Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jun 1967

Vol. 229 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1967: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Clinton

This is really a one section Bill and the arguments made for and against on the Second Stage apply equally on this stage. The Bill sets out to repeal section 2 of the Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1964. In order to refresh memories, it might be no harm to quote that section:

(a) the following Rules shall be substituted for Rule 2:

"2. Every committee of agriculture shall be composed both of persons who are and persons who are not members of the council and the members of any such committee who are members of the council shall not in number——

(a) in case the committee consists of an even number of members, exceed, or

(b) in case the committee consists of an odd number of members, exceed by more than one,

the members of the committee who are not members of the council."

(b) in Rule 5 "member of the council" shall be substituted for "person";

(c) the following Rule shall be inserted after Rule 5:

"5A. Every person, other than a member of the council, appointed to be a member of a committee of agriculture shall be chosen by the council for such appointment either by reason of his attainments in the practice of farming or the development of agriculture and rural living in the particular locality in which he resides, or by reason of his attainments in the promotion of agricultural or rural home education and advisory work."

This is the section the present Bill sets out to amend.

The Minister has made no case for the repeal of this section. He set out to warn us of the evil effects likely to flow from a measure introduced into this House by a colleague of his and supported by both sides of the House. It was hoped, on Second Stage, that he might deal in some depth with the arguments in support of such a section; instead of doing so, he launched out into an election speech, which was not even remotely relevant. Occasionally he touched on the Bill.

One of the points he made was that five committees had no outside members, no non-council members. That, in itself, is sufficient justification, in my opinion, for turning down section 1 of this Bill. I do not believe there is any county in relation to which it can be fairly said that the members of the county council are the best possible people to act on a county committee of agriculture and that, outside the council, there could not be found a certain number of people at least who would be better qualified to serve on such a committee, people who would have a more valuable contribution to make to such a committee.

The Minister went into some detail to prove to us how wrong the whole concept was in the 1964 amending Bill introduced by his colleague. He described it as a serious reflection on county committees of agriculture. The purpose of this amending Bill is to kill agricultural organisation. That is a very serious step. A great contribution is being made by organised agriculture. These people know what is needed. They are making a serious effort to find out what is required. They are prepared to help actively and to give a good deal of their time to do all this and it is very important now to ensure that we do not negative legislation which was designed to ensure that these people would be brought in and be fully involved. No reason has been given as to why the minds of all in Fianna Fáil have changed since the 1964 Bill was passed. Some said the change was brought about because county councillors advised that the 1964 Bill was a reflection on them. Apparently that was accepted as a good enough reason for introducing this Bill.

I have the greatest respect for those who serve on local authorities. I am also quite conscious of the fact that there are many who serve on local authorities who are not the best people to serve on county committees of agriculture. I am also quite conscious of the fact that there are excellent people in relation to the advancement of agriculture who would not be prepared to stand for election and who would not take an active part in politics. The Minister may say these are not excluded. We have evidence that they have, in fact, been excluded from five committees out of 27 and evidence that only a small percentage have been brought in on another percentage of the total number of county committees of agriculture. It is a pity, in my opinion, that we do not ensure in every county that outsiders who have taken a leading part in advancing agriculture are brought in on the county committees.

Another point made by the Minister was that these non-members, leading farmers, might be reckless about the expenditure of the rates. I have yet to meet a farmer who is reckless in relation to rates. They are a section of the community who are most concerned about rates because they know how an increase in rates affects them personally. They are the slowest to propose an increase in rates. For the Minister to suggest they would be reckless and irresponsible in the spending of the rates is an argument that does not carry any weight with me. I am sure it does not carry any weight with most people.

I do not want to go over the whole ground again. It was covered in considerable detail by the various speakers last week. The subject was also discussed in detail when the 1964 Bill was being piloted through the House. The then Minister for Agriculture made an excellent case for it and he received the unanimous support of everybody in the House. It is a retrograde step to introduce this Bill with this section.

Mr. James Tully

I regret that I was unable to be present for the discussion on this Bill last week but I understand that what I said on 9th June 1964, has been repeated by Deputy Clinton. What I said is reported in column 891 of the Official Report of that date and this is some of it:

When I heard this Bill was being introduced, I thought the Minister would have gone a long way further on this line. I had not discussed the matter with Deputy Donegan but I think there is a great deal of sense in what he 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 had 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.

I would like to clarify that statement since apparently it has been interpreted in two different ways, in one way by Fine Gael and in another by Deputy Corish. It would be a great pity if the county committees of agriculture should, to put it bluntly, become simply and solely the repositories for political has-beens or political failures who are put into them simply because they must be put into something. Which is the better way of putting people on these committees is a matter on which I had an open mind then and on which I have an open mind now.

I have a feeling that the thinking behind this Bill, it having been amended in a certain way in 1964 so that representation could be given directly to farming organisations, is to rescind that amendment and I would hate to think that this was at the back of the Minister's mind when this short Bill was introduced. The county committees have been doing quite a good job. On most of them there are people who know quite a lot about agriculture and there are also on most of them a number of people who know nothing whatever about it, but these generally have the good sense to keep their mouths shut when matters relating to agriculture are being discussed. The argument that large farmers, if they were members of these committees, would drive the rates sky high does not hold any validity because their funds are strictly limited. Whether or not this Bill becomes law, the Department of Agriculture and the county councillors themselves should make it their business to ensure that the people who go on to these committees do so because they are really interested in agriculture and not simply for the purpose of remaining attached to one political Party or another.

Mr. L'Estrange

We supported the Bill when it was introduced by Deputy Smith in 1946. Deputy Smith was a member of a local authority for a great many years and he had a wide experience of the working of these committees. We believed that the amendment made in the Bill of 1964 was an opportunity to take our main industry, agriculture, out of Party politics. We believed that for far too long our principal industry had been made the plaything of Party politics and that here was a golden opportunity to give recognition to the different voluntary organisations who had been working in the wilderness for so many years. I am a great believer in voluntary organisations and I know that the NFA, despite what the Minister for Agriculture may say about it, has done wonderful work for the farmers. The Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, Muintir na Tíre, Macra na Feirme and the Irish Countrywomen's Association and other voluntary organisations have shown great initiative, some of them much more initiative than has been shown by the Department of Agriculture.

We believed then that this was an opportunity to give some recognition and some status in their own counties to these people. The majority of members of these committees are doing reasonable work for the community but because they are tied to politics and controlled by politicians, they are not doing the excellent work they could do if they were not so controlled. The Minister has not given us a proper explanation of why Fianna Fáil have somersaulted since 1964. If they have collective responsibility as they tell us, then Deputy Blaney supported the 1964 Bill when it was introduced and we are entitled to get from him some good reason as to why he has changed his mind. Is it not a fact that he is afraid that if the 1964 Bill became operative, the members of the NFA would get representation on these committees?

We know that no matter what the Minister says about ending the dispute, any time there are signs of it dying down, he comes along with his petrol can and throws petrol on the flames. In doing this, he is doing a disservice not alone to agriculture but to the whole country. This is another example of Fianna Fáil somersaulting and it is being done purely for political motives.

When Deputy Smith was introducing the Bill, he is reported in column 887 as saying:

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.

We are entitled to ask what has happened since. If the county council elections were held, as they should have been held, in 1965, Deputy Smith's Bill would now be in operation and half the representatives on the county committees of agriculture would be from outside bodies, which would be a good idea. Has the Minister changed his views or does he hold today the same views as Deputy Smith held in 1964 as regards the voluntary rural organisations in this country? Does he not admit that they have done good work in this country? Does he not believe that they are entitled to recognition on the county committees of agriculture?

What we want in this country today is not bitterness, is not fighting, is not quarrelling. We may be on the eve of making a most momentous decision, the decision to enter the Common Market. Our county committees of agriculture, if properly formed, can play a useful part and can have a useful place. As Deputy Smith stated at that time, in those organisations there are men of ability and men who have proved themselves as farmers but, to be quite truthful, as Deputy Tully stated, the majority of our committees of agriculture are composed of politicians and if there are outsiders on them they are there as a consolation prize because they were defeated political candidates and, in many cases, of the Fianna Fáil Party. It would be much better if we had Deputy Smith's Bill here now and 50 per cent of the people outsiders.

It might be no harm to point out to the Minister that what is needed at the present time more than ever in this country is for the hand of friendship of the Minister for Agriculture to be extended to the rural voluntary organisations. I would point out to the Minister that he can build a solid foundation in this country on co-operation and on extending the hand of friendship and that the sooner he does it the better. Instead of extending the hand of friendship, instead of asking the rural voluntary organisations to co-operate, as we should ask them and as we should give them responsibility on these committees, the Minister is making certain now or is at least trying to make certain as far as he possibly can that after 28th June when the county councils are elected the members of the county council will not elect to these bodies members of the National Farmers Association or similar organisations.

Deputy Smith continued:

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.

Does the Minister not now believe that these people in rural Ireland who are members of farming organisations, who give of their time voluntarily to co-operate with the officials of the Department, who co-operate with agricultural instructors, who organise classes for agricultural instruction, should receive some little recognition? He seems to differ in his opinion from that held by Deputy Patrick Smith when he was Minister for Agriculture in 1964. Instead of showing any little recognition for their voluntary labours and voluntary work over the years the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is now about to shove them out into the cold.

Deputy Smith, in the speech from which I have been quoting, continued:

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.

Let us admit this. The farmers of Ireland are supposed to be conservative in outlook and lacking in initiative. That charge is made against them but I do not believe it. Due to the fact that for 700 years we were dominated by a foreign power, inspectors and instructors, and others perhaps, were supposed to be attached to that foreign power. For a long number of years, it was virtually impossible to get our farmers to avail of the agricultural services provided by the State. Voluntary organisations such as Macra na Feirme, Macra na Tuithe, the Irish Countrywomen's Association, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association and the National Farmers Association have done great work over the years in breaking down that barrier that existed for so long. Because those people did such gallant work over the past few years they are entitled to recognition from the Minister and certainly he should not have interfered with Deputy Smith's Bill.

Let us remember that when Deputy Smith was introducing his Bill in 1964 he was even thinking of giving their organisations direct representation: he had that in mind. As reported at columns 1355 and 1356 of the Seanad Debates, Volume 57, No. 16, Deputy Smith said:

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 practical to provide in this Bill for giving them direct representation, although I have given a great deal of thought to the matter.

Here was a Minister with long years of experience as a member of a public body who was even thinking at that time of giving these organisations direct representation.

The Minister was a member of the Fianna Fáil Party at that time. Fianna Fáil are very fond of speaking of collective responsibility. I dare say that this question and similar questions were discussed at the Fianna Fáil Party meeting at that particular time. I should like to know if Deputy Blaney then voiced his opinions against giving them direct representation.

Further in his speech on that occasion, Deputy Smith said:

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.

No matter what we may have said about Deputy Smith in the past, let us admit that here was a very good idea. There was a very good idea in the Minister's mind at that particular time. He wanted to broaden the membership because it would lead to a more general acceptance of the agricultural advisory services throughout the country. He recognised and knew the valuable work being done by these organisations. He wanted to give them responsibility on the committees so that there could be and would be a more general acceptance of the agricultural advisory services throughout the length and breadth of this country. We have had that over the past few years.

I am afraid that the Minister's new legislation may put an end to the co-operation we have had in the past between the county committees of agriculture and the instructors of the various agricultural organisations. Why should people slave for years at voluntary work, as they did, only to find that, instead of some kind of recognition as Deputy Smith was prepared to give them in his Bill, instead of the hand of friendship, the present attitude of the Minister, Deputy Blaney? Deputy Smith's attitude was: "We welcome the work you have done and thank every one of you for it. We will give you a bit of responsibility and make you a more important member of the community than you have been in the past. Because you have been a good member of the community and have given voluntary service we shall see that you will be placed on the agricultural committees." Not so with Deputy Blaney, our present Minister for Agriculture. He wants to keep the fight alive. He should admit that when the Department of Agriculture were dragging their feet about warble fly eradication, the NFA, the CMSA and voluntary organisations started it in this country and only when it was a year or two in operation did the Department take it up and proceed to administer it.

As Deputy Clinton has said, this is a retrograde section. The Minister should reconsider his opinion and should have more regard for the voluntary organisations in this country. Even at this late stage he should put agriculture before his political ideas and ideals because that is what he is trying to put through this House at the present time. His own petty jealousies have got the better of him because Donegal Fair was a success and now he wants to do anything he can to "down" these people.

Mr. Carter

It would be a wonderful achievement if Deputy L'Estrange practised what he preaches. We must be candid about this amendment and not try to see in it drastic changes which are in fact not involved at all. The Deputy waxed eloquent about the type of member he would like to see making up the composition of agricultural committees but I should like to ask the Deputy if he had his way, either in Westmeath or Longford, what representation would he give to outsiders on the various subsidiary committees making up the local authority, in view of the fact that he advised his own Party in Longford County Council to disfranchise the elected members of that local authority from all the committees?

Mr. L'Estrange

When?

Mr. Carter

He could not disfranchise——

Mr. L'Estrange

I never did.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy could not disfranchise the members from the county committee of agriculture because they are all members of it but he advised his Party to disfranchise the elected members of the local authority from all the committees, despite the fact that his Party were returned in the 1960 election in a minority of one and that by manipulation, the Fine Gael Party managed to gain a majority.

Apparently we are now debating a political matter. It should not be political but on the floor of this House, it is being related to politics and the Deputy goes far outside the scope of the Bill and seeks to drag in the NFA. The Deputy has dragged in the NFA in this House in the same fashion as a dog worrying a bone. He has dragged it on to every platform in the country and he has made it a bone of contention in his own constituency. The Minister stated, when introducing the Bill, that he sought the advice of various committees, of the General Council of County Councils, the General Council of Committees of Agriculture, and of various other committees for agriculture. It is a matter of opinion whether Deputy Smith's 1964 amendment was correct in the circumstances or not. It is open to the fullest debate whether it would work in practice or not. Certainly if Deputy L'Estrange had power on any county council, seeing what he did in the past in regard to disfranchising the elected members, I would have no——

Mr. L'Estrange

I had nothing to do with Longford in 1960.

Mr. Carter

I want to hang this around the Deputy's neck because there is too much double-dealing as between the attitude here and outside.

Mr. L'Estrange

I had nothing to do with Longford in 1960.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Carter

I want to challenge the Deputy. If his Party had power on any local authority, they would not co-opt a single man——

Mr. L'Estrange

We have them in Westmeath and——

Mr. Carter

——unless he be a stout Party hatchetman of the Fine Gael Party. I want to throw that back in the Deputy's face because I have evidence of his manipulations in the past. I make that statement and I challenge the Deputy to refute it.

Mr. L'Estrange

I can refute it.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy may go down to some platform in some remote part of rural Ireland where there is no Press and try to refute it, but certainly not on this floor.

Mr. L'Estrange

We have fair representation in Westmeath——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. Deputy L'Estrange has already spoken.

Mr. L'Estrange

Yes, but the Deputy asked me to refute it.

Mr. Carter

The fact that the 1964 amendment made it mandatory on county councils to co-opt 50 per cent non-elected members to committees of agriculture did not indicate that the scheme would work out in practice. It was never tried because of course since then we have not had local elections. As far as I know, there was nothing in the 1931 Act, the parent Act, to prevent any committee of agriculture from co-opting any non-elected member, nothing to preclude a committee from exercising its right to bring on to the committee someone deemed to have a long experience in the field of agriculture. This being so, I submit nothing drastic is being done here unless it is to rescind what Deputy Smith proposed doing in 1964 and Deputy Smith's intention in 1964 was never put into practice. Certainly from my experience of county councils I submit it would not work out in practice.

Of course the reason members of the Fine Gael Party are making such a song and dance about this matter is simply that there are local elections in the offing and of course the Fine Gael Party are trying to make hay while the sun is shining. However, it should be made clear to the House and to the country that the lowliest committee of agriculture is quite at liberty —even if this Bill becomes an Act—to co-opt anyone it wishes to co-opt on to the management of the committee.

When we talk about the expertise or the lack of expertise which may exist on the committees as a result of the enactment of this Bill, if it is enacted, we must consider the fact that people elected on to these committees are not supposed to be experts. The committee has its own expert personnel to advise it on any occasion on any particular matter.

There is no use, therefore, in trying to confuse this whole issue and in trying to throw dust in the eyes of the House, or in the eyes of townspeople who may not fully understand the position, or to suggest that anything being done here is unconstitutional, in any way wrong, or inhibits the power of any committee to co-opt anybody it likes. We should make that point very clear. It is possibly a coincidence that this amendment is being brought in while the local elections are in progress. It is, therefore, I suppose, an opportunity for Members of this House to try to take advantage of the political aspect of the whole matter. On numerous occasions the Minister has made it quite clear that there was no political ambiguity.

We must consider another point. Why should this House, or Deputy Smith, or any other Deputy, seek to make it mandatory on any committee to co-opt on to its management 50 per cent of non-elected members, half of any committee? After all, there is enough comment at the moment on members of local authorities. Being in the public eye, I suppose members of local authorities expect this and withstand or try to withstand fair and foul comment at times.

It is not up to us in this House to advocate the disfranchisement from membership of committees of agriculture of 50 per cent or half the membership of any county council. They must stand for membership of the local authorities and weather the storm coming, as it were, to become elected members of the premier authority, the county council. If they are selected, they are entitled to act as members of any of the subsidiary committees. In this context I submit it is not up to members of the House, or any Minister, to say who will or who will not serve on a local committee. In fairness, it should be left to the premier body, the local authorities concerned.

We hear a lot of talk about experts. Sometimes the more I see of experts, and the more I hear from them, the more confused I become. Any member of a county council is entitled to serve on any of these committees, in my submission. He should not be inhibited from doing so by legislation passed by this House. That does not mean that the county council, if left to their own judgement, cannot co-opt and should not be able to co-opt, under the parent legislation, anyone deemed to have special experience or long experience in agricultural matters. This provision in no way inhibits this factor.

Mr. Clinton

Deputy Carter in his reference to Deputy L'Estrange's strong Party feelings and strong loyalties has helped to make our case. I have no doubt that what he says is correct, and that in the present situation if Deputy L'Estrange found himself in the position described by Deputy Carter, he would certainly ensure that only Fine Gael people would be brought in on these committees. He would do this because he knows that wherever Fianna Fáil have a majority throughout the country, they do exactly that.

Mr. Carter

That is not so.

Mr. Clinton

Invariably it is. I could quote a number of cases.

Mr. Carter

That does not apply to our local authorities.

Mr. Clinton

It may not; it does not apply to ours either. Generally speaking, it does apply. The fact that Deputy L'Estrange is prepared to have this discipline placed upon himself and members of his Party, indicates that he is quite sincere in trying to ensure that people who have a real contribution to make are not excluded from these committees.

Mr. Carter

Only members of Fine Gael, of course.

Mr. Clinton

The point is—and Deputy Carter knows it—that in the majority of county councils, Fianna Fáil have a majority, and therefore, there is no question of ensuring that the outsiders would be Fine Gael. It is quite evident that so long as Party politics can intervene, it will intervene on the side of the politicians and if they bring in outsiders, they will make sure that they are of a certain Party political persuasion.

It is well known that most of the agricultural organisations have rules and regulations prohibiting their leading members from taking an active part in politics. That automatically excludes them. For that reason alone, we should ensure that these people can get a place on the committees of agriculture. There is no doubt that organised farming has done an immense amount to advance agriculture in recent years. If it did nothing else, it provided a platform for our agricultural instructors, who heretofore failed to get a sufficient number of people together to talk to them. Muintir na Tíre, the NFA, the ICMSA, and all the rural organisations have got people to come to meetings, and they have got the experts in various fields of advisory work to talk to them. In that way the knowledge and advice of these people were disseminated and spread amongst the people. Thought and consideration are given to scientific farming in a way never previously achieved. This played an extremely important part and because of the fact that the rules excluded members from taking part in politics, they should not be excluded from making their contribution on the committees of agriculture.

Their decision to exclude Party politics was wise for such organisations. On that account I think this legislation is wrong. It cannot escape the suspicion that is is aimed at organised agricultural groups and not towards any other purpose. The fact that we have five committees of agriculture with no outsiders proves this point. It is sufficient to indicate that the case has been made for the retention of the legislation which Deputy Smith as Minister for Agriculture, in his wisdom, felt it was necessary and advisable to bring in. I hope the Minister will not persist in going ahead with this section.

Mr. L'Estrange

We supported this Bill in 1964 because we believed with Fianna Fáil and Labour that it was a glorious opportunity to take county committees of agriculture out of the realm of purely Party politics. As reported in the Official Report of the Seanad Debates of 1st July, 1964, volume 57, column 1368, Deputy Smith said:

I did have in mind one thing, and I believe many people have 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.

We are entitled to ask why. Because there were too many party hacks on the county committees of agriculture. Deputy Carter has made certain accusations against me. He said I advised my Party to disfranchise Fianna Fáil members. As far as Longford was concerned, I had nothing to do with them good, bad or indifferent in 1960. I did not visit the county at that time. Whatever they did was their own business. As far as Westmeath is concerned, although Fianna Fáil are in a minority in the county council, they have fair representation on the county committee of agriculture, the mental hospital committee and other committees. In justice to Deputy Smith, he knew what was going on at the time. Where Fianna Fáil have an overall majority, nobody else gets a showing.

Mr. Carter

That is not correct.

Mr. L'Estrange

Deputies who are first class farmers have been voted off county committees of agriculture simply and solely because they were not members of the Fianna Fáil Party. Take Clare, where Fianna Fáil have a majority on the council. There are three Fianna Fáil representatives to the General Council of County Councils and three Fianna Fáil representatives to the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture. Take Galway, where they also have a majority. There are three Fianna Fáil men as representatives to the General Council of County Councils and three Fianna Fáil men to the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture. No opposition man gets a look in. Take Meath, where Fianna Fáil had an overall majority the last time. There are three Fianna Fáil men as representatives to the General Council of County Councils and two Fianna Fáil men along with the CAO to the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture.

In 1964 Deputy Smith knew what was going on the length and breadth of Ireland. He knew in his heart that where Fianna Fáil had a majority on a county council or a county committee of agriculture, they did not give a thraneen what brains or ability other people might have but put on their own members to the exclusion of every other section. He believed at that time that in the interests of agriculture, our principal industry, it was time to take this matter out of the realm of Party politics and to give to the members of rural organisations a slight place in the sun by giving them some responsibility and recompense for their voluntary work.

I am sorry the present Minister, for party political motives, is now amending that Bill. We would appeal to him even at this late stage, in the interest of agriculture, co-operation and unity, in the interest of bringing together all farmers' organisations to work for better agricultural conditions, to forget his petty Party politics and agree to the Bill introduced only three short years ago by Deputy Smith. I assume there was collective responsibility in the Fianna Fáil Party at that time. If there was, both Deputy Carter and Deputy Blaney were then in favour of that Bill, giving representation to rural and voluntary organisations. Neither has convinced us that there is good reason for their somersault since 1964. This House and the country are demanding to know.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Blaney)

If one did not know Deputy L'Estrange, one might be impressed by him, but I am not. I have said—possibly the Deputy was not here—that I have changed my mind and so have my Party and my Government.

Mr. L'Estrange

I was here.

Mr. Blaney

We do make our decisions collectively, not like the Deputy's Party. The reason I gave was that in the interim since the passing of this Act two or three years ago, we have had renewed representation from the county councils, the county committees of agriculture, the General Council of County Councils and the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture that the 1964 amendment was not a good thing. I do not believe it was a good thing and that is why I am here seeking to remedy that situation and to bring us back at least to where we were.

There is nothing in the amendment of 1964, as it stands, to give any member of a rural organisation the slightest right to go on a county committee of agriculture. As I said the other day, those who select these committees are quite free at the moment to select all outsiders, with the exception of one man, who must be a councillor. That is all the law requires. If they see the right people on the horizon—and there must be right people even in political Parties, despite the fact it seems to be fashionable in Fine Gael to have people who do not belong to any political Party—they are not precluded from selecting them. I have had queer experience of these people Fine Gael say have no political Party. They do not have any politics until the time comes when it counts. Then they are Fine Gael. This is the experience I have had in my county since I was small. Fine Gael bring along the most impartial people. They do not have anything to do with politics. Politics are not big enough for them. But when it comes down to some skulduggery Fine Gael want to participate in, do you find them supporters of Fianna Fáil or Labour? No, they will be Fine Gael supporters.

In my own county, where for most of the past 20 years we have had a fair say in what committees are elected, our system has been that the membership of committees is selected on a proportional representative basis as between the various interests and parties represented on the county council. That system has proved a sane and sensible one and has worked quite well. If Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael want to bring on outsiders in their representation, that is their business. If they want to have it all councillors, that is still their business. As I say, this has worked quite well and it certainly does not preclude anybody from being a member of a county committee of agriculture if any person on the council wishes to bring him on. Such people are certainly not kept off because of their politics. This does not arise. If that sensible organisation could work in Donegal for so long, I do not see why it cannot be adopted in other counties and work equally well.

The point I want to get across is that the freedom which at the moment rests with councils to select their committees of agriculture allows them to put on all outsiders, apart from the one member who must be a council member. That is all the obligation that is on them. That being so, how can it be said that by repealing the 1964 amendment, we are, in fact, knocking off people who should be on?

If there are people today who are entitled to be on or who should be on or who have more to contribute than those who are on, or members of councils, there is no reason why they should not have got on these committees, and if they are not on those committees today, even if the amendment of 1964 were to stand, there is no guarantee or assurance whatsoever that they will get on next month when the new committees are formed.

Listening to the arguments against rescinding this, one would think that we were taking away some sort of right bestowed in 1964. We are doing nothing of the sort. We are merely reverting to what we have been practising up to the moment and I believe that what we have been practising, if practised properly, is as good a manner of composing committees of agriculture as any other and I do not agree that rural organisations and all farming organisations have earned the right to representation on these committees above and beyond the right of those who were elected by the people to be members of the county council or local authority concerned. They have no more right. This is what is being preached here today. I do not concede that.

There may be cases of persons who have something outstanding to contribute. If that is so, there is no reason why they cannot be brought on at the moment. They can be brought on, to the exclusion of almost the entire county council membership. If they are prepared to give three or four days, as county councillors are prepared to give a dozen days in the year, when they might be doing something else, fair enough. If there are these people, and there are such people, and there are some of them on committees of agriculture, there is nobody preventing them from going on in future.

I want the House to realise that if we have, as we undoubtedly have, changed our minds about this matter, the change of mind is not doing away with some God-given right or something that we bestowed as a right in 1964. It is merely reverting to present practice as against the practice proposed in this Bill which I do not think would have done any good in the long run and might indeed, have done harm and, to my mind, is a reflection in a sense, or in retrospect, could be said to be a reflection, on the ability of the elected members to choose the best committees to suit their own needs in each county.

Deputy L'Estrange and others fear the reversion to the present status— because, remember, we are working now under the old Act of 1931 and not yet under the amendment of 1964. Those Deputies who fear this rescinding of the amendment of 1964 have only to look at the situation at the moment to realise that they have not much to fear because we have had this with us for a long time. It is working in many other counties very successfully and will work very successfully in a great many counties in the future. The will to work successfully is the main thing, not how it is laid down that the committee shall be formed.

To compel a council to put in 50 per cent outsiders does not in any way ensure a better committee, nor does it ensure that one of the people from any of the organisations enumerated by the Deputies opposite would find a place on those committees. So, what is the point of the hullabaloo and blah-blah that goes on about what we are taking from them and the recognition we are now taking from them? They never had this recognition. It is not bestowed by the amendment of 1964. By rescinding that amendment, we are not worsening the position, and if they are there—and they are there in places—they are recognised in many councils and there is no reason why they should not continue to be so and nothing that we are doing will prevent it.

I do think that it is right and proper at this time, on the eve of the local elections, that we should let it be known, and should let the people running for local elections know, that this, the parent legislative body in the country, does have trust in those who are running for the local elections and that we believe they are capable people from whom the council will select and when elected by the people who will vote on 28th June, they are quite capable of selecting their own committees to run the agricultural services and the various other services which local authorities run.

While there can be arguments about the pros and cons of this amendment, I still say that we have local representatives elected by the people and if we are not satisfied with them, we should change the system of local government election entirely. If we are satisfied with it, then we must assume that the people selected and elected by voters in local elections are capable people who can be trusted to do the best job within their ability and that in regard to their sub-committees, committees of agriculture, vocational education committees, health committees and all the rest they have under our present system, given the freedom councils have been enioving up to now, they will do a good job. We will not improve matters by imposing on them conditions as to how they should select or exclude persons for these committees.

I do not believe that people who go on as nominees of political Parties are any less worthy or less useful on committees than others who may be picked from outside because they have no politics. I have no regard for people who have no politics. I do not think such people exist in any number. Those who proclaim that they have no politics are usually hypocrites or else have no interest in the community. They can have it whichever way they like. Usually it is only the oddbod who has no politics. The majority of our people are vitally interested in politics. They may not publicly participate in politics but every last one of them is a politician and there is no point in a man saying he is not a politician who at the same time wants to participate in public affairs. To me, the politician is a person who does participate in public affairs, and if these people who are holier than the rest of us because they have no politics want to have a part in public affairs, they must be in some way politicians. If they claim not to be they are either hypocrites or have no interest in the community, and they have no place on county committees of any kind. If they are politicians, then they are no better, and probably no worse, than the rest of us who are politicians.

Therefore, this idea of setting the outsiders apart from those who are elected members of councils is not, to my mind, a good idea at all. I do not think it would work out well Local elected representatives, regardless of Party, would be entitled to resent its being imposed on them that they would have to exclude their own members, good though they might be, from participation in these committees merely because we in this House say that they must put on 50 per cent outsiders. If we were to put on 50 per cent outsiders, is there anybody in this House who would tell me that Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil or Labour or any other noted political group will put forward people who belong to a rural organisation as against a person who ran for election in the interests of the Party and who has a lot to contribute to the committee of agriculture? That freedom would still be there if we do not have this Bill at all.

It is only natural to expect that the Fine Gael Party would in such circumstances choose the Fine Gael man because they know him and know his worth, what he can do, his ability. If he has something to contribute to the committee of agriculture, by all means put him on, even though he was beaten the week before in the local elections. What is wrong with that? If we were to exclude anybody beaten in the local elections, we soon would have no competition for local elections and that would be a bad day for the local authorities. What is wrong with putting on a man who has been beaten if he is a good man? The fact that he has gone forward for election and was beaten does not write him down to the point where he cannot succeed against a man who will not stand at all, who, according to Fine Gael, even if he did stand, would not get in. Surely the man who stands up and fights and loses has a lot to be said for him, regardless of what Party politics he may have, as against the fellow who says he has no politics but would like to be a member of the committee of agriculture.

I do not think there is an awful lot of sense following up these things, but it is well to have regard to the real essence of this little Bill here in which section 1 is about the only section; the other one does not matter a great deal. We have had, as I say, a fairly good Second Reading on the Bill, and we have had a second Second Reading on it now. I would say that this Bill repealing the 1964 amendment is a good one and, looking back on the time since then, I think we are doing the right thing, and I commend it to the House for that reason.

Mr. Dillon

Let us get to the essence of this. The essence is very simple. In 1964, the then Minister for Agriculture, with the approval of everybody in this House, desired to make a gesture of confidence and to speak a word of encouragement to voluntary agricultural organisations who did not actively participate in politics. All of us in this House are politicians, and Harry Truman, a former President of the United States, spoke well when he said: "If you cannot stand the heat, keep out of the kitchen." There are many people in this country who keep out of the kitchen because they cannot stand the heat, and yet have a very material contribution to make to the technical work of a body such as a county committee of agriculture.

Here is the essence of this matter: in 1964, it was desired to secure, and it was hoped that it was possible to secure, for the Department of Agriculture, whoever was Minister, the active co-operation of the voluntary bodies representative of the farming community, the NFA, the Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, Macra na Feirme, Macra na Tuaithe, and the Irish Countrywomen's Association. To that end, it was determined by a section of the 1964 Act that the county committees of agriculture whom Oireachtas Éireann set up should be required to incorporate in their numbers 50 per cent outsiders—persons who in the ordinary course might be described as those who had a contribution to make but who were not prepared to face the heat of politics or to take their part in public election.

That was not all. There was an element in our rural community which I certainly thought it was extremely important to get represented on the county committees of agriculture. I wanted to see agriculture workers on the county committee of agriculture. I thought it was a desirable thing that in some organisation we should have farmers and their workers sitting side by side, having thrust upon them by us, the Oireachtas, the realisation of the fact that it was the common interest of all who participated in agriculture to do their best to make a success of it and to ensure that all who participated in it got an equitable share of the return.

Now the situation is changed. The plain truth of this is that the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Blaney, has engaged in an acrimonious and, I think, insane, personal vendetta with the NFA. The Leader of the Government to which he belongs, Deputy Lynch, is frantically trying to put an end to that vendetta. The Minister for Agriculture is concerned to perpetuate it, and he is concerned to perpetuate it because he has got the detestable idea into his head that it is a good thing to split the farmers into rival organisations.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not see how that can be discussed on the amendment.

Mr. Dillon

That is the purpose of this Bill. The Minister said: "Let us get to the essence of it", and the essence of it is that in 1964 the Government of which he was a member decided it was a good thing to make a gesture of recognition to voluntary farmers' organisations. In 1967, the Minister for Agriculture wishes to go on notice that whatever the Taoiseach said, whatever gesture the Taoiseach makes to restore harmonious relation between the Department of Agriculture and the voluntary farmers' organisations, he, the Minister for Agriculture, is determined to reverse a decision made by the Government of which he himself was a member, to reverse the decision for which every member of his Party voted three short years ago.

I do not believe the Minister is concerned in the least degree with the ultimate quality of the county committees of agriculture. What he wants to do is to ensure that his vendetta against the NFA will be carried on. That is folly. This House heard Deputy O'Higgins, who I think made a very profound speech on the Estimate, when he said how wrong it was, even in regard to the remedying of grievances, to break the law, how wrong it was to set at defiance the law of one's own country. But then he went on to say: "Strongly as I deprecate that not only for its essential wrongness but for its futility, I much more strongly condemn the individual who provokes them to do that." In my considered judgement—and I know whereof I speak —this Bill, the Committee Stage of which we are now discussing, was brought into this House for the purpose of provoking the NFA. That is coming to the essence of the matter. This Bill was brought in to say: "That is what I think of the NFA". There could be no other reason for its introduction at this time; and either the Minister has taken leave of his senses or else he is a much more evil person than I believe him to be, because certainly the interpretation that will be put on that Bill is that the Minister is concerned to provoke the NFA into further activity of a kind which will command the sympathy of no responsible public man in this country. I deplore the invocation by the NFA or by anybody else of breaches of the law for the purpose of promoting what they believe to be their legitimate interests.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have a discussion on the NFA on this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

I am not talking about the NFA.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is.

Mr. Dillon

I am saying that the Bill is a provocation to the——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot have a discussion on the NFA by means of a rare remark on the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

What do you mean?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must relate his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

I am so relating them: I am saying the Bill is intended to provoke the NFA.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not permit of a discussion on the NFA.

Mr. Dillon

Am I entitled to say that the Bill was brought in not to improve the county committees of agriculture but to provoke the National Farmers Association?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Bill relates to county committees of agriculture.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Chair seriously suggest that I cannot attribute to the Minister the motive I believe inspires him? The motive is not the reform of the county committees of agriculture but the provocation of a body of men whom he knows to be at the point of utter exasperation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That particular point has been debated fully on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, which is still before the House.

Mr. Dillon

And which will be debated again, please God, before this day is done. I implore Deputies to turn their minds from irrelevancies. That is the essence of this Bill. No rational Legislature would do anything else but give the decision taken as recently as three years ago a chance to function and, if it did not function satisfactorily, a rational Legislature would then come back to the House and say: "Look, this has not worked; we will revert to the old system, which gave satisfactory results." But that is not what we are doing here. The 1964 Act was so drafted that it did not come into operation until after the next local election. That was to be held in 1965. It was postponed to 1967. I am directing the House to the essence of this matter. This Bill has no purpose other than to provoke and exacerbate the situation, a situation the Taoiseach has sought to end. I do not know what kind of Government we have at the present moment. They are supposed to speak and act with a corporate voice and mind. I detect in them at the present time two rival factions—one concerned to promote discord in a rather disedifying internal struggle for power and the other, represented by the Taoiseach, trying to restore normalcy in the appropriate relations between voluntary bodies and the Department of State primarily concerned with their interests and affairs. If the Minister is neither mad nor evil, he will drop this Bill. If ambition has driven him mad, or the desire for revenge has made him evil, he will pursue it.

Mr. Blaney

Before we let that waffle go unchallenged, I think I had better say something. There is no division in the Fianna Fáil Party. The Deputy will be sorry to hear that. There is no scramble for power. There is no trying to oust the present Taoiseach. Far from it: he is our Leader, elected by us and recognised by all of us. That is more than can be said for Fine Gael now, in the recent past, or in the Coalition Government. That is the way it has been in Fianna Fáil. That is the way it always will be and no amount of wishful thinking on the part of Deputy Dillon will alter that fact one whit. The driving of wedges, which has been the sole preoccupation of Fine Gael for the past six, seven, eight or nine months has been their own undoing. In actual fact, it is into their own Party they drive the wedges every time they hit them a smack, but they do not realise this, and I suppose I am a fool to point it out to them. I do not want anybody to be misled by the sort of talk to which we have just listened. This is a figment of Deputy Dillon's imagination, put across as only Deputy Dillon knows how to put it across.

This Bill has been represented as portraying a vendetta by me against the NFA, my revenge on the NFA, keeping the trouble with the NFA going. Would someone in Fine Gael, or in the Irish Independent, someone who has not much to do, find out who has been provoking whom for the past nine months? Who, since I became Minister for Agriculture, has been doing the provoking and the propaganda? Who has been filling the papers, the journals, the magazines, and everything else day after day, week after week and month after month? It has all been coming from one quarter. Not from this side of the House, not from the Minister for Agriculture and not from the Government.

Talking about provoking the NFA is a new lark by the Fine Gael Party, a Party who have been crawling along in the shadow of this dispute, not knowing whether to go with the dispute or against it, not knowing whether to join openly in it or stay out of it, but all the time niggling away, hoping it will not be settled, hoping that in some way Fine Gael might get some little political crumbs off the table. This has been the role of Fine Gael right through. I am not talking now about the recent peace offerings. I am talking about the earlier ones when, on the verge of peace on one occasion, it did not suit Fine Gael that there should be peace and they did not hesitate to let certain people in the organisation know that it did not suit. There was another occasion on which, in fact, peace was about to be made and certain people in Fine Gael said: "We can do better than that for you; do not settle on those terms." And the dispute continued. It suits Fine Gael. This is the way in which Fine Gael hope to survive. I have no objection to them doing these things, provided they do not try to make it appear that it is someone else who is causing all the trouble. I have restrained myself day after day, week after week and month after month, because I look forward to the time when the NFA will again play a part in the interests of the farmers, the part their organisation was set up to play.

Mr. L'Estrange

Who wrote the Minister's speeches then?

Mr. Blaney

On at least three occasions on which I spoke in the past nine or ten months, it was for the purpose of making official statements to correct false statements made by others. On a couple of occasions in the recent past, I have had to intervene to keep the record straight and prevent certain newspapers and Fine Gael from misleading the public in relation to the real issues in this matter. Fine Gael are today obviously afraid that peace is coming and they are trying to stir things up again. Let them raise rows. The public will see who raised them. Let us have no more of this talk because it is not true that there is any provocation or desire for revenge. This is Fine Gael propaganda followed up by one particular newspaper and by one particular correspondent in one particular newspaper who would be better off if he had a look around for himself and saw what was going on instead of taking his dictation from Fine Gael.

Mr. L'Estrange

As dirty as you always were.

Mr. Blaney

I have been provoked into this.

An Ceann Comhairle

I suggest that we get back to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Blaney

I have been provoked into this by attacks already made: I am sorry, Sir. This Bill is giving back to the local authorities the freedom of selection which they have enjoyed up to the moment. It gives them a good method of operation to give us good service, good committees and good work in the future. This is in the interest of agriculture and anything that is in the interest of agriculture is in the interest of the whole community.

Mr. Clinton

It is well known that the Minister is an adept at misrepresentation but I will not follow him along that line. I want to keep to the Bill. Otherwise, I will have to go back and refer to some of his statements in relation to what the members of this Party have done in trying to bring about a settlement of the dispute.

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter has been dealt with. Perhaps the Deputy will set a good example.

Mr. Clinton

I want to set a good example and I want to keep to the Bill. The Minister has sought to make the point that we on this side of the House want to make a case that the 1931 legislation excluded the selection of people outside the membership of the county councils. We made no such case. We know it is possible for the members of these councils to select whom they like but we also know what actually happened. We know, as the Minister has stated, that five county councils refused to do that and that for Party political reasons, they refused to select anybody who was not a member of these county councils. This is itself is sufficient justification for our attitude to this Bill.

The Minister has made a point that even if we did allow the 1964 legislation to stand, it would not ensure that people from the various agricultural groups would get representation. That is true. That was the great regret of the then Minister; it was the great regret expressed by Deputy Tully, and it was the great regret of Fine Gael that it was not possible for the then Minister for Agriculture to find a way to ensure that these organised groups would, in fact, get representation. It was a matter of regret that the Minister was unable to find a way of ensuring that these groups would get representation. That was the intention of the legislation and Deputy Smith said that he would make it a point to ask the various local authorities to bear this in mind and he said that the only reason he had not tied it up was his fear of narrowing down the description of the persons who could serve, to the detriment of these committees, people such as schoolteachers and farm workers. That was the regret that was expressed then.

It is quite wrong to say that the Minister has got representations in this matter from the General Council of County Councils and from the General Council of Committees of Agriculture and that is a good reason for it. The members of these bodies are all county councillors and are all politicians. Inevitably the majority membership is Fianna Fáil. I am a member of both bodies and I forget when the representations were made, whom they were made to and how many members voted for them. I suspect strongly that it was Fianna Fáil politicians who made the representations, if the Minister has such representations. A point made by the then Minister when the 1964 legislation was going through was that he had sought the advice of these two bodies and that while they were not 100 per cent satisfied he had got general agreement from them. What has happened since then to change the minds of these people? We have been told that representations have been made but we have not been told in what way and what sort of majority made them. I think that is important I will not go back on the various other points as Deputy Dillon has put them to the House in stark reality.

Mr. Corry

I cannot see what is the objection to this Bill. I have seen that General Council of Committees of Agriculture and I have seen Deputy Clinton and Deputy L'Estrange very active on it. They are not politicians at all, I suppose. They are not politicians at all in the way we look at politicians of the present day. I have served for 43 years as a member of a county council and for 43 years as a member of a county committee of agriculture. I have seen men there of all Parties and our county council could fill every seat on our county committee of agriculture with farmers' representatives from its own elected representatives. There is no man going to tell me that Deputy McAuliffe or Deputy Michael Pat Murphy could not take their place on any committee of agriculture, or that Senator D.J. O'Sullivan could not do so. No one can tell me that these men do not know what the agricultural community want, just as well as anybody from outside, and they are elected by the people.

You are a politician if you go up and have the confidence of your people to elect you but if you go up and are beaten, you are not a politician at all, no matter what Party you stand for. That is a fairly strong committee, the County Committee of Cork County Council. We have, divided up between us, so many representatives of the Labour Party, so many representatives of Fine Gael, so many representatives of the Farmers' Party and so many representatives of Fianna Fáil: that is the way it is composed. Our Party, in their wisdom, picked out good farmers, farmers with a decent record, farmers in farmers' organisations, and put them on that committee as well as themselves, and always did. But this thing of a Bill providing that 50 per cent of the members are to be composed of boys from outside and only 50 per cent are to be elected representatives is so idiotic that I have never heard the like of it in my life and I am talking here quite frankly about it. How it slipped through this House, I do not know. I promise you that if I had been here, I would have opposed it even if I had had to do so on my own.

Mr. James Tully

You were here.

Mr. Corry

Have a look. Deputy Clinton and Deputy L'Estrange make me laugh. I bet you that Deputy L'Estrange is a member of the county committee of agriculture of whatever county to which he belongs, and so is Deputy Clinton. I am sure they would not vacate their seats on the county committee of agriculture to make room for anybody else. What is all the noise about, then? I think that at present about seven of our representatives on the county committee of agriculture are men brought in from the farming community. The late Senator O'Callaghan was chairman of our committee for a long number of years. You have men who are not on the county council but men who are in this Dáil from the Opposition side and men in the Seanad from the Opposition side. You have them, when they are not members of the county council, brought in by the different Parties there. Each Party can nominate from their own ranks or bring them in from outside. On occasions, we have brought them in from outside. They could not come in without the goodwill of all the members of the county council and of the county committee of agriculture.

Mr. P.D. Lehane, who was secretary of the Cork Farmers Association for a long number of years, was a member of the county council for a few years and was a Member of this House for a few years. I have never seen Mr. P.D. Lehane out of Cork County Committee of Agriculture. He is put on it every year just for his farming knowledge, just as the late Senator William O'Callaghan was put on it on the same basis and just as Senator Ted O'Sullivan is on it on the same basis, none of the three members being members of the county council. Do we now propose to go back on that state of affairs? If this amendment had not been introduced, I should have had no scruples about doing what I wanted to do under those circumstances. I get plenty of men who were not members of the county council and bring them in and nobody could stop me under the old Bill: nobody could prevent me from doing so. To my mind, the whole thing is a bottle of smoke.

I do not see elected representatives here suggesting that 50 per cent of the members here should be picked from outside, from the fellows who have not got the guts to go up, and that they should be brought in here to make the laws. They want 50 per cent of county committees of agriculture to be composed of people from outside the elected county council representatives. I ask Deputy Clinton to stand up openly and to say that he is willing to give his seat on the county committee of agriculture to anybody else: he would not. It would be a strange thing for a budding Minister for Agriculture if he felt he was not competent to sit on the county committee of agriculture.

Mr. Geoghegan

He might.

Mr. Corry

These are the matters I should like considered before we proceed any further. We should see what all the noise is about. If the Labour Party find they have another good man whom they want to bring in, they can do so with the goodwill and the good wishes of all the members of the county committees of agriculture and he can be co-opted by the county council on to it. If the Fine Gael Party find they have some farmer who is not completely tainted with Deputy Dillon's brush, then he will get in there too. If we find we have a good man, we do not care to what Party he belongs, but we shall bring him in and give him his seat and he will be there with full co-operation.

We want to have democracy in this country. Democracy depends on the votes of the people in the first instance. If there is any genius outside who thinks he would be of assistance or help in agriculture, let him stand for the county council and be put on and take his chance. Let him work on that line. The idea of individuals who are too grand to sit on a county council and who would not go through the indignity of putting themselves up before the people for election but who will afterwards go into the county committees of agriculture is nonsensical. I am absolutely in favour of the Minister's amendment. It is high time the matter were checked and finished before it does any harm.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The object of this section is to go back to the 1931 method of electing committees of agriculture and to confer on county councils the right to elect committees of agriculture composed entirely of county council members, if they think fit. In 1931, we had not got politics entering into local government to the same extent as we have today. As a matter of fact, it could be said that in 1931 local bodies were largely non-political and public spirited men were elected to county councils, indeed, as they are today, but the same degree of politics did not enter into the picture and politics was not the sole qualification. That system was in existence for over 30 years and the Minister for Agriculture of the day, and his Government, decided in 1964 to change the system, for some reason best known to themselves. We should ask ourselves at this stage why the Minister for Agriculture in 1964, and the Government of which he was a member, decided to make it obligatory on county councils to elect to committees of agriculture at least 50 per cent noncounty councillors. It is a pity that precedent seems to have ordained that retired Ministers do not take part in discussions in this House while the Government of which they were once members is in existence because I should like to hear Deputy Smith in this debate.

While Deputy Smith was putting through his Bill in 1964, he made a case by which he was able to convince the members of the Oireachtas that it was wise to put through the 1964 Bill and the Bill went through largely as an agreed measure. One significant thing the Minister for Agriculture said then, and which has not been discussed very much here, was that Deputy Smith and his advisers were not satisfied that the committees of agriculture as then constituted were doing a good job of work. At column 1368 of Volume 57 of the Seanad Debates for July 1st, 1964 Deputy Smith said:

I think I can say to the Seanad that I did not look at this matter with any hostility towards elected representatives or members of Parties in local bodies. I did have in mind one thing, and I believe many people have 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 is the case Deputy Smith made for bringing in his measure, that the committees of agriculture as then constituted were not doing a good job of work.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he agrees with that suggestion. I take it he does not agree with it now. I should like to know whether he agreed with what his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture of the day, put on the records of these Houses in 1964, and if he agreed with Deputy Smith then, what change has come about in the self-same committees of agriculture which were serving then, and which are serving now, to change his mind. It is important that we should not be chasing hares and we should discuss that net point to begin with, whether the committees of agriculture have done a good job of work, whether they have the complete confidence of the country or not. As I say, Deputy Smith, and presumably the Government of which he was a member, did not think in 1964 they had.

What was Deputy Smith's remedy? Deputy Smith's remedy was to broaden the membership, to get new blood in the committees of agriculture, if possible to get people into the committees of agriculture who, while they might have politics, would not be what I would describe as politicians, a totally different thing. Deputy Smith also said something which is very significant. He gave us the disease, or the fault, that the committees were not doing a good job of work, and by way of making a case for the remedy he said at column 134 of the same volume:

I agree that with the great changes which have taken place in rural circumstances since this provision was originally framed over 30 years ago, a change in the requirements for membership of committees is now called for. I have particularly in mind the emergence of voluntary rural organisations, the extension of the co-operative movement, the growth of the educational and advisory services and the development of new farming techniques generally. It goes without saying that committees of agriculture would derive considerable advantage from the inclusion in their membership of suitable persons from the voluntary rural organisations and the co-operative movement, and also local individuals prominent in the practice of farming or development of agriculture. There are undoubtedly progressive persons in every county who could make a worthwhile contribution to the work of committees of agriculture but who, for one reason or another, are unwilling to stand for election to the county council. I consider it desirable that such persons should have a greater opportunity to become members of committees of agriculture. With this objective in view, section 2 (1) (a) of this Bill provides that where a committee of agriculture consists of an even number of members the number of councillors shall not exceed the number of non-councillors, and, where the committee consists of an odd number, the number of councillors shall not exceed the numbers of non-councillors by more than one.

That was Deputy Smith's remedy. I am not being unfair to him when I say that if he could have found a formula for giving direct representation to the voluntary rural organisations, he would have written it into the 1964 Act. His whole speech means that he was encouraging voluntary rural organisations to get on to committees of agriculture and that if he and his advisers could have found a way of giving them direct representation, he would have done so because at column 1381 of the same volume, where he was referring to his efforts to give direct representation to voluntary organisation, he said:

I say that we have tried this. The organisations themselves have discussed this matter with us. They appreciate fully what is involved in it. I know that what is proposed here will not give any firm assurance that a certain thing will happen, but I am prepared to attribute to the elected representatives, in the main, a fair share of judgment and a sense of fair play.

He went on to say:

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".

He was saying they ought to have 50 per cent non-councillors on these committees. He was saying to the rural organisation: "Go after the councillors and get your fair share; get 50 per cent if you can."

I do not subscribe to any suggestion that politics is a dirty business or that, because people are elected on a political basis, they are automatically unsuited for serving on a committee of agriculture. What I am saying is this: there are many fine first-class farmers throughout the length and breadth of Ireland who have a lot to contribute to agriculture, and who could make a valuable contribution on committees of agriculture, but who have not the personal make-up, the personality or the desire to get involved in public contests.

If those men were drafted on to committees of agriculture, they would do two things, in my respectful opinion. They would make a worthwhile contribution on matters purely agricultural, and they would tend, at the same time, to remove from those committees the political atmosphere we find there too often, unfortunately. They would assess matters and approach things on an independent line, not a political line. This was the case made in 1964, and I do not think the Minister has made a convincing case here that what was done in 1964 was wrong.

Mr. Geoghegan

There is nothing to stop them from doing that when this Bill goes through.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): At column 1354 of the same volume, Deputy Smith said:

In practice, the proportion of non-councillors on committees of agriculture varies considerably from one county to another; some county councils tend to confine membership to councillors while others have shown a more liberal outlook towards the appointment of non-councillors.

Deputy Smith wanted to get at the county councils which were not liberal, the county councils which were confining representation to members of the county councils.

Mr. Geoghegan

Can the Deputy name them?

Mr. Clinton

We are told there are five.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister said there are five and he has more facilities at his disposal for checking than I have. I believe that by electing non-councillors to committees of agriculture, you are getting a wider section of the community interested in public affairs, getting a wider cross-section of the community interested in the advisory services of the Department of Agriculture, and ensuring that it is unlikely that the committees will be composed entirely of active politicians.

The Minister protested that it is unfair to accuse him of introducing this Bill for the purpose of disfranchising the NFA. He says it is unfair to accuse him of introducing this measure as another step in his attack on the NFA. All I can say is that when Deputy Smith was introducing the 1964 measure, he made his case on the basis that he was introducing a measure to get more representation from rural organisations such as the NFA, the Irish Country Women's Association, the ICMSA, and so on, on the committees of agriculture. That was the case made by Deputy Smith and I invite anyone to read the debates and contradict me.

Surely if the Minister here to-day is repealing Deputy Smith's measure, he is trying to undo what Deputy Smith was trying to do. In other words, he is trying to go back to the old system whereby rural organisations had not got fair representation, as such, on those bodies. Apart from the other arguments I put forward, it is a pity that the Minister should do that at this particular time. It is not in the interests of peace, not in the interests of harmony. It is not in the interests of the agricultural community or the voluntary organisations which, according to the former Minister, had grown up between 1931 and 1964, and which had according to his thinking and his advice, such a valuable contribution to make to the advisory services and to the local committees of agriculture.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister informed us to-night that since the passing of this Act he had got the views of the General Council of County Councils and the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture, and that in their view, what the Government did in 1964 was not a good thing. I am a member of both bodies, the General Council of County Councils and the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture. It is a well-known fact that they are composed of politicians. Naturally, those politicians are jealous of their rights, and their privileges, and do not want to see them filched from them. I challenge the Minister to inform us when he got the views of either of those bodies or when they passed any resolution on the 1964 Act. I challenge him to state that they passed any such resolution in 1967, in 1966 or 1965, or that they had discussions on this question since 1964.

The Minister seemed very concerned about their views. They have passed other resolutions in the past nine or ten months as to the Minister's handling of agricultural and farming affairs, but the Minister does not seem to be concerned about their views in that regard. The Minister also said that there was nothing in the 1964 Bill to ensure that rural organisations would get recognition. As Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out, it was the hope of the Minister for Agriculture at that time that they would. As Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out, if there had been any formula he could have introduced, he would have given them direct representation. I am not going to quote what Deputy Fitzpatrick quoted but I will quote the Minister for Agriculture speaking at columns 1355-56 of volume 57 No. 16, when he said:

While I am suggesting the rural organisations and 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.

The Minister said he gave the matter a great deal of thought. If he could have found a formula for giving them direct representation at that time, he would have given it in the Bill. The Minister continued:

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 the broadening of membership will lead to a more general acceptance of the agricultural advisory services throughout the country.

At that time that was not only the aim of the Minister alone, because I believe there should be collective responsibility in both the Cabinet and the Fianna Fáil Party. At that time Deputy Blaney was a Minister and Deputy Corry a Deputy. Both of them, as well as the rest of the Fianna Fáil Party and all the other Parties in this House, were 100 per cent behind the Bill.

Now we have this Bill as a direct provocation to the voluntary organisations which the Minister for Agriculture at that time, and the Fianna Fáil Cabinet and the Fianna Fáil Party in their wisdom thought should be included in the committees of agriculture. If it was right in 1964 to have the help and assistance of the various voluntary organisations who have done such exemplary work over the past 30 or 40 years, what has happened in 1967 to make the Minister change his mind and introduce this amendment?

The Minister stated earlier that it suits Fine Gael to keep the agitation going at present. Deputy Clinton and other members of my Party have stated that, as far as we are concerned, we want to see the farmers get a fair crack of the whip. We want to see an end to the present dispute which is doing untold harm to agriculture and to this country. From the earliest days of this State, we have believed in co-operation, sitting down around the table and ironing out our problems instead of quarrelling. The Minister talked about splits. Unfortunately, there was a split in this nation in the past which kept our people divided for 40 years. That is ending now, but, unfortunately, with the Minister's provocation over the past couple of months and with this Bill, which is a direct provocation of one farmers' organisation, there is again danger of having a split which may endure for the next 50 years and which may set brother against brother, neighbour against neighbour and city people against country people.

Mr. Blaney

Nonsense.

Mr. L'Estrange

We do not want to see that situation arising again. We would appeal to the Minister to withdraw this Bill and give recognition to the voluntary organisations which have done such wonderful work on behalf of agriculture for the past 40 or 50 years.

Mr. Blaney

Deputy L'Estrange challenged me to produce evidence that any committee of agriculture or the Council of County Committees of Agriculture were on record as having opposed the 1964 provisions. The General Council of County Committees of Agriculture did.

Mr. L'Estrange

In what year?

Mr. Blaney

After it had been passed.

Mr. L'Estrange

I said they did not do it in 1965 or 1966.

Mr. Blaney

The resolution of the General Council was in 1965.

Mr. L'Estrange

They did not do it this two years.

Mr. Blaney

They do not do these things every year. Does the Deputy deny that they did it in 1965 when it came before them for consideration?

Mr. L'Estrange

They did not do it for the past two years.

Mr. Blaney

Never mind what they did for the past two years. The Deputy knows they did it in 1965 when it came before them, subsequent to its being passed by this House.

Mr. L'Estrange

Why did you not amend the Act then?

Mr. Blaney

Carlow were against the provisions in 1964. So were Clare, Laois, Tipperary North Riding, Waterford and—news for Deputy L'Estrange —Westmeath.

Mr. L'Estrange

They might have been, yes.

Mr. Blaney

Here is something that might surprise the Deputy. The resolution there was proposed by Deputy Gerry L'Estrange and seconded by Mr. D'Arcy—two Fianna Fáil members no doubt. All I can say is that is the answer to the Deputy's challenge. Everything else the Deputy has said can be taken in the same way as his challenge.

Question put and declared carried.

Section 2 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

Report Stage?

Mr. Blaney

Now.

Mr. Dillon

Hold it for a week.

Mr. Blaney

Thank you very much, gentlemen. You are too generous. I know you are kicking for touch to-night.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 14th June, 1967.