of Bill this Minister, or any other Fianna Fáil Minister, will introduce for another 20 years.

Mr. Blaney

Listening to the last speaker, one would want to have a pretty long memory, or a fairly fresh one, to realise the comparison drawn in regard to Deputy Smith's actions, as Minister for Agriculture, and his conversion, as Deputy Dillon has described it in 1964, does not stand up to any great examination. If I recollect clearly, the matter which brought up Deputy Smith's speech in Navan was a long series of refusals by certain farmers who held the biggest tracts of the best land to make any contribution to the staff of life, the wheat and bread required at that time. It is only right that Deputy Dillon, of all people, should remember that in regard to that situation, and the election which followed, where the votes he attributes to the farmers were used in that particular part of the country to change the Government, because Deputy Dillon never liked wheat. Whether in war time or peace time, he condemned it right, left and centre.

I shall not give the litany of such statements that can be taken out of the records but I shall just say that he did go on record as saying he would not be found dead in a field of wheat. It was much more flowery than that, as only Deputy Dillon could put it. He can go back and read some of his outbursts of that time when wheat was vitally needed. We know how he described wheat and how he described the bread made from wheat. It was only fitting that he should align himself with the people who had the most land and the best land and who refused to co-operate with the Government in the interests of the community to feed the people when we could not find food elsewhere. If the Deputy wishes to go back and hold that view, he is quite welcome to do so but I daresay nobody in Fine Gael would join him, or on the Fianna Fáil or Labour benches.

We have wandered very far from the Bill. Why should the Bill be introduced now? Because the local elections are being held on 28th June. Deputy Dillon has great respect for the electorate provided, of course, they vote against Fianna Fáil. That runs through his entire statement. The vote is a sacred thing, provided it has the effect of taking Fianna Fáil out of office and out of the councils, but there is never a word that the vote is a good or sacred thing and a weapon to be used by the public when it has been, as it is consistently being, used by the public to put Fianna Fáil into office. That has happened very recently.

Why does Deputy Dillon not get rid of his pink-shaded glasses and look at this sacred vote? If it is sacred in putting Fianna Fáil out, it is sacred in putting them in, and it has put Fianna Fáil into office far more often than it has put them out. The Deputy should be well aware of that and when this vote was used on his Government—if it was a Government—surely he must realise that what he says of Fianna Fáil being put out by the vote of the people was even more true in his case and the case of the Government of which he was a member. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot regard this weapon in the hands of the public as sacred only when used in one direction and of no consequence or even—to take an inference from his praise of the vote being used against Fianna Fáil—that it was a bad thing when used by the public by free choice to vote Fianna Fáil into office as they have been doing consistently down the years.

I want to bring this Bill through the House because of the fact that the law under which we have been operating in relation to the composition of our committees of agriculture for many years is the law under which we still operate today. Whatever may be the faults that are picked out here and there from year to year and committee to committee, I believe it has worked well and that the thoughts that brought about the amendment in 1964 are not likely to be realised any better under this amendment that was put into the law at that time than under the law as it stood and still stands at present, for the simple reason that what we are saying is that we will compel the county council to choose not less than 50 per cent of the membership of their committees of agriculture from non-councillors. Why should we compel the elected representatives of the county councils, why from Fine Gael Benches of all places should they ask us to refrain from deleting the amendment that compels the county councils to put people on committees of agriculture whom they, as elected representatives, may not wish to put on?

Mr. Donegan

The proposal of a Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Blaney

Do not mind that. It is obvious that I did not say it at the outset but let me say now that we have changed our minds about it.

Mr. Donegan

Because of the NFA.

Mr. Blaney

No. If the Deputy wants to have the NFA introduced here and kick it around, he is quite free to do so.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister is doing the kicking.

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy and his colleagues are trying to play a nice, neat, subtle Fine Gael game to get what they can out of the rows that are there. They would hate to see the rows mended, lest they themselves would fade further into obscurity.

Mr. Donegan

We are not as low as that.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Blaney

We know the tactics. They have been scuttling around behind the scenes, not making peace but making sure peace would not come.

Mr. Donegan

That is quite untrue.

Mr. Blaney

Then we have them coming along with grand schemes to settle the trouble. Let nobody be codded by this sort of approach. This is Fine Gael down the years. I have seen them and I know how they operate, and I am not codded by their protestations of concern about the Government and any organisation in dispute with the Government. That is not and never has been their outlook.

The deletion of the 1964 amendment is proposed now because the local elections are imminent and because in the time since the enactment of the amendment, it has been made clear by the committees of agriculture, through their council of committees and through various individual committees that they do not want this change. The General Council of County Councils has made it clear since then that they do not favour the change and quite a number of county councils have indicated that they do not want it either. Let us look at what, in fact, is and will be the situation. Under the present law, which has operated since 1931, all the members of any committee of agriculture, with one exception, may be outsiders. If we wish to look at it in that way, we can regard the county councils as the selectors of the agricultural committee. In the 1964 amendment, we did not change the selectors or attempt to do so but we said to them: "We will compel you as selectors to put on 50 per cent outsiders." How or in what manner was it proposed to ensure that whether they put on 50 per cent by compulsion or 90 per cent voluntarily, they would put on any particular class of people? How could that be secured?

Mr. Clinton

By the definition.

Mr. Blaney

The definition remains.

Mr. Clinton

But it is not the same.

Mr. Blaney

The definition remains. The point is that it is not proposed to change the selectors. Therefore, the point that the Fine Gael people would try to get across at the moment is that by the deletion of the amendment, we will prevent persons going on the committees of agriculture who otherwise would and should have got on. The councils will still select them, regardless of whether or not the amendment goes through or does not go through. All that it means is that they will have the freedom of ordinary people to put on more than 50 per cent or less than 50 per cent if they think fit. Are Fine Gael, the great protectors, as they like to see themselves, of the autonomy of our local elected representatives, now advocating that this Bill should not be accepted and that they would indicate and make it known that they wish to compel their elected bodies to do their bidding? This, coming from Fine Gael, so hot and so quickly on the heels of many of their protestations of the reverse, comes badly from them and can show them to be, as I have always accepted them to be, political opportunists.

Mr. Clinton

Why did you not do it in 1964?

Mr. Blaney

You play the tune that suits the opportunity, regardless of the interests of agriculture.

Mr. L'Estrange

That is what you are doing.

Mr. Blaney

Let Fine Gael go down the country and tell their candidates for the local elections now being nominated, and who will be nominated by 12 noon tomorrow, that they as a Party do not really have much regard for them, that they do not trust them to do the proper thing in the selection of their own council committees, that they do not think they are responsible people, that they will not choose people from outside. Let them say that they are doing what they feel Fianna Fáil will do, choose Party political hacks who have nothing to add to agriculture and no interest in the community. This is what Fine Gael are saying here in this House today. They are then going out around the country to their selection conventions, to their local election meetings and they are asking good people to come forward and to stand as their representatives on the county councils and they are imploring the electorate to come out and vote for those good people. At the same time here in this House this morning they are telling us they cannot and will not allow the people who will be selected on the 28th June, by virtue of the electorate, to do their proper job in the selection of committees of agriculture. This is what Fine Gael are saying to us today. They cannot have it both ways. They are seeking to have it both ways as they have tried to do over the years.

Mr. L'Estrange

The same as you are.

Mr. Blaney

Perhaps that is what is wrong. Perhaps that is why they are so long and so often over on that side of the House. It may be that there are other reasons but that is one of them.

You cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. That is what Fine Gael are doing. A few matters were raised which were relevant and I should like to comment on them. Committees would benefit from outsiders being brought in. Outsiders are brought in. They have traditionally been brought in and at present with the exception of five councils out of the 27 outsiders are brought in. This amounts to 22, if I remember rightly. Of those 22 there are five with less than 25 per cent outside representation. Seventeen out of the 22 have 25 per cent outside representation and over. Many of them have figures approaching 50 per cent.

Mr. Clinton

I said there are a few exceptions.

Mr. Blaney

If I did not take the Deputy up wrongly he said that members of his council, probably this is understandable because of the type of constituency it is, have, in fact, no knowledge and so forth that would make them useful members of their committees of agriculture. To make up for that they have been given freedom that is already there under the old law of 1931. Deputy Clinton's council has brought in 45 per cent outsiders. If the qualified people are so few why have they not brought in 90 per cent outsiders? Why should we take it if it is true that there were few qualified people to put on the county council as councillors that not more than 45 per cent outsiders are brought in?

Mr. Clinton

Party politics.

Mr. Blaney

Are they not available? If it is Party politics in Dublin County Council, who calls the tune? Which political Party can be said to be the cause of this matter? The Deputy said that it is party political prejudice.

Mr. Clinton

We are equal.

Mr. Blaney

You are only equal when it suits you. The Deputy knows that quite well. Every Deputy knows as well as I do that, in fact, this is how Fine Gael have even survived. There is Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and then there are others on the county councils but by a particular coincidence Fine Gael always seem to have a knock on others. When they want to use the majority of the others to go with them to do Fianna Fáil on something they have them but when it suits them they will not have them. That is what Deputy Clinton means when he says that we are equal. They are equal when it suits them. I wonder how some of those who have been supporting that equal part in Fine Gael all those years since the last local elections would like it if, in fact, it was said that they had the same regard for Fianna Fáil as for Fine Gael.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister knows they are supporting his Party.

Mr. Blaney

Those are the tactics of Fine Gael. They will back Fianna Fáil when they want to try to get all sorts of things but they will ask people by subterfuge and otherwise to aid Fine Gael in order to beat Fianna Fáil when the time and opportunity arise.

Mr. L'Estrange

Like you when you got the Independents here.

Mr. Blaney

We got them after they were fed up with you people.

Mr. L'Estrange

When you fed them you got them.

Mr. Blaney

You want those outsiders when it suits you. Outsiders are on most of our committees of agriculture. The stipulation that we must put on so many will not necessarily bring on one useful person on any of our county committees. It could happen in certain instances that you would deny useful people the opportunity of being members of the committees. This should not happen and it will not happen if we rescind the amendment of the 1964 Act, which is what I am asking the House to do. I think it was Deputy Clinton who said that there is a feeling that county committees are purely political. Could I be impertinent enough to ask if Deputy Clinton thinks that county committees of agriculture are purely political?

Mr. Clinton

I answered that in the course of my speech.

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy said that there was a feeling.

Mr. Clinton

I followed it up and said that it was something with which I did not agree.

Mr. Blaney

Fair enough. It is of no relevance. The Deputy did go on to say that a great role could be played by school teachers on committees of agriculture. He said the same with regard to farm labourers. Could anybody tell us whether in the amendment of the 1964 Act, which Fine Gael are making such a song and dance about here today, there is anything which will result in more school teachers and more farm labourers being put on the committees, even if we do not pass this Bill?

Mr. Clinton

You favoured it.

Mr. Blaney

It is wide open. Under the existing law, under the law as it was up to 1964 and as it will be if this Bill is passed, there is nothing that makes it worth while for school teachers and farm labourers to be on those committees. This is what is being defended by Fine Gael. It is interesting to note that in the course of the opposition to this measure in his opening speech, Deputy Clinton quoted extensively from Deputy Tully and thereby implied that the Labour Party were fully and absolutely tied to the amendment of 1964.

I am sure he must have felt rather sad to find that the one member of the Labour Party who was in the House to hear him immediately followed him to make the only contribution from the Labour Party. He said that he was in favour of the amendment before the House. As he spoke, I could only say to myself: "There goes a speech I should be making in reply to this debate."

Mr. Clinton

He did not explain why he changed his mind.

Mr. Blaney

How many of you over there give us any explanation of your change of mind? Take, for instance, Senator MacDonald whose remarks are the first I see before me here. In the Official Report of the debate on the Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1964, he had this to say:

The Minister should, perhaps, not have insisted on the clause whereby 50 per cent of the members are to be non-county councillors. It will be rather difficult to work out a solution whereby there are five or six permanent voluntary agricultural organisations in a county. How will we allocate the places on the committee? Will we find in succeeding years that one organisation seems to thrive and another organisation perhaps declining a little? The situation could well be that, after a few years, an organisation would be almost extinct in the county but it will have as good a representation on the committee of agriculture as the big representative organisations. That may arise and it would be much better had the Minister left the appointment solely at the discretion of the county council.

Perhaps he has not changed his mind and that he is not against this amendment. This we will find out before long. Another thing I should say about this is that a change of mind surely is not a matter to be deplored. What is wrong with changing one's mind, if, in fact, in the interim it has been borne in on those of us who have that change of mind that it would be a good thing to change one's mind? There are elected representatives from the General Council of County Councils, from the General Council of Committees of Agriculture, from various county councils and from various committees of agriculture. These are the people at local level on whom we depend largely for local government activity. This goes without saying.

On the vocational side, we depend on these committees for a large amount of our more useful educational activity and on the agricultural side we depend on the committees of agriculture to an extreme degree in regard to advisory services. Why should we not listen to those people who are, by and large, the local representatives mainly elected by the legal vote of the people? If they have, as they have, outsiders on their committees at the moment they are chosen freely and without obligation placed on them by any laws of this House as to the number of persons they may so choose.

Therefore, we have the elected representatives of a rural community on these county councils with freedom to contribute to the agricultural wellbeing of their county. We give them that freedom and it is right that they should have it. It is completely democratic that they, as the local people, can have their own members on the committees or, if they wish, they can bring in outsiders, but they must retain one councillor on these committees of agriculture.

What is wrong with that? Does it make that law wrong merely because we had an amendment in 1964 compelling those elected people to put on not less than 50 per cent of outsiders willy nilly, whether such people were there or not, whether they had made a contribution to or would make a contribution to the agricultural community. What is wrong with having a change of mind and saying: We will leave you the freedom you had up to 1964 and after the next election you will have the freedom to choose your committees as you had heretofore. If there is anything wrong with it I cannot see it. I can see a lot of good in it.

Fine Gael go to great lengths to show their concern about the autonomy or otherwise of our locally elected representatives. That is part of what we are restoring to them today. Fine Gael, the champions of local authority autonomy, are against restoring to those local authorities the very thing which would give them back something which we did take from them in 1964. But, because no local election has since been held it never came into effect. Surely Fine Gael will have second thoughts in regard to their position in this respect.

Mr. Clinton

Why does the Minister think again?

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy will be able to read it and I will not worry the House by going all over it again. The reasons are good, substantial and I hope, generally acceptable to all, even the Opposition, because back behind the minds of all of you who have to stand for local elections is the knowledge that what I am saying is right. You know in your hearts it is right and you know from your experience that as locally elected people of county councils you are entitled to this freedom which you have always enjoyed in connection with selection of these committees. Furthermore, it is these committees that determine to a large degree the amount of money to be spent, part of which comes from the rates. Would it not be a rare situation for those of you who are members of a local county council consequent on this unjust amendment of 1964 to find yourselves on a local committee of agriculture of your own creation confronted with a situation wherein money required by the actions of your committee and their deliberations and resolution was far greater than that which members of you local county council were prepared to have on mandate from the ratepayers? Would it not be ludicrous having to defend the action of your committee of agriculture, which was a creature and creation of your council, in making these payments, spending these moneys, and having them participate in that committee as councillors and yet having no control?

Surely it is mad when you think of it? I should hate to see members over there placed in the awkward position. even though they are Fine Gael, in which undoubtedly they would be if they leave the 1964 amendment stand.

Deputy Collins seemed to think that he could speak with a great degree of objectivity in this matter, as he was never a member of such a committee. I would say that this is no proof whatsoever of the objectivity of Deputy Collins, or anybody else, in regard to this matter. The people who could be expected to have a fair outlook on this matter are those who have had the experience of being on their local county councils and, as a result of that, being on their local committees of agriculture. They have had experience and the opportunity over a number of years, on a number of committees, to observe how they work and in what manner they function. There are quite a number of people who have spoken here today who have that qualification, but whether or not they are all objective I question very much. But, at least I reckon they are in a better position to judge the situation than somebody who has not, by his own admission, been a member of such a council.

Deputy S. Collins did say something with which I agree very much—that he is a believer in the worth of public representatives. All I can say is I wholeheartedly agree with him, and I would ask him to show his regard for public representatives by supporting the measure now before the House, because it is the worth of our public representatives in our local councils which really is at issue here. The speeches made by his colleagues on the Fine Gael Front Bench have been, in their own way, a reflection on the worth of our local representatives. I do not think this was intended. I think Fine Gael, in their opposition for opposition sake, let themselves run away with this thing and placed themselves in an awkward position, at this very delicate time for them, whereby they are reflecting on their existing local representatives and may now bring about certain withdrawals of some of their candidates in the time I provided when I was Minister for Local Government, which would be from 12 noon tomorrow, which is the closing date, until 12 noon on Saturday. I should not like this to happen to Fine Gael, to see some of their very worthy candidates, already chosen at great trouble and inconvenience pulling out tomorrow, in the time allowed for withdrawal, because of the fact that opposition, for opposition sake here in the Dáil, led willy-nilly some of their Front Bench people to condemn and reflect on the worth of public local elected representatives.

Deputies Reynolds and Fitzpatrick (Cavan)—and I do not know who else —in various ways waffled—at least Deputy Reynolds was straight-forward about it—as did others, as only Fine Gael speakers can waffle—that the measure was anti-NFA. If Fine Gael want to make this out to be the case —in order, of course, in their best judgment to help make peace at the moment—well, I shall leave it to them. As I said at the outset, Fine Gael are great peacemakers on the surface but they are very far removed from it underneath. Quite a few of them across on those Benches know exactly what I talk about when I talk about the NFA in this House; so, let us not get away from this thing—that you can talk about the Government being anti-NFA and indicate that you are making peace. The whole reason for the waffling, and possibly for the straight-forward statement of Deputy Reynolds —it is the wafflers one must be wary of rather than the man who speaks out what he has to say—is they are hoping that by making these inferences they have been making and the innuendoes passed here today, it will cause further friction between the NFA and the Government of this country. That is what they are hoping for but they have not the guts to say it.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister knows there is enough friction without anybody trying to create more.

Mr. Blaney

That is what those Deputies are trying to do. Then, at the same time, you get those who speak, as I think Deputy Collins spoke earlier, about platitudinous nonsense. You get all the platitudinous nonsense from the very same wafflers who maintain they are concerned that there should be peace between the NFA and the Government. These wafflers do not want peace. They are making the innuendoes and inferences and we are to draw from what they said here today not any spirit of trying to bring about peace but the reverse. They are so barefaced about it that they would almost challenge my reading of what they have said here today—waffling around trying to make trouble. Wafflers they are, and at the same time, coming out and saying they want peace and they are not, in fact, prepared to make peace. They do not want peace and they have not been trying to make peace during these months past.

Mr. Clinton

Nonsense.

Mr. Blaney

Deputy Clinton knows it as well as I do. There is no point in running away from it. That has been the situation and Fine Gael are not playing any useful role, nor have they done so in the dispute in these past months, or, indeed, in any dispute that arose where the Government was affected, if that Government was Fianna Fáil.

As I said earlier, one can admire Deputy Dillon's oratory. I cannot say the same for his arguments and conclusions. I agree with him that the great leveller is the vote of the people. I agree with him that it is the instrument that is in the hands of the electorate whether it be in a local election or a general election. Regardless of what the outcome of voting may be—which is distinct from what Deputy Dillon talked about—it was sacred, it was good, it was the ultimate instrument in the hands of the community in this democracy of ours, but all the time, and only if it was used to defeat the Fianna Fáil Party or a Government, so long as it brought about, in its wake in some queer way, a Government in which Fine Gael could participate and ultimately dominate, without having the majority of the people behind them, then, this sort of voting was fine.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister is a member of the only Party in this country who ever defied the votes of the people.

Mr. Blaney

We shall not go back to that Deputy but, if the Deputy does want to go back to it, I wish to say at this stage and I can only talk from what I have learned since then, because I was not around then, it was not the wish of your Party that the people be properly consulted at the time, and damn well the Deputy knows it. However, as I say, the ultimate instrument in democracy is the vote. It is the great instrument. It is the great leveller. It is sacred provided it is used to defeat Fianna Fáil and put in office Fine Gael, about which Deputy Dillon speaks, in whatever way they can; it does not matter; they will crawl in any way at all. It is sacred up to that point but there was not a word from Deputy Dillon about what happened shortly after he and his people got in on two occasions. The use of this same sacred weapon was visited on the heads of those who had abused their office while they were there and booted them out on both occasions. But Deputy Dillon I take it, does not regard a vote cast in that way sacred or good or an instrument of the democracy of this country. It is only when it is used and happens to fall against Fianna Fáil it is good, sacred, or an instrument of democracy.

I ask the House to consider this amendment as a re-institution, to some little degree, of the autonomy of our local elected representatives which, for better or for worse in 1964, we decided, in our wisdom—or lack of it—to take from them. I am asking that it be restored to them now and I think everybody in this House will realise that what I am asking to have done is the proper and right thing to do, that we will have better councillors and workers on behalf of our community if we give them this back, rather than keeping it from them as we proposed to do under that amendment of 1964. If there is anything one can say which may not already have been said about the good or ill that may have come from the postponement of the local elections it is that this never did get into operation until we got sufficient knowledge and insight into the matter to change our minds and be sufficiently forthright to come into this House and say we had changed our minds and why we had changed our minds. I commended the Bill to the House.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 36.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Don.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fahey, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
• (Dublin South-Central).
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Boylan, Terence.
• Brady, Philip.
• Foley, Desmond.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gibbons, James M.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Lenihan, Patrick.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moore, Seán.
• Nolan, Thomas.
• ÓCeallaigh, Seán.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Tierney, Patrick.

Níl

• Barrett, Stephen D.
• Barry, Richard.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Collins, Seán.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Costello, John A.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Dillon, James M.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Farrelly, Denis.
• Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
• (Cavan).
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• (South Tipperary).
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lindsay, Patrick J.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sweetman, Gerard.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Carty and Mrs. Lynch; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and T. Dunne.

Question declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 6th June, 1967.