Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Mar 1970

Vol. 244 No. 13

Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1970: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Blaney)

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

The purpose of this Bill is to increase the ceiling of the financial contribution by county councils to county committees of agriculture. Section 1 subsection (i) empowers county councils to increase the contribution payable by them to committees of agriculture for the service of their agricultural schemes to a sum not exceeding 27 times the produce of a rate of 1d—that is, 2s 3d—in the £1, in the area consisting of the county, exclusive of any urban districts therein. The existing ceiling is 1s 9d in the £1.

I want to emphasise that this provision is permissive and does not make it mandatory on county councils, unless they see fit, to reach it, or indeed to meet the actual requests made by committees of agriculture.

Section 1 subsection (ii) ensures that arrangements may validly be made by county councils prior to 1st April, 1970, for the purpose of financing the committees of agriculture for the financial year 1970-71.

Section 2 proposes, inter alia, that the legislation shall come into operation on 1st April next, i.e. the beginning of the local authorities' financial year.

The committees of agriculture are financed each year by means of contributions from their respective county councils together with State grants related to such contributions. The State grant normally approximates to the amount of the local rates contribution by the county council but, in the case of the 12 committees of agriculture in the small farms areas of the west and north west of the country, further State assistance is granted by way of a contribution of 75 per cent instead of the normal 50 per cent towards the cost of employing adequate numbers of advisory staff.

The existing maximum rate contribution by county councils of 21d in the £1 was fixed in the Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1964. Nineteen committees are now approaching, at varying levels, this maximum, although eight committees have not yet reached the maximum of 15d in the £1 which was operative prior to 1964. One committee has reached the present maximum of 21d in the current financial year and five are in receipt of over 20d.

As in the case of many other bodies, expenditure by the committees of agriculture generally has been increasing in recent years. In 1963-64 total expenditure by the committees reached £828,000 and now exceeds some £1,500,000. This increase is attributable mainly to an increase in the numbers and cost of the advisory staffs employed by the committees. The total number of advisers in 1963-64 was 402. In 1968-69 the figure was 509, which represents an increase of about 26 per cent over the five-year period. The educational and other services of the committees have also been expanding. These include new education centres, winter farm schools, the Pilot Areas Scheme, the Small Farms (Incentive Bonus) Scheme and the Farm Home Management advisory scheme. Further advances in most of these areas are necessary, if the farming community are to be adequately catered for in the advisory and educational work of the committees.

I should not perhaps conclude without referring to the suggestions for restructuring of the agricultural advisory and educational services in both the Jones/Davies Report and more recently in the Devlin Report. I am actively considering the recommendations in both these reports but I have not yet come to a conclusion in the matter. As Deputies will know, these recommendations range over a very wide area and pose a number of problems the solution to which would, I think, involve bringing extensive legislative proposals before the House in due course should the recommendations be adopted by the Government in whole or in part.

This Bill is really an interim measure designed to enable committees of agriculture to carry on with their business as heretofore until such time as a decision is taken on the future of their advisory and educational service. It is required at this stage to meet the needs of some 11 committees who in the immediate future cannot carry on without a contribution in excess of the present permitted maximum. It is expected that about eight committees will be able to meet their needs in the immediate years ahead from within the existing statutory maximum of 21d in the £1. The remaining eight committees are still further away from approaching the existing maximum.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

We on this side of the House are quite satisfied to accept the provisions in this Bill. It is generally agreed that, in the modern circumstances of agriculture, in so far as we can decentralise from the Department of Agriculture it is eminently desirable to do so. Undoubtedly agriculture is facing changing circumstances. The committees of agriculture are in a position to place before the Minister the problems as they see them. To do that it is necessary for them to have the most up-to-date advisory services available.

Our agricultural economy has been built almost entirely on the idea of trading with the United Kingdom. It is necessary to look into the future and we need people absolutely skilled in giving advice to meet the conditions we shall face. It is necessary to give the committees of agriculture the requisite funds for the purpose.

Taking a broad look at agriculture there will have to be some very drastic changes in the not-too-distant future. An agricultural plan will be required not alone nationally but locally to meet the particular circumstances of the case. Today certain counties under the jurisdiction of the committees of agriculture concentrate on a certain type of production and other counties concentrate on another type of production. However, we have got to see what will be most beneficial to us in the future. We must have experts, people who can see further than the parish pump. Unfortunately, agriculture has been very largely confined to the parish pump, presided over with dignity over a great many years by successive Ministers for Agriculture. It is quite obvious that we cannot continue under the present conditions and hope to compete in the agricultural race that is taking place today.

Even those who are not conversant with agriculture have only to open a newspaper to see that the bigger markets, the United States of America, the European Economic Community and so forth, are facing surpluses. If we carry on blindly as we are doing we shall run into considerable difficulty. Quite recently the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture drew attention to the fact that we were spending £31 million on subsidising dairy products. It may be desirable to subsidise dairy products and it may have been the basis of the existing information available to the Department through these committees of agriculture that we are doing that. Of course it is desirable to keep those who have invested money in agriculture in full production and to give them a reasonable monetary return. As against that we must agree it is a state of affairs which cannot continue indefinitely.

For that reason we must place our local advisers or our local committees in the position that they can project into the future. I do not know whether or not the Minister accepts in toto the advice of the committees of agriculture but I would suggest that, in the light of changing circumstances, he is likely in the near future to get considerably different advice from what he has had in the past.

The Minister should, when replying to the debate, indicate whether he is going to continue the committees of agriculture or what he proposes to replace them with. A great many reports have been issued and a great deal of advice given to agriculture generally and, on this side of the House, we do not know whether the Minister will accept that advice or not. There have been different reports; he mentioned two reports in his short opening speech. We would like to know what he envisages in the future for the agricultural advisory services and what line he proposes to take.

It is extremely likely that at some not-too-distant date we shall find ourselves embedded very substantially in another economy. We must therefore look into the future and see in what direction that economy will lead us. I opine that the advice the Minister will get from his committees of agriculture, if they are in a position to appoint suitable experts to advise them, will be totally different from what he has been getting heretofore. Heretofore, in committees of agriculture, the arguments have largely been concerned with whether the marketing system can be maintained in the existing economy of agriculture and whether a remunerative return can be given to producers. Now we face something quite different; a long-term agricultural outlook. I do not know whether the Minister will accept the advice that will be submitted to him by the committees of agriculture or whether he himself will take a new look at the situation. Without going too wide of the discussion generally I should like to point out to the Minister that if he gets and accepts expert advice he is likely to get a somewhat different projection to what he has been getting all along. In other words, there will be a radical approach to agriculture.

It is impossible to discuss agriculture, or agricultural advice, without referring, if only briefly, to future projections in relation to the Common Market and in relation to past circumstances in which we have functioned such as the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement.

An Ceann Comhairle

That type of discussion does not arise on this Bill which is limited.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I am not going to delve deeply into it; my point is a very simple one. The Minister is introducing a Bill enabling committees of agriculture to strike a bigger rate under which they may pay or employ agricultural advisers but it is totally valueless to introduce such legislation to enable him to get a larger amount of advice if he is not going to take it. I am trying to point out very briefly what the advice is likely to be, looking at it from the expert angle. I said I did not want to digress from the Bill which I may say is very wide because committees of agriculture have a very wide scope——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Bill deals only with the work of committees of agriculture.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Exactly. Committees of agriculture or their advisers, who are the beneficiaries under this Bill, shall we say, are likely to advise the Minister to develop a new line of agricultural policy. I felt it necessary to deal very briefly with the projections of the future in relation to the European Economic Community.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would be out of order. It would not arise on the Bill.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

How am I to make my point as to the advice that the Minister is likely to receive from the committees of agriculture unless I can refer to overall agricultural policy?

An Ceann Comhairle

This Bill does not open up a discussion on agriculture per se. It is confined to the work of committees of agriculture throughout the country.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Committees of agriculture have very wide scope. I am not a member of a local authority and so cannot speak as an expert on this subject but I understand the function of the committees of agriculture is to advise the Minister on agricultural matters. I think that is accepted.

Mr. Hogan

The Minister, in his opening speech referred, admittedly briefly, to the restructuring of local advisory services and he mentions the Jones/Davies Report and the recent Devlin Report. There is a certain broadening of the basis of the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

He referred to these in passing but that does not open up a discussion on agriculture per se. We are confined to what is in the Bill. I have already told the Deputy on three occasions what the position is. He might now get back to the Bill and make the debate relevant.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I am on committees of agriculture. Would the Chair not accept that that is what the Bill deals with?

An Ceann Comhairle

I have already pointed out to the Deputy that is what the Bill is about: the work of agricultural committees.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

That is what I am talking about, the advice the Minister is likely to receive from the committees of agriculture. These committees deal with everything relating to agriculture. There is no limit to the discussion in a committee of agriculture. Therefore, the function of the committee is to lay before the Minister the projection of the best agricultural policy they see in relation to their own county or even further, nationally. I am pointing out that I think the Minister will get new advice. I think it will be beneficial to him; whether or not he listens is another matter. I hope he will accept such advice. Naturally, the advice will be based on what is most beneficial to the farmers the committee represent.

If these committees look to the future and do not continue to gaze admiringly at the parish pump—a practice that has been so disastrous for agriculture in the past—they will have to advise the Minister on what is likely to happen in the future. I was going to make the point that the most likely opportunities for the future will lie in horticulture, a new type of agricultural development. In his opening speech the Minister specifically mentioned that more horticultural advisers will be desirable. That is why I was bringing in the Common Market; one of the opportunities in the Common Market will be for horticultural produce. It seems entirely germane to the discussion that I should mention that at the moment the prospect of expansion of horticultural production is possibly, under existing trade circumstances, not as attractive-looking as it will be if we become a member of the EEC.

On the question of beef I can with confidence say that the Minister is almost certain to receive the advice from the committees of agriculture, who will be advised by experts, that there will be a greater opportunity for beef in the future than there will be for dairy products. That is a point I want to stress. Quite recently the Minister introduced something here with which I found myself in profound agreement. He introduced the beef incentive scheme.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not relevant to the Bill. The Deputy seems intent on opening up a debate on agriculture per se. It does not arise on this Bill, which is limited, as the Deputy is well aware.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

No, Sir. I am trying to point out to the Minister the advice he is likely to receive from the committees of agriculture and their advisers, trying to give some idea of the lines on which they are thinking and what they are trying to do, and in order to do that one must consider outside markets. I will not pursue the subject any further. I shall come back and adhere slavishly to the terms of the Bill. I believe that the committees of agriculture represent a decentralisation of policy. I believe that one of the disasters of Irish agriculture has been that over a great many years we have adhered unchangingly to the one line of policy. We have done that largely because successive Ministers for Agriculture have not listened to the advice they have received from the people on the spot who knew what was most desirable. It is true to say that a great many committees of agriculture have given the advice to successive Ministers for Agriculture that the line being pursued is not the correct one. This has happened not only during the tenure of office of the present Minister. There was a good deal of advice given to his predecessor by the committees of agriculture which I do not think he accepted. I was not a member of a committee then and I was not entirely privy to the advice they gave.

The idea of decentralisation is very desirable. I suppose all of us would like to feel that agriculture would as far as possible move outside bureaucratic control. It stands to reason that, if the policy making is left entirely to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and those on the spot ignored, there will be bureaucratic control. One of the disasters of this country—it is a disaster that is growing even greater every day—is that we are tending to hand over everything to bureaucratic control thus removing responsibility from Dáil Éireann. I want us to go back to the grass roots level for advice. We do not want to have agriculture looking only at the parish pump, but we want to get our advice from the grass roots level, which is the committees of agriculture. They can give their advice to the Minister, who is the sole judge in the final analysis. He can then listen to the advice offered to him by his official advisers but, as against that, he can say: "I have received such and such advice from such and such a county and I think that they should know what they are talking about."

I welcome this Bill. I feel it is a good move. It is a Bill after my own heart because I detest—and in every speech I have made in this House I have protested against it—State control. This is something which liberates agriculture from State control. This is something that gives to a local body the opportunity of offering advice to the Minister which I feel he will be unable to refuse. Therefore, I exhort the Minister, when he sets up these committees and the advice is offered to him, to evaluate that advice and compare it with the advice offered by his official advisers. It is their duty to offer advice to the Minister, but generally their advice is not to take any risk for fear of doing something wrong. Now, however, the Minister will have the committees giving him advice from the areas concerned. He will therefore be advised from rural Ireland itself and that is a most eminently desirable state of affairs.

I hope the Minister will accept this advice. I hope he will clarify the position in relation to the future of the committees of agriculture, as to whether they will be allowed to continue as they are or whether he will accept the reports that have been given to him relating to the future of agriculture. I welcome this Bill on behalf of the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. Desmond

I also welcome this Bill on behalf of the Labour Party as far as the Bill goes.

I note from the Minister's statement that 19 committees are now approaching, at varying levels, this maximum which was incorporated in the 1964 Amendment Act. He did remark that eight committees had not yet reached the maximum of 15d in the £ which was operative prior to 1964. I wonder if the Minister in his reply would give us the names of those eight committees. That would be interesting to this House because it is rather an anomalous position, and a disturbing one, that there are eight committees of agriculture which have not availed of their statutory permissive levy of even the 1s 3d in the £ operative prior to 1964. Otherwise, we support the Bill. I have no doubt it will give a much needed injection of funds to the committees themselves.

As regards the future of the committees and their future work as indicated by the Minister, we in the Labour Party have an open mind as to the precise role that would be envisaged for them in the future. It is not unfair to say that a fairly high proportion of the committees—at least in their public image, whatever about the actual work done—in the context of their reports and of public impressions generally seem to lack a sense of dynamism and a general sense of innovation, notwithstanding the growth in staff employed and the growth in the advisory and educational services provided under the general auspices of the Department through these committees. Therefore, we have an open mind on the restructuring commented on very briefly by the Minister in his reference to the Jones/Davies Report and, of course, to the Devlin Report. The only reservation we would have in respect of the Minister's statement in that regard is that we would stress the urgency and the need for the Minister to bring in as quickly as possible his observations on them rather than that some future Minister might do so. The Minister himself has had very considerable experience in this field and it would be a pity if he would not take the bull by the horns in this regard and bring in the recommendations though it may prove difficult in terms of explaining them to the nation as a whole. Nevertheless, we must have a basic restructuring of the work and the composition and functions of these committees of agriculture which, in some respects, have stagnated during the years.

I should like to refer to another aspect the Minister dealt with in his speech, namely, that there are now some 509 advisory staff employed by the various committees throughout the country. I would make a special plea here for the staffs employed by these committees. Money is now being provided on an extra permissive basis and I would hope to see the staff employed by these committees being well paid in an extra special manner. The work of advisory officers at local level and the work of such staff on a general educational advisory basis—like all work of an educational nature—demands extreme dedication, it requires a special form of expertise. When one is involved in the growing complexities of agricultural technology in rural Ireland I am afraid one tends to forget that there are some 500 staff employed in the field by these committees. At conciliation and arbitration level there should be some special sense of urgency on the part of the Minister to raise the general level of pay of the staff. In terms of growth of income they are very much underpaid and many of them must be envious of some of the cattle farmers with whom they have to deal.

I would strongly urge the Minister to reform and completely amend the method of appointment of the advisory and general staffs working for such committees—this is germane to the Minister's speech. Although I represent an urban constituency. I do not suffer from this extreme form of urban versus rural propaganda the Minister's Party is so wont to feed itself on in a rather perverse manner. I have met on many occasions advisory and educational staffs who have had to suffer the humiliation, the despicable and deplorable practice of political canvassing for appointments. There is nothing more reprehensible than that a highly qualified agricultural expert should have to prostitute himself to local politicians in order to canvass and cadge a couple of votes to secure an appointment.

I am aware that the staffs are now in rather short supply; there are plenty of vacancies in some areas due to the relatively poor conditions of employment and the committees are not having too easy a time in regard to appointments generally. However, in regard to the more notorious practices of the past, which are not entirely absent at the present time, I suggest to the Minister that the more acceptable and desirable practice of the Local Appointments Commission could be very usefully and effectively availed of for situations such as those I have described.

Mr. P. Smith

It is the case.

Mr. Desmond

The Deputy will have every opportunity to speak. I am referring to the work of these committees prior to 1964, and at the present time.

Mr. P. Smith

The Deputy is referring to the making of appointments.

Mr. Desmond

I am referring to the fact that the Deputy was Minister for Agriculture for a long time and did nothing about it.

Mr. P. Smith

Never mind that. I am talking about facts. The Deputy made an incorrect statement. He does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Desmond

The former Minister will have every opportunity to comment later. I should like to deal now with the matter of the composition of such committees. Admittedly, when they were formed immediately after local government elections inevitably there were co-options to such committees and, whether we like it or not, the committees are local political talking shops and debating shops of an advisory and educational nature. They carry out essential work. I would suggest to the Minister that in respect of many other national organisations, such as harbour boards and vocational education committees, it has been the practice to have various nominees of vocational groups appointed.

I do not see any grave impinging on democratic practices if in filling the new membership of committees of agriculture local members of agricultural groups who were considered appropriate, were co-opted; for example officers or nominees of the NFA or the ICMSA in the south and various other specialised agricultural groups. If the Minister wants to dispel the public impression of antagonism between his Department, the NFA, the ICMSA and various other representative groups in the agricultural community this is one useful way of integrating such bodies into the essential work of agricultural education and advisory services.

These are some of the comments I wish to make. I have adhered as rigidly as I could to the comments made by the Minister in his introductory statement. Essentially, I dislike the practice of coming back here every four or five years and raising the levy rate. I consider it ineffective and inefficient for those of us fortunate enough to be here in four or five years to have the Minister return here and raise the levy to 2s 7d in the £ and then off we go on another merry-go-round. I suggest to the Minister and his advisers that there must be a more coherent and better way of financing the affairs of committees of agriculture than that incorporated in the Bill. These are the comments I want to make. I would urge the Minister to take a sharp look at the £1½ million now being spent on such work and to analyse the situation in order to discover whether or not the country is getting real value for money. Frankly, we do not know. His intention to recast the whole work of committees of agriculture has within it a valuable and essential development in the agricultural services of the country.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I welcome this Bill. I wholeheartedly approve of it. I have served for over 25 years as a member of a county committee of agriculture. Very few people give these committees the credit and appreciation they deserve. These committees were first established in the early days of the State; it was a combined committee— educational, agricultural and technical. There was a division then on the establishment of the vocational education committees. The county committees of agriculture became a separate entity. These committees have rendered a very valuable service and they have made a very generous contribution to agricultural policy because it is through these committees the farmers find expression.

The county committees of agriculture are the only statutory committees dealing with agricultural matters. This Bill is very desirable because many of these committees have reached their maximum from the point of view of the striking of the rate and their activities were considerably handicapped because of lack of funds. Now that we are, so to speak, on the doorstep of the EEC, I wonder should we have a look at the usefulness of these committees. What would the Minister's view be of permitting these committees to make their own demands, subject to the sanction of the Minister, without tying them down to any particular ceiling? Some committees are, perhaps, more energetic than others. Again, because of our geographical situation, there are areas in which the county committees focus their attention on milk production and everything connected with it. There are areas in which the committees bend their energies to tillage. In other areas they focus all their attention on livestock production. In the west of Ireland the main problem is, of course, the supplementing of the income of the smallholder in the congested districts.

The county committees of agriculture have great responsibilities. They will have greater responsibilities in the years ahead. I would ask the Minister to give serious thought to greater co-operation between his Department and the county committees of agriculture. More emphasis should be placed on their work. They should be given more staff and the wherewithal to meet the expense involved.

It is quite wrong to argue that the county committees are not democratically constituted. After each local election the county committee of agriculture is appointed by the elected representatives. Membership is not confined to elected representatives. Under the law there must be a number of non-elected members. The local authority has the right to appoint to these committees members of farming organisations and others of outstanding ability from the point of view of agriculture. The county committee of agriculture of which I am a member invited the NFA and Macra na Feirme to nominate their own members to the committee. They did so. This has been very helpful because the elected members are re-inforced with the guidance, wisdom and knowledge of those intimately connected with farming organisations.

Lest there might be any misunderstanding in regard to what the last speaker said about appointments, I know of no appointment that has not been made strictly on merit. Permanent appointments are made by the Local Appointments Commission. I do not always agree that this is the best system, but it is the best we have at the moment. County committees of agriculture make temporary appointments. It is only right that I should put on record that those who serve voluntarily on these committees do so in the knowledge that they have a duty and obligation to appoint the best, the most highly qualified and the most efficient. The first qualification for appointment is experience, efficiency and suitability.

The present system of appointment has been satisfactory. It might be even more satisfactory if some of the major posts filled by the Local Appointments Commission were filled by the committees. For how long will we go on pretending that we cannot trust each other to do the work that should be done? Will we merely use the county committees of agriculture as talking machines or will we share responsibility with them? I think the time has come when we must look on these county committees of agriculture as county agricultural development committees. I should like to see these committees taking over some of the work of the Land Commission. I should like to see county committees of agriculture taking on some of the work of the Forestry Division; I should like to see them playing a more important part in advocating private forestry among small farmers so that through them smallholders could find ways and means of supplementing their incomes.

When large holdings are being divided by the Land Commission the committees, the advisers, and the chief agricultural officer should be consulted about the suitability of applicants. The county committees should have greater responsibilities and I am disappointed that in this Bill there is not even a section to cover the importance of the general council of committees of agriculture. At the moment funds available to the committees are restricted and this Bill is to remove that restriction considerably so that a higher rate can be struck and more funds will be available for expenditure by the committees.

The general council have rendered outstanding service but they are restricted through the lack of a secretariat, proper offices and research workers. The Department of Agriculture do not seem to be eager to place the emphasis on the statutory agricultural authorities, namely, the county committees of agriculture. Does the Minister not agree that if the general council had a full secretariat staff they would be able to conduct research into the various branches of agriculture and the Minister would have to hand expert advice from practical farmers and elected representatives who are in the closest touch with people in all branches of agriculture? It is all right to pay lip service to voluntary workers on the committees of agriculture but here we have a golden opportunity, now that changes are coming in every branch of our economy, to do something practical and worthwhile for those who believe in the activities of the county committees.

The county committees were represented on the National Agricultural Council of which we have heard nothing of late. Since the right of the county committees of agriculture to make a demand on the local authority is mentioned in the Bill, it is not too much to ask the Minister for Agriculture to allow these committees to play a greater part in the moulding of our agricultural policy. Are we just going to allow them to seek the maximum rate as provided for under this Bill? Are we going to leave it at that and allow them to draft schemes, whether it be the premium boar scheme, or the fox destruction scheme, or the noxious weeds regulations, or whatever it may be, or are we going to give them more solid and more effective work to do? Every committee concentrates on its staff and wants to provide on its staff the best advisory services they can get for all farmers. Is it not also correct to say that in recent years the farmers have been clamouring for the advice of the agricultural advisers and instructors in every county, something they were most reluctant to accept 25 years ago? They are doing it now because they have seen that by accepting the advice of these qualified people who are available for 24 hours a day to advise on fertilisers, on seeds, the rotation of crops and indeed on all branches of agriculture, they can improve their farms and so the services are being eagerly sought. Should we not regard this as an occasion for complimenting the county committees of agriculture who have been responsible for creating such an atmosphere and such a spirit of co-operation between the men on the land and the advisers?

It may be said that farmers do not need these advisory services, that they already know sufficient. None of us knows sufficient. I knew a man who lived to an extraordinary old age and his advice to young and old was that every day was a school day, that it was only when we left school that we started to learn all that we should know. So it is with the farmers. There was never greater need for the full acceptance of our advisory services in every agricultural home. The barrier has been broken and thank God for that. However, there may be still some of the older school, whom we respect, who may feel that they know enough and that they are not concerned with modern agricultural techniques, with modern agricultural machinery or with the various tests and sampling carried out by the Agricultural Institute, or with other information which can be given freely so that their incomes and profits may be increased at harvest time.

Surely the Minister will agree that when we have such an excellent service sponsored and fostered by the county committees of agriculture it is the duty of the committees to have at their disposal the best type of qualified personnel because the money we are providing under this Bill will be spent on these people? I want to express my surprise in regard to the machinery which was set up recently to deal with the pay and remuneration of agricultural advisers, for whom the Minister has no responsibility. It is only right to warn the Minister that young men who have graduated in agricultural science take up their first appointment at a rate of £950 per year whilst in other professions the starting point is usually £1,300 to £1,500. Why should agriculture be ground down in this way to the lowest point? Would one not expect in an agricultural country that when a man is qualified and takes on agriculture as his career we would put him into a position in which he could build up his future on a solid foundation? There is little encouragement for anybody to concentrate on agriculture as other professions have a much more encouraging scale of pay than the scale paid by the county committees of agriculture. I ask the Minister to intervene in this.

I understand a certain committee have been dealing with this and that the representatives of the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture, an officer or two from the Department of Agricultural and Fisheries and representatives of the Agricultural Officers Association who sit on the committee have been dealing with this problem but the most recent report I have heard has been most unsatsfactory from the point of view of encouraging young men to take up agriculture as a career.

I ask what better career can a young man adopt in this country than one devoted to agriculture? However, the tendency is that he is attracted to the more remunerative professions. We must stop that trend, not that we begrudge these other professions the high standards they have set as regards salaries. Our aim is that those engaged in agriculture should be brought up to the same level. With this in mind I ask the Minister seriously to intervene in this matter so that we will have a greater flow of young men, and girls, devoting their talents towards qualifying in agriculture in order to have them ready and available to county committees of agriculture as experts and advisers.

I often wonder if the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries examines closely the various schemes which must be undertaken by county committees. Is it not extraordinary that many county committees find themselves severely handicapped, because of lack of money, to realise their ambitions? It is correct to say that 50 per cent of expenditure on such schemes is recouped by the Department, in many instances more. I strongly recommend that the Minister should accord national recognition to the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture by giving them a higher standing, the rank that they deserve, as advisers on national agricultural policy.

The time has come for the Minister to review the various schemes undertaken by county committees. For instance, are we really satisfied with the operation of the pig premium scheme? At every other meeting of the committee of which I am a member letters come in from those qualified to have what we describe as boar stations to the effect that the pigs supplied to them are suffering from different types of rheumatism peculiar to pigs, or that the pigs have proved to be infertile, and they request that the committee provide replacements. I should like to know the type of supervisory system employed in these schemes. Is it correct to say, for instance, that when a pig is supplied to a county committee, the animal has not been examined or certified by a veterinary surgeon as being in sound condition and excellent health? I suggest pigs should be so certified. I know cases where farmers cared well for the pigs, fed them well and housed them well, but they did not prove to be healthy. I suggest that in such schemes there should be more exactness.

While dealing with the work of county committees of agriculture it might be appropriate to ask is it a fact that many counties have been disregarding the fox destruction scheme? If so, is it because they have no money? The Minister stated that a number of counties had raised the maximum amount. I regretfully have to tell the House that parts of the country are completely overrun by foxes. As a result of the vast increase in the fox population there is a big diminution in the poultry stocks throughout the country. I know farmers who have been unable to continue large-scale poultry production because of invasion by foxes.

Therefore, I suggest that the Department take some steps to rid this country of the vast number of foxes that now threaten agricultural production. There have been complaints that numerous county committees of agriculture have disregarded the fox destruction scheme. If you ask them about it they say that the bounties are payable to those who capture foxes provided the foxes' tails are produced in the local garda stations. I do not know whether, having received the 5s for the tail, the person is allowed to take it away, and whether he might not take it back again and receive a second bounty. There have been allegations that the same tail came in on numerous occasions.

Mr. J. Lenehan

It was the foxes paw that was the trouble in my county. Some people got paid four times for the same paw.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I cannot indicate what becomes of a fox when he is captured but we ought to have sufficient organisation to ensure that when the bounty for the fox is paid no second bounty will be paid in respect of the same fox. Seriously, I ask the Minister to investigate the extent to which fox destruction is being promoted in county committees. The matter is serious and the problem should be tackled.

County committees of agriculture should be obliged to have a number of permanent sub-committees peculiar to the farming that prevails in the respective areas. In tillage areas, there should be a grain sub-committee whose duty it would be to keep in the closest possible touch with the Irish Flour Millers' Association on the marketing of what and to keep in touch with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to ensure that harvesting problems connected with the tillage crop will be minimised. There should be a dairying committee in dairying areas. County committees of agriculture can do an enormous amount of valuable work because they are on the spot.

Every county committee of agriculture has what can be described as an excellent advisory staff. I am sure we have excellent chief agricultural officers in charge of these committees in all our counties. The Minister should call these people to a meeting, ask for suggestions and guarantee that money will not stand in the way of the provision of proper agricultural advisory services.

Ploughing matches should be encouraged. In the past, we had the horse plough. Now we have our expert tractor ploughman. The competition and the friendly rivalry engendered by ploughing matches were a notable feature of agricultural life here and such events should receive every encouragement. County committees of agriculture should not have to suffer financial embarrassment in this connection.

Whilst livestock and the grass farmer may be very important to our economy at present, nevertheless, I am a believer in tillage—wheat, oats, beet and barley. Our prospects as regards these commodities, particularly beet, do not seem to be very good so far as entry to EEC is concerned. I shall not dwell on that topic now: there will be another occasion soon, I hope. Some very important questions must be asked on that whole subject.

I am a believer in producing as much food as we can from our land. Our county committees of agriculture should be encouraged to subsidise ploughing competitions and competitions organised by Macra na Feirme. We cannot be unmindful of the invaluable services rendered to this country by Macra na Feirme. They made it easy for agricultural instructors and agricultural advisers to do their work by opening their committee room doors to the agricultural advisers and by telling the farmers that these people are their friends and are here to advise them free, gratis and for nothing. The farmers were told that this service was provided by the State for the community and that they should avail of it. It would be a great pity if the efforts of such an organisation went without mention.

All functions sponsored by Macra na Feirme should be subsidised by the county committees of agriculture. Sufficient sums should be available to each committee for this purpose. These agricultural events and lectures are of vital importance to our agricultural community. We cannot close our eyes to the co-operation that has existed, and which I hope will continue to exist, between the Irish Countrywomen's Association and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries— again, through the county committees of agriculture.

Agricultural shows in rural Ireland are not being encouraged to the extent to which they should be encouraged by the Department. Every county committee of agriculture makes a substantial grant to the respective show committees but, because of the financial structure of county committees of agriculture, they are extremely limited in the amounts they may give. I was always anxious that they would be generous to the maximum extent possible in the grant-in-aid for the continuance, particularly the survival, of the long-established agricultural shows which have been a source of so much pride and joy to our farming community. These shows include home-crafts. There are home-baking competitions, displays of good housekeeping and household management. Through the Department, there should be a greater alertness on the part of our county committees for the revival of such shows.

Our county committees of agriculture can play an even more important part than they are already playing in rendering advice, through their advisory services, in the formulation of various schemes, to be administered by the county committees of agriculture, in relation to achieving some measure of return from our cut-away boglands and poor quality, swampy land.

There is no co-ordination between the various agricultural offices and the county committee of agriculture cannot do anything about this. It is insanity to have land project offices at one end of a county, soil testing carried out at the other end and the offices of the county committee of agriculture somewhere else. All the offices should be in one place. The headquarters for the farm building and farm improvement schemes, administered directly by the Department, could also be in the offices of the county committee of agriculture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that this Bill is not the vehicle by which this could be done.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

As we are giving county committees more money it is right that we should expect a better return.

If the wasteland in every county that is taken up by hedges and ditches were examined by the advisory staff of the county committees of agriculture a vast amount of good land would be discovered. It is the duty of the advisory service to give advice on such matters. If county committees of agriculture are being given more money we should know what they will spend it on. We all know about the existing schemes, which are very worthwhile, but this is a time of change when we expect new ideas to develop. Utilisation of waste bogland would be worthwhile and valuable. County committees of agriculture could administer the necessary schemes.

I would like to know when we will have a Minister for Agriculture who will ensure that every single acre of land is productive. I know the present Minister is doing his best, in fact, we are all doing our best as members of county committees of agriculture but despite our best efforts we have not succeeded in making every acre productive. I am told by reliable agricultural experts that the very worst land in this country is capable of producing something. Who is going to do it? The Department of Agriculture are involved in major agricultural problems and the problems which our possible entry into the EEC will create. County committees of agriculture have an intimate knowledge of rural problems and could deal with them.

The Fine Gael agricultural policy provides for agricultural regional development committees. Such regional committees would undertake greater responsibility in rural Ireland so that any new ideas could be developed and tested there. County committees of agriculture will play a vital role in the future of this country. Will the Minister say what he expects the county committees of agriculture to do?

I have never known the Minister for Agriculture to refuse consultation with any county committee of agriculture. When the county committee of agriculture of which I am a member wanted to see the Minister we simply asked him if he would see us and he agreed to do so. We walked in and discussed our problems with him; we did not come out with all we wanted, but at least we had an exchange of views which showed that the Minister was prepared to recognise the agricultural committees. I hope the Minister will give new responsibilities to the committees. There are small farmers and large farmers with mixed politics or no politics on these committees, who are all united in the one ambition and the one aim to improve the lot of the small farmer.

This Bill gives county committees of agriculture, who are financially handicapped, the power to develop their existing schemes. They cannot embark on new schemes unless they have sufficient funds. There is no point in asking the committees to function without the necessary funds. The best agricultural advisory service which the State can provide is available to these committees and they are all giving an excellent service. It would be regrettable if their efforts were handicapped by lack of money. Therefore, I believe the Bill is a step in the right direction.

I hope the points raised by all the speakers will give the Minister food for thought. County committees of agriculture, and in particular the general council of committees of agriculture, can play an important role in the furtherance of our agricultural policy by bringing about a greater measure of co-operation between all agricultural interests. They can also play a great role in meeting the very serious challenge which will face the agricultural industry in the event of our entering the EEC.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I have been a member of a county council for a long time and I was also a member of a committee of agriculture but I left because I felt at that time that it was an ineffective body. I undertand some effort has been made in recent times to improve the efficiency of these committees. If we were to have 27 committees of agriculture, as we have 27 county councils, it appears to me that we would have 27 completely different farming methods in operation. I am prepared to support any Bill which will bring about better conditions for farmers. It irritates me that we have so many overlapping organisations all going their own way as far as I can see. Some of those organisations are doing nothing other than providing sinecure employment for certain people who know nothing at all about agriculture.

If the qualifications of some members of committees of agriculture in certain counties are examined it will be found that they had not even a spade never mind a plough in their hands at any time. If we are to continue the committees of agriculture we should make sure that the members possess some agricultural qualifications. My friend, Deputy O.J. Flanagan, hit the nail on the head. I no longer agree that those committees should carry on as administrative bodies. They should be development committees. Up to now there has been practically no co-operation between the officials of the committees of agriculture in some areas and the ordinary officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and between the latter and the officials of the Land Commission and others interested in land.

It is time some co-ordination took place so that there will not be a waste of personnel. It would appear that agricultural science graduates will play a less important role in future because I think the universities frown on them. They do not like agriculture. It appears to me that we will have great difficulty, especially in the west of Ireland, in finding agricultural instructors. As Deputy Flanagan said some time ago a concerted effort should be made to have all our agricultural services operate in an area from a single base and not have any divergence in our opinions as to what should be for the local areas.

I have never held with county councils or committees of agriculture because they are absolutely outdated. In the context of modern development and in a small country like this if we are to have such a system at all we should have regional councils, and regional committees. The sooner the change comes the better. When the new regional health boards are set up and the changes which take place are seen a great many people will agree with what I have said. In Connacht, which has 5 counties, Galway and Mayo are two big counties and Sligo and Leitrim are two small counties yet we have the same duplication in the latter as we have in Galway and Mayo. I believe one committee could deal with the whole of Connacht and, perhaps, with Clare as well. If we had something like that we would have a much better service. It is about time people thought over this.

I know certain people will say that this is not correct but if you asked them for their reasons I doubt if they could give any good reasons for continuing this position. It is like the people who make excuses for the continuation of county councils. The main reason why they do so and try to defend the existence of county councils and committees of agriculture is purely and simply because they use them in some cases for their own benefit and in other cases just for the sake of publicity. It is time we had a look at this whole matter and that we changed our ideas towards this whole set-up in administration. After all, there is no such thing today as local government. There is local administration.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has already pointed out that on the Bill before the House discussion is confined to county committees of agriculture.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I have to give examples. My friend on the far side instanced a few good ones. The point is that just like county councils county committees of agriculture are local bureaucracies controlled by a central bureaucracy in Dublin. That is what obtains today. The members have no power at all. I admit that in many cases they have allowed the power to slip out of their hands. They exist purely and simply to vote money. They may be called administrative bodies but they can hardly be regarded as advisory bodies and they certainly cannot be held up as development bodies. It is a pity those committees could not be used as development bodies.

Any Deputy in this House and any man who has been involved in public affairs for any considerable time must realise that most of those committees do very little except hold meetings. They do not even have the slightest contact with the people they employ. It is a well-known fact that there are members of committees of agriculture who have not the slightest clue regarding the identity of the officials employed by them. It is time some effort was made to alter that position. Some kind of regional committee should be set up. Two which would be efficient and outspoken could be set up in Connacht. Members could be appointed to them and something would come out of it. I really cannot understand why we should have five different committees of agriculture in Connacht. As I said earlier, I am sure that when the health committees begin to operate I will be proved right. I left the Mayo committee some years ago but as far as I know it has about 20 members.

There are a little less than 100 members on these committees in the five countries of Connacht. In many cases there is a great conflict of opinion among them. I went to a meeting on the health services in Athlone some months ago where I saw ten members from Galway, ten from Roscommon and ten from Mayo with the Minister for Health. I thought there would have been grave differences of opinion expressed at that meeting but it ended up very amicably and rapidly. The Minister should consider the question of regional committees rather than county committees. I left county committees because I regarded them as ineffective. I am not saying exactly that they were inefficient. I hold the same view now as I held ten years ago when I left.

Mr. Hogan

This is a small Bill. There is not very much we can say about it. I was rather surprised at the complete condemnation which the last speaker visited upon county committees of agriculture. Some of it may be merited. Within the conditions under which these committees operate I believe they have done a fairly good job. One can be unduly over-critical. The Minister is asking that power be given to provide the committees now with extra money. In that context one is entitled to ask what value one is getting for the money. There seems to be some objection to discussing the committees of agriculture in a wide context. On the other hand, unless we discuss the functions and the activities of the committees for whom extra money is being provided there is very little we can say about this Bill. We would merely become a rubber stamp to give democratic face to decisions already taken.

This whole question of agricultural committees will probably come up for increasing discussion in the future in view of the fact that the notion of regionalisation, the whole question of local government and the various reports we have got at various times have caused public re-thinking along these lines. The Minister himself referred to two important documents— the Jones/Davies Report and the Devlin Report. He did not see fit at present to make any comment or to give his views on either report. The Minister merely said that he is turning them over in his mind and will express his views later on. We are also promised a White Paper on Local Government and a White Paper on the Common Market. All these things are interlocked. They tie in with the future of local committees of agriculture. It may be that before the Minister makes up his mind to give us any comments on the reports he mentioned he will wait for the White Paper and particularly the parts referring to agriculture and our future in the event of our entering the Common Market. It seemed to a number of people for a long time, before these reports put the thing down in black and white, that there were overlapping functions. The Department of Agriculture is an excellent Department. It is the most important Department in this country. It covers a very wide field. Anyone reading the annual reports and familiarising himself with the Department's activities—as I have to do in the Committee of Public Accounts— is only too familiar with the tremendous field it covers and the excellent service it gives. It seems that committees of agriculture have not kept pace with the Department itself and have been left behind. That is a pity. Even from a democratic point of view it is desirable that local committees of agriculture should be put on a better footing.

We welcome the Bill the Minister is introducing here today in so far as it provides a little extra money for the committees of agriculture. It is an enabling measure. It will allow county councils to provide this extra money. There is an extraordinary degree of overlapping. For example, we have the committees of agriculture dealing with agricultural matters. Then we have the county council, which is the parent body, also delving into agricultural matters. We had long, and sometimes very deep, discussions in my own county council on sheep-dipping schemes of various types and on the equipment used for the dipping. Some of the members are experts on this subject while others are bored and object to a discussion on this subject at all. Yet we provide money for sheep-dipping. It seems ludicrous to have a committee of agriculture in one building and the county council next door discussing sheep-dipping tanks. One would feel that this was a job more appropriate for the committee of agriculture than for the county council. The inspection of slaughterhouses has been discussed at county council meetings. This is a matter which could be handled by committees of agriculture but it is being handled by a local body. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that these functions of the committees of agriculture could be more appropriately carried out locally by other bodies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair does not want to intervene at this stage beyond pointing out that the Vote for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries has still to come before the House and that there is a subhead in that Vote, subhead F, which deals with grants to committees of agriculture. The Bill before the House at the moment seems to the Chair to be providing the county councils with an opportunity to contribute more money for the use of the county committees of agriculture.

Mr. Hogan

This Bill, as I understand it, is an enabling Bill to give increased money to committees of agriculture. Therefore I submit that surely one is entitled to discuss the activities of the committees of agriculture, their functions, their ommissions and commissions. If one thinks that a restructuring of the local administration in respect of the committees of agriculture is desirable one is entitled to advert to that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The restructuring of committees of agriculture does not seem to be relevant to this Bill.

Mr. Hogan

If you stick to the terms of this Bill as laid down you will have a very limited and a very sterile discussion. You will not have a debate at all. You will merely ask: "Do you give the money or do you not? Yes or no"—like a barrister asking a witness in a court. The whole purpose of debate is the fermentation of human ideas. The word "debate" implies some degree of flexibility. This is not a questionnaire. If the debate is to be so restricted as the Chair would suggest, then it will become merely "yes" or "no", a questionnaire, and any worthwhile discussion ends, and the whole purpose of parliamentary discussion is debased.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All the Chair is saying is that on the Bill before the House we seem to be limited in discussion. There can certainly be a discussion on agricultural matters at the appropriate time.

Mr. Hogan

Two previous speakers have already mentioned overlapping and duplication and have adverted to the desirability of having some rationalisation of the functions of the committees of agriculture. My contribution so far has merely proceeded along these lines. The second last speaker said that it seems to be ridiculous to have a TB scheme at one end of the county, a land project scheme at the other end of the county and the committee of agriculture in some other part of the county. There is this duality at local level.

For example, there are local instructors in the committees of agriculture. They report to the chief agricultural officer. There are local inspectors and they report to the Department. Whether or not it is desirable to have this duality—and it seems to me to be questionable—there does not seem to be proper co-ordination between them. Grants are handled by both inspectors and instructors and advice can come from both inspectors and instructors. Some degree of rationalisation is desirable.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the Devlin Report. At page 285 it summarises the principal defects of the present system:

—Overlap of administrative and advisory functions between inspectors and instructors.

—Conflict between advisory function and scheme administration function.

—The lines of communication and command between agricultural inspectors, chief agricultural officers and inspectors can lead to difficulties.

—The separation into two services affects career opportunities.

These four points sum up what the Devlin Committee considered as defects in our local committees of agriculture.

I mentioned a couple of points that came to mind at local administrative level: the question of sheep-dipping tanks and inspection of slaughterhouses. We also have a seeds subsidy scheme administered by the county council. Surely these are more appropriate to these local committees of agriculture. We had an agricultural plot subsidy administered by small urban bodies. I do not know whether this scheme is still in operation. In most places I think it has fallen through because it was not availed of. This kind of ad hoc development all over the place requires to be looked at again and rationalised.

The Minister mentioned that all this needs legislation and it does, but this is rather urgent. The local committees of agriculture must be either upgraded or abolished. We cannot leave them in their present position. We are now negotiating our entry into the Common Market in which agriculture will be one of the most important matters that will arise and it is on agricultural exports that we will have to depend for our economic survival. The Minister should urge his colleagues in the Government to issue a White Paper on the Common Market as soon as possible so that he may be able to rationalise his own Department in the context of what that White Paper will disclose. The two things hang together and there are many improvements that could and should be made. I am personally in favour of giving increased autonomy and authority to local committees of agriculture. If anything is a grass roots job surely it is agriculture and it should go back to the local people who produce the raw materials so that they may be given the maximum interest in their own work.

It would be desirable to consider whether it is proper to have advisory services administered by these committees and at the same time an overlapping advisory service administered centrally by the Department. There is an analogous position in respect of local government—again please do not pull me up because I intend to say only a word or two about it. The duality in respect of advisory services began some years ago when Mr. Dillon was Minister for Agriculture. The same duality appears under local government in respect of group schemes. There are group schemes administered directly by the Department and regional schemes administered by the county councils. An official in the county council acts as a liaison officer between the two but the inspector or the engineer dealing with the water scheme does not come to the county council. This duality does not provide a good administrative system.

The same thing could be said as regards our advisory services, two services competing or overlapping do not look administratively good. I would suggest—and this suggestion was made in the Jones/Davies Report—that a unified advisory service should be set up under the general direction of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries utilising and expanding committees of agriculture on an agency basis. That would be a better system than the looser system which obtains at the moment. Secondly, I would suggest—and this was mentioned by Deputy Flanagan—that the local administrative service should be enlarged and should embrace some of the functions of the Forestry Division of the Land Commission and even of the Agricultural Credit Corporation. These bodies are very close to the land; they are grass roots organisations and could be locally administered by expanded and more efficient committees of agriculture.

The third suggestion I would make is that there should be greater integration of the advisory and grants services. It would help, where grants are being given, if the advisory service could have a greater say in the allocation of grants. If the rural community knew that the man who was telling them what way to do the job would have a say in giving them the grant they would be more willing to call on his services and to accept his advice. The integration of the advisory and grants or aids services should be provided for.

The fourth suggestion I would make is that where the counties are small— and I am not being carried away by this wave of regionalism which is affecting everybody—they should be grouped together. Counties on the western seaboard or a small county like Carlow could be included in a suitable grouping in order to secure the better financial and administrative structure for these local committees of agriculture.

The Taoiseach promised that we would have a White Paper on the question of the Common Market, and I would urge the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to hasten the production of this White Paper, because anything as regards the future of committees of agriculture or any re-structuring of agriculture in general will have to be done in the context of what we face in the future. Probably very few of us know what that is likely to be because none of us is sufficiently informed and none of us has the gift of prophecy.

Apart from increasing agricultural efficiency, and enabling our farmers to produce more with greater profit for themselves, we must construct our agricultural committees as development committees on a regional basis, with greater autonomy, with the object of securing for our farmers a greater part in the processing and marketing of their raw materials. That fundamental notion is accepted generally. We can get the best out of our farming communities by developing these local committees, for which we are providing extra money, on the lines I have suggested.

I hope when the Minister is replying he will give us his present thinking on these matters. No one will hold him up to ransom if he prefaces his remarks by saying: "This is what I think at the moment. I may have to change my mind." Everybody has to change his mind from time to time. We are moving into changing and challenging times and we must be prepared for change and it is desirable that the thinking of the Minister and his Department on these matters should be available at the earliest opportunity to the public, to us on this side of the House and particularly to the farmers. That is why I have discussed this Bill in a rather wider context than the Chair seemed happy about. I offer my apologies to the Chair for enlarging the scope of the discussion further than the Chair thought right or proper.

Mr. Blaney

We have seldom wandered further outside the scope of the matter before the House. While sitting here I was thinking—that is while I was awake; half the time I was not—that, apart from a bull show, I have not heard anything like I heard on this matter this evening.

Nevertheless, I should like to thank the House for their acceptance of what is in the Bill regardless of what they said about the things that are not in it. There will, undoubtedly, be ample opportunity in the future to discuss the matters which were mentioned but were not relevant. This legislation is for the purpose of making available to our committees of agriculture, through their county councils, the facility of getting more money to pay for what they are doing. Extra demand has been brought about because the cost of providing the services they render is naturally going up and, in addition, the services have been expanded and are expanding. For both reasons we have had a growing demand on local authority coffers. It is to make it possible for local authorities to give committees of agriculture the necessary funds by way of local contribution that I brought this Bill before the House.

That this Bill is a further instalment of legislation enacted over the years is merely in keeping with the type of funding provided for in the legislation. Altered poundage rates will have to be provided for. It is only right that this provision should be made in this House from time to time and that the limit should not be rigid. It is for these reasons that we have these recurring Bills. They are not unnecessary or irrelevant. It is proper that they should come in this way in the circumstances.

If the House will agree I suggest we should get this legislation through as quickly as possible so that it may also be dealt with by the Seanad and in that way brought into law as soon as possible. The end of the financial year for local authorities is fast approaching and, as every local authority member appreciates, it is desirable or even necessary that the authorities that must provide more than 21d in the £ should have the authority to do so in the coming year and make the necessary provision before the final estimates meeting and the striking of the local rate. I commend the relevant matter of this discussion to the House, namely the raising of the rate of 21d in the £ to a ceiling of 27d in the £ for contributions by councils on request by committees of agriculture. It would facilitate local authorities if we could have this measure completed as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

May I ask if the Minister will give consideration to the question of providing the General Council of Committees of Agriculture with a secretariat and the necessary funds to enable certain research work to be carried out? If committees are prepared to contribute, would the Department be prepared to give, say, 75 per cent against 25 per cent from the committees? I think this would be most desirable and the Minister should seriously consider it in view of the importance of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture.

Mr. Blaney

This is a matter that I was discussing, immediately prior to coming into the House, with the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. It was unfortunate that the meeting clashed with the Bill. It caused my absence from the deputation for some considerable time when I should have liked to have been with them.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I was not aware of that.

Mr. Blaney

The matter was not discussed with any finality. We dealt not so much with the question of a contribution from the Central Fund as the making of an enabling regulation to permit committees of agriculture to contribute to the General Council a sum greater than the £30 that was the limit heretofore. In other words, there is a request that the limit should be raised to £100 per committee of agriculture. While the matter was not determined, we discussed it to the point where we arranged to set up a working group representative of the Council of the Committees of Agriculture and of my Department to go into the whole matter of the commodity groups that have been mentioned by the General Council and the method of funding them in regard to expertise, knowledge and research.

All these matters are tied together. Until we have sorted things out and agreed between us as to what purpose the various committees can serve, the scope of their influence and jurisdiction within the General Council and then cost the services they will need by way of staff and research, it is too soon to talk about who will pay what or what amount should be provided. There the matter rests at the moment, but it has progressed to the point that a working party has been agreed on this evening to discuss it further. Beyond that, I cannot comment at the moment.

Question put and agreed to.