Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Mar 1977

Vol. 298 No. 2

National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority Bill, 1976: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 19.

Question again proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. Gibbons

I would like to call the attention of the House to the constrictive nature of this section, in particular subsection (1) which says:

The Authority may, on such terms and conditions as the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, approve...

This seems to me to arrogate to the Minister for the Public Service and the Minister for Agriculture total control over the operations of the proposed new authority and any pretension it may have to the facade of democratic control falls when one examines the wording of this section. I suggest that the Minister consider this and also the possibility of amending this section. If he does not this side of the House will have to consider submitting an amendment on Report Stage. It must be self-evident even to the Minister that part of the subsection I referred to is obviously constrictive and is obviously arrogating to the political heads of the new authority all worthwhile control, including control over matters such as research, where there should not be political control of such an allpervasive kind as is granted in this section. I ask the Minister to consider changing this.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Clinton)

There may possibly be some misunderstanding of what is intended in the section. This section is intended to provide for situations where a relatively small proportion of the duties of a Department's office are proper to the authority and it would not be advisable to transfer them to that body. For instance, the teaching functions of certain members of the staff of the Botanic Gardens who give courses in horticulture is an instance of this kind. The Botanic Gardens are not being transferred but the amenity courses are. Therefore, a very small proportion of the time of the people who give those amenity courses is involved. Their main work is in the Botanic Gardens as such. It is to permit of this sort of agency basis transaction, to allow them to do this on behalf of the authority that the subsection is so worded. There may be cases where we would want to do this in reverse. It is only to make legal provision to enable that to happen. It is extremely sensible. I believe the objection raised arises from a misunderstanding of what is intended in the section.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.

SECTION 22.

Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. Gibbons

I would be glad if the Minister would enlighten the House on the meaning of this section, where it says that fees will be recovered on behalf of any person, firm, institution or agency and for services, courses, seminars, lectures and demonstrations provided or organised by it. I would like the Minister's assurance that this is not a provision under which, possibly at some later stage, the advisory services will become a fee-charging institution and that farmers availing of them may not under this section at any time in the future be required to pay a fee to the Minister or to the authority.

Mr. Clinton

That assurance is given in subsection (2). Deputy Gibbons will be aware of the existing powers of An Foras Talúntais to charge fees for research done on behalf of outside organisations and for the acceptance of donations. These are preserved under sections 22 and 23. The provision in this section is only to enable them to accept donations or charge fees to outside bodies if they want certain researches done. That has been normal practice up to the present and it is really to preserve this in the authority that this is put in.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not want the Minister's assurance about the aspect he has just mentioned. I want an assurance from him that at no time in the future will the ordinary farmer availing of the advisory service or participating in the modernisation scheme be charged for the services of the authority.

Mr. Clinton

Subsection (2) says:

No fee may, however, be charged in respect of—

(a) any advice that may be given by the Authority in response to a request from the Minister under section 21, or

(b) any facilities, assistance or courses of instruction that may be provided by the Authority under section 14 or 16 (b),

Those subsections give that assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 23 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 26.

Mr. Clinton

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 12, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following paragraphs:

"(b) The Minister may, in the order referred to in paragraph (a), in relation to the Board to be established on the commencement of section 25, provide, as regards the member or members who are to be representative of the staff of the Authority, for the selection for nomination, on or before a specified date, of a representative or representatives of the said staff and, notwithstanding the fact that, in the period between the establishment of that Board and the date of the appointment to that Board of the said representative or representatives, there are not any members who are representative of the said staff, nothing done by or on behalf of the Board or the Authority shall be invalid solely by reason of that fact.

(c) For the purpose of paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule, any member appointed by the Board by virtue of paragraph (b) of this subsection shall be deemed to have been appointed on the date of the establishment of the Board."

I am introducing this amendment because it is possible that the board of the authority may be appointed prior to the transfer of some or all of the existing staff designated for transfer. This amendment proposes to enable the board to carry out their functions in the interim period, prior to the transfer of staff, even though there will be no staff representation on the board. It is really to enable us to set up the staff of the authority, give representation to the board subsequently, and also to empower the board to function until it is possible to have that done.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am putting the question: "That the amendment be made."

Mr. J. Gibbons

I have an amendment. I do not know whether acceptance of the Minister's amendment prejudices the taking of mine but I have a few observations to make on the section myself.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must ask, first of all, if amendment No. 3 is agreed?

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 26, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. Gibbons

We oppose this section. The Minister is aware of the fairly widespread disquiet about the proposals in this section for the establishment of the board of the new organisation. From a layman's reading of the section it seems fairly obvious that the ability of the Minister to make up the personnel of the board in a manner that will be acceptable to himself is too widespread. It is also worth mentioning that there have been very strong representations made, I understand, to the Minister himself and certainly to the Fianna Fáil Party from the General Council of Committees of Agriculture who will have a very important part to play in the implementation of this proposal and indeed in the carrying out of any advisory service that might be contemplated under this or any similar Bill. It is proposed in this section that the General Council of Committees of Agriculture would have only one representative of the 24. It is not nearly as clear that this general council should be entitled to as much representation as but no more than the Government Department, namely, the Department of Education. If the Minister is satisfied that the present arrangement and those arrangements envisaged in the Bill for the future constitution of committees of agriculture, and the general council that would be drawn from them, are adequate he cannot very well argue that the representation he proposes to give them thereafter in this section is adequate also because it is not.

I do not propose to alter in any way my opinion, to which the Minister referred in his Second Reading speech, on the general revision of the advisory services, including committees of agriculture. But I am assuming, as one must that the Minister is satisfied with the proposed constitution of the general council. At the same time he will give no more, and possibly less, representation than he would give to the universities or to the farming organisations whose democratic structure would not be able to withstand the same type of examination as would that of the general council. It is manifestly reasonable that on the board of the Authority there should be representations from the farming organisations. It is of vital importance also that people placed on the board derive their presence there from some democratic source. Certainly this can be said of the members of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. I may have misunderstood my informant when he said that the Minister, when he met a deputation from the General Council of Committees of Agriculture, said that this section was capable of amendment and that he would not object to an amendment if one were put down. If the Minister is of such an opinion I suggest that he make the amendment himself or, at any rate, if this party make such an amendment that he would look favourably on it.

In this attitude of the Minister there is a certain Pontius Pilate element in that while he would not wish to increase the representation of the general council it seems he would not, at the same time, object to somebody else making that type of amendment. Why does the Minister not take a stand one way or the other? I suggest that he do so. There has been vocal and well-expressed anxiety that local representatives of the countries should have a larger say in the composition of the board. For instance, subsection (3) of this section says that a great many of the board members shall be selected for nomination in accordance with the provisions of an order made for that purpose by the Minister and that any such order shall indicate the procedure for filling casual vacancies in the membership of the board. As I understand it, the Minister will make an order which will permit him to nominate people to the board. I presume he can make an order in such a manner as will permit him to nominate the people he wants to place on the board, in other words, people of the Minister's political persuasion.

I do not want to labour the question of patronage but we cannot avoid some reference to it. We cannot avoid a backward glance at the appalling record of Fine Gael, in particular, and the Coalition Government, in general, in this respect. Having a lively recollection of what they are capable of, their cynical blackguardism in the matter of patronage, one shudders at the power the Minister can take under section 26 and the use he can make of it. When one considers the position in regard to every board under the general aegis of the Department of Agriculture since the Minister took office, one cannot expect that this authority will be treated any differently. For that reason I cannot do anything but oppose the section.

Dr. Thornley

I should like to make a few remarks on the statement of Deputy Gibbons. Far be it from me to take up the time of the House, which I rarely do, by going into the general principles of the Bill, but I think the position taken by Deputy Gibbons is basically correct. Speaking as a university teacher, I feel that the bringing in of research institutes into the purview of civil service Departments is a retrograde, regressive step and I do not think we should be doing it in this instance. It has always tended to stultify research.

Deputy Gibbons said that the Coalition parties have had an unhappy record in the matter of appointments of people to boards of this kind. In my view both Fianna Fáil and the Coalition Government have got equally unhappy records and I am concerned to express my view that the staffs concerned in research institutions like this should be people who ultimately will determine the manner in which they conduct their business and earn their livelihood.

I am a member of the Coalition and if Deputy Gibbons presses this to a vote I will have to direct my feet in the general direction of the Government of which I am a junior member, but I want to put on the record of the House that I regard this Bill as an extremely bad one, an extremely stupid one, and I think that in this case Deputy Gibbons is correct.

Mr. Callanan

I am glad that at least one member of the Government parties had the courage to come in and express his opinion on the Bill, even if he goes into the Government lobby to vote. I cannot understand why the Minister has decided to give such a small percentage of the representation on this board to people working on the land. Already the great work the advisory services have been doing has been mentioned and I wish to compliment them once more. I suggest to the Minister that one-third of the representation on this board should be given to members of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. They are free agents, elected by the people. The ratepayers will be paying a large contribution towards the running of this new body and their representatives should have at least one-third representation.

Theory is all very well but the people who put theory into practice on the land deserve more consideration than the Minister is giving them here.

Therefore, I ask the Minister to bring in an amendment on Report Stage to ensure that one-third of this board will be members of county committees of agriculture. That would be a representation of eight, four from each province. Throughout the years these committees have helped in an unequalled way to promote the interests of agriculture. Among other things they helped in the development of the co-operative movement. Their advisory services have always been available to all local organisations. Deputy Thornley pointed out the irony of putting research under the control of the Department of Agriculture. The Minister could redeem himself a little by giving strong representation to those who do the practical work on the land and I therefore appeal to him to amend the section to that effect.

Mr. McLaughlin

Since I last spoke on this Bill I have been meeting quite a number of elected representatives, nearly all of whom feel that they should have a stronger representation on the board than 50 per cent. Most of these are young people who are taking an interest in public life and in being elected. They go to the trouble of being elected and they should have at least 75 per cent representation on behalf of the agricultural community on this board.

In the past, agricultural instructors went out into the rural areas during the winter months conducting lectures and night classes until the middle of March or 1st April. I hope the Minister will ensure that those lectures will be continued. They instructed the people on the yield that should come from the land——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This section deals with the composition of the board.

Mr. McLaughlin

Again I hope this matter is kept within the control of the Minister and that he will take note of this desire for 75 per cent representation on the board. The health boards were established, having got the approval of the various councils throughout the country, and I think if they were back for approval again hardly a councillor in the country would give approval to them. I hope the same thing will not happen as far as this matter is concerned.

Mr. Noonan

This section, like some of the previous sections we were discussing last night, is a further step on the road to bureaucracy, having regard to the representation of the people who are elected by the public and having regard to the composition of the board under this section. Rightly, we are opposing this section for the reasons which have been outlined. So far as the elected representatives of the people are concerned, the representation outlined in this section is very small. I have no doubt but that the Minister will reconsider this section and that on Report Stage he will bring in an amendment to give adequate representation to the General Council of Committees of Agriculture on this new board. This is necessary, because the public representatives are the people who have to provide 50 per cent of the finances at local level, and they are also aware of the needs of the farming community and of the rural community in regard to the proper implementation of this new authority.

This section provides that agricultural and rural organisations will be selected for nomination in accordance with an order made by the Minister. I feel that at this stage they should be named, and I would like to know if the rural and agricultural organisations who are currently represented on the board of An Foras Talúntais will now have an opportunity of nominating a representative, or a representative from a grouping to the new board, and also if other agricultural and rural organisations will be involved in the nomination of members. The Minister should consider the fact that some of the groupings of the organisations are not proper groupings. I am referring to those groups which have nominations on to the board of An Foras Talúntais and which, I have no doubt, will have power to nominate to this new board under section 26. I would like to see certain organisations having direct representation on the new board.

However, the most important aspect of this Bill is the representation of the elected members and this is something the Minister should consider very carefully. Having come up through the ranks and being an elected member, I am sure he appreciates the role they play.

Mr. Leonard

I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues and I would hope the Minister would take heed of what Deputy Thornley has said as a person involved in education, that this Bill was bad and stupid. However, I was concerned when I heard him say once again he would let his feet control his head or better judgment.

We on this side of the House must be concerned about the composition of this board which seemingly will be under complete departmental control. Having regard to the contribution that has to be made to the up-keep of this, the Minister should have spelt out clearly what he had in mind and given some indication of the organisations he proposes should have nominations to that board. Reading the Bill I can see it could very well be that there might be only one elected representative out of a total of 24, which would be a serious imbalance. I hope the Minister will use his better judgment and give a fair representation to the elected representatives because they are well equipped to contribute and have contributed a great deal in the past to those organisations. It would be a sad day if he cut off the line of communication of public representatives to such boards. Therefore I hope he will listen to the Deputies on this side of the House as well as his colleague up in the right hand corner.

Mr. Hussey

I wish to add my voice to the opposition to this section. I spoke on this already when the Bill was being introduced. It is a very dangerous practice to get away from the principle of giving elected representatives the majority membership on a board such as this. The board will make a demand on the ratepayers. The county council will have to meet that demand regardless of its size. They will have no say in where the money will be spent, or whether it will be spent in the local authority area in which the demand is made. It is only right and proper that the people making that demand should have to face the general public and answer for their stewardship at election time. Elected representatives have to do that and, therefore, they are quite cautious in making demands of that nature. They make sure that whatever demand is made, whatever money is asked for, will be spent wisely.

Under this section the Minister will appoint one member. The Minister for Education will appoint another, and one will be appointed by the General Council of the County Committees of Agriculture. I assume that is correct, even though I consider one member from the General Council totally inadequate. Other farming organisations will be demanding representation on the board. This will leave the number of public representatives on the board very small indeed. This is a very dangerous departure. I earnestly hope the Minister will have a rethink on this matter. I am sure every member of his own party who is a member of a local authority, or who was a member of a committee of agriculture, will tell him the same thing as we are telling him this afternoon. I hope he will heed our demands in this respect.

Mr. Crinion

I also believe the General Council of the County Committees of Agriculture should have more representation than one member on a board of 24. They represent the committees of agriculture, 27 in all. The Minister says they will have at least one member but I believe a specific number should be written into the Bill.

Another educational sector is not being catered for in this Bill, the schools of domestic rural economy. Those people have been making their views known to the Minister and his Department and they have been turned down. These schools have done dedicated work for young girls in rural Ireland. A large number of the Minister's staff in the poultry section and in the farm home advisory service came through the rural domestic economy schools. Many men who have married these girls are very appreciative of the training they received in those schools. Most of them are in convents run by very dedicated people. Even as members of a group they should have one member on the board. I know we have a large number of rural organisations but these people are giving a very good service. To a large extent this Bill is devoted to farmers but we must look after the girls as well.

Mr. Clinton

I must have been called everything it is possible to call me by now.

Mr. Hussey

No.

Mr. Clinton

Nevertheless I will be amazed if Deputy Gibbons runs out of new descriptions. The last one was Pontius Pilate. Not all the contributions made were relevant to the section. By no stretch of the imagination was Deputy Thornley relevant to the section and Deputy McLaughlin was talking about section 42 which we will come to later.

This section provides for the appointment of the members of the board by the Minister on the nomination of bodies such as the General Council of the County Committees of Agriculture, such farming and rural organisations as the IFA, the ICMSA, Macra na Feirme, the Irish Countrywomen's Association, the Irish Creamery Managers' Association, the staff of the authority, the universities, the Irish Veterinary Association, the IAOS, the processing and marketing sectors of the industry, and the livestock breeders. These are the rural groups I have in mind who will nominate people to this board. How can Deputies opposite by any stretch of the imagination say it will be rigged and only people I want——

Mr. J. Gibbons

On the basis of performance?

Mr. Clinton

What performance?

Mr. J. Gibbons

The best criterion of all.

Mr. Clinton

What performance is the Deputy specifically describing? He is showing an imagination which is beyond me in some of the statements he is making on this Bill.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Minister knows perfectly well. He blitzed every board——

Mr. Clinton

The list I have just given is not necessarily a complete list. It is the list of organisations which immediately come to mind as being suitable to serve on the board of this authority. I gave it to indicate to the House that the board will represent the more important interests of the agricultural industry. It will be a board which can be expected to ensure that the staff of the authority will be able to carry out their duties without any undue or unnecessary interference. I assume that all these people, when they are nominated, will be concerned to get the best possible service for agriculture. That is why I propose to put them on the board and for no other reason. I ask the House to confirm the section as it stands.

Mr. Crinion

The Minister did not say anything about the rural domestic schools.

Mr. Clinton

It is specifically stated in the Bill that they can be appointed.

Mr. Callanan

I agree that some of the speeches were irrelevant but no speech from this side of the House was irrelevant to this section. The Minister did not give us any indication of what he intended to do about public representatives on the board. We are dealing with the composition of the board at top level. This board will make a demand on the rates in different counties. I can prove that under this Bill it is possible that there might not be any public representative on this board. The Minister has not spelled out how many public representatives will be on the board. He still says he will give them one but in my opinion we would need more than one.

Directive 161 was mentioned here last night. Is that directive not being well implemented by the advisory services and the county committees at present? We cannot pass this section without at least asking the Minister what he intends to do with these people who have been doing a reasonably good job.

Mr. Clinton

Deputy Callanan is making a very strong fight for the representation of the county committees of agriculture. I intended to say something about this. Deputy Gibbons said I had met a deputation from the general council and that I had said if the Opposition put down an amendment for stronger representation for the general council that that would be considered. I did not say that.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I did not say the Minister said that. He is putting words into my mouth.

Mr. Clinton

Perhaps I misunderstood what the Deputy said, but he said something of the kind. He asked why would I not amend this. He also said that I had said this to the members of the general council, but I said nothing of the sort. I gave no such undertaking in relation to this matter. I met the deputation and they made their case very strongly and of course I listened to their case. I have been misrepresented here on more than one occasion. I never said I will only give one seat. Deputy Callanan used that expression. I said I would give at least one.

Mr. Callanan

That is exactly what I said.

Mr. Clinton

That is what is said in the Bill, indicating that that is a minimum. It is the only organisation that gets a guarantee of one.

Mr. Callanan

What is the point of mentioning an organisation if you are only giving them one?

Mr. Leonard

Can they be given less?

Mr. Clinton

I am mentioning all these organisations to try to clear the minds of the Deputies opposite as to the type of board that will be set up. Those Deputies are hoping I will do something daft in relation to the setting up of this board and that I will pick people who are totally unsuitable so that they can shout about it.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Noonan

The Minister should clear his mind on this issue. He has not answered our questions. Deputy Callanan was not talking about the General Council of the County Committees of Agriculture but about democracy, that is, representation by public representatives on this national board. If the general public are denied representation by their public representatives, then it is a sad day for democracy.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Minister went to great pains to protest his innocence and wipe his hands of any fell intentions. Before he sat down the cat hopped out of the bag when he said he had not yet decided how many members he would give to the general council. The slant behind all that is that the Minister will decide the personnel of the board. He wondered whether the people on this side of the House had gone daft but this afternoon only two members of the Government parties spoke and both spoke against the Bill.

I do not think Deputy McLaughlin was up with the play, but I understood him to say he wanted 75 per cent representation from committees of agriculture on the board. Possibly I misunderstood him because he was difficult to hear, but there was no doubt at all about what Deputy Thornley said. He said what we were saying yesterday, that the destruction of An Foras Talúntais and its somethering in this new organisation is a detrimental, retrograde, ill-informed step. He is in a particularly sensitive position because he has an academic background and understands these matters more sensitively than the normal person. As an academic he immediately sees the fatal flaw in this, that is, the destruction of the concept of agricultural research.

The Minister said we expected him to do something daft but he has already done it—he introduced this Bill. When replying to our observations on this section, I was waiting to hear if he would give any indication of the future composition of the board. It would not be unreasonable if we were to ask him to tell us if there will be four IFA representatives, three ICMSA, two representatives from the Irish Countrywomen's Association and how many Macra people will be on the board. I would like the Minister to give some indication of the line-out because we have not got any so far.

Mr. Coogan

The word "democracy" was used a moment ago. There has been a great abuse of this in my county. Galway County Committee of Agriculture are 99 per cent Fianna Fáil but I will give in to one man, Deputy Callanan. He is better than the whole lot of them put together and the Minister will agree with me on that.

Mr. Crinion

Is this relevant to the Bill?

Mr. Coogan

If that is their idea of democracy, they have a lot to learn. Every time they use the word it should stick in their throats. It is only right that anyone who talks about democracy should understand it. There are 99 per cent of the members and a few lickers——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not use unparliamentary language.

Mr. Coogan

They lick envelopes for them and this is the pay-off.

Mr. Callanan

As the Minister knows, party representation on the General Council of the County Committees of Agriculture is fairly balanced and we are talking here about a committee of the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture. As I said on Second Stage, I sat on a committee where there were seven members from the Government parties and two from Fianna Fáil. The General Council of County Committees of Agriculture should have a majority on this board. Now they have decided that they will accept one-third. That would give two to each province. That is very little. Public representatives should get fair play. County Leitrim is completely Fine Gael but there are good men on the general council. We do not discuss politics on that council. I want to make that quite clear. It is wrong to deprive public representatives of proper representation. It is wrong that this can be arranged in such a way that there need not be one public representative on the board. We could not possibly support that suggestion.

It is a great pity there are not more men like Deputy Thornley and Deputy Coogan prepared to stand up here and give their opinions. They may vote with their party but they will give their honest opinions. I give my honest opinion but I vote with my party. If my party make a decision I stand behind that decision but I am not ashamed to stand up and give my opinion. I know what the opinions are on the Government side. I could name Deputies but I will not do that, but I know they do not agree with the constitution of the board. Why will they not stand up here and say so? That will not prevent them voting with their party.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 53.

Tá

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Belton, Luke.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burke, Liam.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Esmonde, John G.
• Finn, Martin.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Halligan, Brendan.
• Hegarty, Patrick.
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, John J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Thornley, David.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Toal, Brendan.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Níl

• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Seán.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gibbons, James.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Leonard, James.
• Loughnane, William,
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Colley, George.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahev, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central)
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciarán.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• Power, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Bruton and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.

Question declared carried.

Sections 27 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 30.

Question proposed: "That section 30 stand part of the Bill."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and, by agreement, may be taken together. If necessary, separate decisions may be made regarding the amendments.

Mr. Clinton

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 13, subsection (1) (f), lines 7 to 9, to delete "and allow him to examine such documents and records as he may consider necessary" and substitute "in relation to the finances of the Authority and allow him to examine such documents and records as he may reasonably consider necessary for that purpose."

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 deal with the same point under subsection (1) (f). As I stated on Second Stage, the subsection is necessary to enable those who have statutory accounting responsibility for the expenditure of state and EEC moneys to carry out this responsibility. I pointed out then that it is not the intention that this subsection would be used to obtain for wrong purposes information in the possession of the authority or to interfere in any way with the conduct of research. I am introducing this amendment to allay fully any fears which any person may still have with regard to the intention of this subsection.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I accept the assurance of the Minister. I accept also that the main anxiety which we expressed in our amendment is being adequately catered for by the Minister's assurance. In speaking on this section there is another matter to which I should like to refer——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The House can deal with the section later. We will first deal with the amendment.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I accept the Minister's assurance that there will be no invasion of the privacy of any farmer for any reason.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We can have a full discussion on the section later.

Mr. Clinton

I take it that my amendment meets with the Deputy's requirements? It goes even further than the Deputy's amendment. I am advised that a person's normal right to privacy is a constitutional right and, therefore, it need not be included in the Bill.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Constitution does not guarantee the ordinary citizen a great deal of privacy from the Revenue Commissioners. That is what our anxiety is about.

Mr. Clinton

I think I have clarified that.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 13, lines 10 to 12, to delete subsection (2).

The inclusion of subsection (2) in this section is a restoration of what seems to me to be the confusion of thought in the drafters of the Bill in that they get education, advisory and research functions mixed up together in the way a scrambled egg is. Even accepting the Minister's proposition that there must be an amalgamation the merging of the three functions of the authority and the supremacy of the Minister in all those functions, as indicated in subsection (2), is unacceptable. We cannot but reject that subsection. That is why I put down this amendment.

Mr. Clinton

I cannot accept this amendment as I consider the board of an authority of such importance to the development of the agricultural industry should have the right to consult with and make proposals to the Minister on all matters coming under the Minister's responsibility. I do not know how Deputy Gibbons can see it as something wrong that this right should be there to consult with those organisations and agencies that are coming together now in a single aggregated authority. Where would the Minister get his information; where would he get the material for his policy-making if not through such a group? I do not understand Deputy Gibbons's point in objecting to this because I do not know how a Minister could carry on without having this contact.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It does not require a great deal of imagination to conceive a situation in research where a large measure of confidentiality is essential and the research might be of a kind that would have a commercial implication. The unwarranted intrusion of uninformed people, either from the authority or the servants of the Minister, by being uninformed if for no other reason, could cause a great upset in the carrying out of any worthwhile research. Research in certain cases requires a measure of confidentiality that should be proof against the intrusion of the Minister or any of his servants, who would not have technical competence, to intervene in the normal operation of this. It is not workable. I ask the Minister to recognise this reality.

Mr. Clinton

The purpose of the subsection is to give the authority the right to consult with the Minister if they so desire. They need not consult with the Minister if they do not want to. That is why I think it is a misunderstanding of the situation. It is to give them that right to consult but they do not have to consult with the Minister.

Mr. Callanan

There is no consultation with the board of the Agricultural Institute. Why put it in? If they want to consult with the Minister surely they know they can consult with him.

Mr. Clinton

Deputy Callanan is not quite correct in what he says about An Foras Talúntais. Section 12 of the Agricultural Institute Act states:

For the purpose of assisting the Institute to carry out effectively its functions under this Act, there shall be paid to the Institute in every financial year, out of monies provided by the Oireachtas, a grant towards the expenses of the Institute, the amount of which shall be determined by the Minister for Finance in consultation with the Minister and the Council, after due consideration of any information furnished under subsection (2) of this section.

That is one part. Subsection (2) of that section states:

The Council shall furnish to the Minister such information regarding its income and expenditure as he may from time to time require.

A lot of things were required in the An Foras Talúntais Act that we are losing sight of. I am giving them the right to consult with the Minister if they desire. They need not consult with him if they do not want to.

Mr. Callanan

The passage the Minister read out is not relevant to what we are talking about. We know they have to provide the finance. I am talking about consultation. Why write it into the Bill? We seem to have consultation with the Minister right through this Bill. This is what people are worried about. I want to make it quite clear that we are not casting any aspersions on the present holder of any office. We are referring to the fact that the Minister has too much authority. Personalities do not come into it.

Mr. Clinton

My experience is that I get more and more demands for consultation. This is very desirable.

Mr. Callanan

Why write it into the Bill?

Mr. Clinton

I find it hard to understand, having made provision to give them the right to have consultation, how this in some way is seen as being wrong. They need not use it if they do not want it.

Mr. Callanan

Surely to goodness the board will be in consultation with the Minister without having to write it into the Bill. It looks like an order when it is written into the Bill.

Mr. Clinton

I anticipate that at some time in the future there might be Ministers who would not want to consult with them. I want to make sure if there is ever a change of Government that this thing is taken care of.

Mr. Callanan

The Minister is joking now.

Dr. Gibbons

Why not place the obligation on the Minister to meet them? There is no obligation on him in this to meet them.

Mr. Clinton

There is. If they are given the right of consultation they must get consultation.

Dr. Gibbons

It says "may".

Mr. Clinton

"May" is "shall".

Dr. Gibbons

It might be "shall" for one and "may" for the Minister.

Mr. Leonard

I believe it has been proved that this subsection is unnecessary when they may consult. I suggest that the Minister should agree to withdraw it.

Mr. Clinton

I do not believe the board of the authority would be grateful to the Deputies opposite if I agreed with this. They would be very sorry if it happened.

Mr. Leonard

Is it not unnecessary?

Mr. Clinton

No, because I do not know who will sit in this seat when I leave it.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That is a matter of great speculation.

Mr. Clinton

Great speculation.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Mr. J. Gibbons

No, Sir.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Section, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 31.

Question proposed: "That section 31 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. Gibbons

In the creation of the Minister's new pyramid of power there will have to be a director. This section makes provision for this office, with the remarkable difference in the appointment of the first and all subsequent directors. The first director will be nominated directly by the Minister; he will be a Minister's man. Thereafter the directors will be appointed by the board. Perhaps the Minister would tell us why all subsequent boards will be competent to appoint a director while the first will not. I cannot see any logical reason for this and perhaps the Minister would elaborate on it.

On the construction of the directorate of the new establishment it strikes me that, since the authority will have three main functions—those in respect of education, advice and research—it might be as well, in this or some subsequent section, to arrange for deputy directors with responsibility in each of those three main subfields. I make that suggestion principally bearing in mind the recent death of An Foras Talúntais and the need existing for the maintenance of some separate identity of the research function that might be afforded some kind of survival by the appointment of a separate director. I would regard it merely as a temporary and unsatisfactory expedient but it would be better than nothing. A more radical method will have to be utilised at a later date to repair the damage contemplated in the Bill. But, as a holding measure—to prevent the total extinction of agricultural research—I suggest that the Minister consider the appointment of three deputy directors. I would ask him to explain the differentiation in the appointment of the first director directly by the Minister and of all his successors by the board.

Mr. Clinton

I have followed the same procedure taken in the setting up of every board by various Governments; the Government have always appointed the first such person. It was done in the case of An Foras Talúntais. There is no other really good reason for it.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Is precedent a sufficiently good reason?

Mr. Clinton

In relation to the appointment of deputy directors, as I see it, when the board is set up they can appoint whatever staff they feel necessary for the proper running of the organisation. If they decide to appoint two or three deputy directors that is their business as a board.

Mr. J. Gibbons

This is the Dáil.

Mr. Clinton

Yes, but that is their business.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is our business, too.

Mr. Clinton

I thought Deputy Gibbons was objecting to politicians taking anything on themselves, that it was all to be left to people outside the House. We cannot have it both ways.

Mr. J. Gibbons

If the Minister thinks the appointment of deputy directors is a good idea there is nothing to stop this sovereign assembly, the Dáil, making that provision in the Bill rather than abdicating from the powers given them to a body the Minister will set up under his own rules.

Mr. Clinton

I simply would not know whether it is the right thing to do in the reorganisation of these services. I submit that neither would Deputy Gibbons until he sees what form generally the reorganisation should and would take when people get down to their jobs, when this board is set up and they commence work. That is the time to make decisions as to the correct staffing of the organisation.

Mr. Hussey

Would the Minister not envisage a huge workload being placed on the shoulders of the director who will be responsible for administering the affairs of this board and for promoting agricultural activities in the various fields throughout the country, particularly at a time when schemes are changing so rapidly and when new ones are coming forward as a result of our entry into the EEC and so on? It is very important, even at this stage, that some provision be made for the appointment of a deputy director because piloting the various schemes through will be a tremendous job.

Mr. Noonan

I should like to ask the Minister how the present director of An Foras Talúntais will be affected, with the death of that body as we knew it?

Mr. Clinton

I have given a specific undertaking that the position of any member of the staff of the bodies coming into this integrated service will not be worsened in any way, that at least they will be entitled to what they have at present.

Mr. Leonard

Would the Minister not agree that it would be physically impossible for a director to cover the complete field and that it will be necessary to have deputy directors appointed, as was suggested by Deputy Gibbons? Why not incorporate such provision in the Bill now?

Mr. Clinton

Might I say that the person who knows the strength of his own back and capacity would be the person who would have the responsibility to carry out such a task? That would be the time for him to decide what additional help he would need. He is free to appoint whatever additional help he might feel he needs in order to do the job properly.

Mr. Leonard

Would the Minister not agree that it would take a considerable time for the director to ascertain the capabilities of his staff and that agriculture could suffer in the meantime. The Minister will be completely dependent on one man.

Mr. Clinton

The services will improve. That is why we are doing this.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The sole concern of the director of An Foras Talúntais was research and it bore magnificent fruits for the country. The institute are now being abolished, finished, destroyed and the director of the new body will have responsibility not only for research but for the entire unreformed services which I forecast will not be nearly as good as they have been. I cannot understand the mentality of a Minister who would try to argue that agricultural research will be as well served by a director who will have two other fields to serve. The Minister knows that is not so.

I know all the narks and grievances that gave rise to the abolition of An Foras Talúntais. The Department of Agriculture have a few things to be proud of but they have a few things to be ashamed of, and this is one of them. There is nothing this party can do to stop the passage of the Bill once the bit has been shoved between the Minister's teeth by the interested parties in the Department. I reiterate that the situation in regard to the proper carrying out of research will have to be restored by a future Government who will not be as amenable to being pushed around by interested people in the Department as the Minister seems to think.

Mr. Clinton

I would describe as disgraceful the performance of Deputy Gibbons in blaming the officials of the Department for everything he sees wrong in the Bill that I am taking total responsibility for, that I am happy about and proud of. Otherwise I would not have brought it to the House. On the point in relation to the deputy director, when Fianna Fáil set up An Foras Talúntais they made no provision for such a post but a deputy director was appointed subsequently by the board because they felt it necessary to do so. One of the purposes for which the board are being established is to see that there are adequate staff. If I were to decide what the staff should be I would be told by the Opposition that I would be dictating to the board before they were set up.

Mr. Callanan

Does the Minister not think he is putting too much responsibility on one man?

Mr. Clinton

I am putting the responsibility on the board to appoint the staff they think will be necessary.

Mr. Callanan

Everybody knows that in co-operatives and other such organisations decisions have to be made by the director and if he has too many departments to look after he will not do an efficient total job. There should be some indication in the Bill that a deputy director will be appointed.

Mr. Daly

Subsection (10) states:

The Board may, with the consent of the Government, at any time remove the Director from office.

Does this refer to the first director or to directors who may be appointed subsequently?

Mr. Clinton

This is normal practice —it was in the Foras Talúntais Act The board will be appointed by the Minister. Even though the majority of them will be nominated people, the Minister has to go through the formal act of appointing them and therefore he has the formal act of dispensing with their services.

Mr. Hussey

Can the board fire the first director if he is found not to be doing his job properly?

Mr. Clinton

They have power to do so with the consent of the Minister.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 32.

Question proposed: "That section 32 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not want to weary the House but I think it is relevant to say that the clearer it becomes that the all-pervading civil service are being allowed, in every section——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that it is wrong to reflect on officials. The Minister is responsible and any blame or praise should be directed at him, not at his officials.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I was referring to the abstract thing, bureaucracy. In its own context, it is beneficial and useful, but when it goes on the rampage it becomes a danger to freedom and to democracy itself. The invasion of the areas of research of the advisory services by bureaucracy is to be deprecated and deplored. Section 32, as many other sections, illustrates the all-pervading intrusion of bureaucracy in this vital field.

Mr. Noonan

The Minister is inclined to contradict himself on subsection (3) of the section. On other sections he said he would leave the running of the functions to the authority that would be appointed. Subsection (3) provides:

The programme as adopted by the Board shall be submitted to the Minister for his approval. The Minister may, in conveying approval, indicate such further amendments of the programme as he considers necessary.

It goes on to say:

The Board may, however, with the approval of the Minister, make such alterations to the programme as it subsequently considers necessary.

It is the approval of the Minister that I am concerned about. Can we presume then that this affects factors outside of financial requirements, and can we presume that if the board consider an item, either educational or one of research, important enough to be included, it can be deleted by the Minister under the subsection? Why not give the authority full power to run their programme of research or education as he has indicated in the previous sections? Why take the control from them here? It is a contradiction by the Minister when one considers the other sections.

Mr. Leonard

A few minutes ago the Minister seemed to be greatly concerned with leaving the control with the director. Subsection (3) would certainly give us cause for concern because, as Deputy Noonan has pointed out, the Minister may, in conveying approval, make such further amendments in the programme as he considers necessary.

Over the last few years the stock phrases from this Government were "financial constraint" and "shortage of money". There is no doubt that if any agricultural development programmes went over the last few years to the Department they would be slashed. In this subsection we are coming back to complete departmental control and that is what we must fear.

Mr. Callanan

This subsection proves conclusively that we are correct in stating that this board has no authority at all. Subsection (3) places the Minister in the position of the board. The board can do nothing here. Everything has to be submitted to the Minister. Questions of finance must be submitted to the Minister. Therefore in regard to any research or development programme the Minister can put down his foot and say it cannot be done.

Mr. Clinton

I dealt with this fairly exhaustively when replying on Second Stage, but it might be no harm to spell out again what is intended here. I stated on Second Stage that the Minister for Agriculture has responsibility for the development of all aspects of the agricultural industry. He has to satisfy himself that the necessary resources are applied to whatever sector needs support at any time. We have given an undertaking in this Bill that the moneys provided for this new authority will be not less in real terms than the moneys at present being provided for the separate authorities that are coming together in an integrated service. That surely is an assurance to those concerned. We have just been told that the Government could decide to starve the services and provide no money for them. Specific provision is being made that in real terms it cannot be less than it is at present. Therefore Deputies should not have fears about something that cannot happen.

The proposed authority will have such an influence on agricultural development that the Minister must satisfy himself that the programme is adequate before he gives it his approval to go ahead. I think that is reasonable. However, when the programme has been agreed, the authority will be completely free in carrying it out and in publishing their own results. The Government will have nothing to do with publishing results and they will not compel them to publish results of the individual experiments on researches they are doing. I think a Minister for Agriculture should not interfere in the day-to-day conduct of research or in the publication of the results of this research. That should be the responsibility of the research authority, and that is the way I want it to remain.

The position, however, is that most of the finance needed by the authority will come from the State. While I have no intention of insisting that he who pays the piper should call the tune, a Minister for Agriculture could be charged by this House with evasion of responsibility if he were not concerned always with the setting up of priorities in regard to what projects ought to be undertaken at any time to promote the development of agriculture. I believe that it is a gross exaggeration to say that it will impinge on the freedom of the staff of the authority if the Minister is interested in and concerned about what this new authority, that is all-embracing in its service to agriculture, should be engaged in. In almost every country around the world the Minister for Agriculture takes a vital interest in the functions which will be the concern of the authority, and I think that is as it should be. This does not prevent such countries being among the leaders in agricultural development, and the countries to which I am referring are the envy of most of us. Therefore, I could not possibly accept that there is anything wrong about this.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Could I ask the Minister what was wrong with An Foras Talúntais that he had to destroy it?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not relevant now.

Mr. Noonan

The Minister has not satisfied me at all. In what the Minister read out he has contradicted himself having regard to section 32 (3). Some time ago he was talking about giving authority to the members of the board that is to be set up.

Mr. Clinton

To appoint staff.

Mr. Noonan

To appoint staff to carry out their jobs. Now he is saying in another voice that the self-same authority are not men of the calibre, as he stated earlier, to carry out the functions set out in this Bill. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He referred to his Second Reading speech. He has contradicted himself. Subsection (3)—

Mr. Clinton

Nonsense.

Mr. Noonan

Why not give the board authority to carry out their functions as they see fit? He said previously he would not do anything daft. I hope he will not. If the board considered that an item of research or an item of education was important, under this section the Minister could withdraw it. On the one hand he is setting up the board and on the other hand he is taking authority away from them because they have to go to him for approval.

Mr. Callanan

Deputy Noonan has said most of what I intended to say. The Minister said that in real terms the same amount of money will be provided. Is he serious? What is the idea of setting up a board such as this if we do not intend to develop agriculture? Does the Minister consider that the amount of money made available to the committees of agriculture——

Mr. Clinton

This is a guaranteed minimum.

Mr. Callanan

It is only chicken-feed having regard to what we would like to do in the development of agriculture. We are told the board are being set up to do more research and to do more in the educational field to develop agriculture. In real terms they will only have the same budget as previously. What is the idea of the change? Under subsection (3) the board will not be allowed to expand agriculture. The Minister is taking complete authority. I am not being personal. Any Minister could do the same. The board are being completely controlled and I object to that.

Mr. Hussey

We are justified in our fears about this subsection. It is obvious the board will not have the power we would like them to have for the development of agriculture. While we know Deputy Clinton, as Minister for Agriculture, would be sympathetic to any proposal which would enhance the livelihood of farmers, it might happen that Deputy Desmond would become Minister for Agriculture and then it would be God help the Irish farmers.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Mocking is catching.

Mr. B. Desmond

The Deputy would be surprised.

Mr. Hussey

He might not be as sympathetic——

Mr. Clinton

What way did Fianna Fáil Deputies vote today in Europe?

Mr. Hussey

I am not concerned about Europe at the moment.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us not bring in irrelevancies.

Mr. B. Desmond

At least I was never a rag-bag Gaullist whatever else I was.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Deputy is a salmon pink socialist.

Mr. B. Desmond

I was never that hard up.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us not indulge in personalities.

Mr. Hussey

I am trying to highlight the dangers inherent in this subsection. If a Deputy like socialist Barry Desmond were appointed Minister for Agriculture——

An Ceann Comhairle

I have asked that we should not indulge in personalities.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Minister started it.

Mr. Hussey

The subsection takes away power from the board which we hoped would be of some benefit to agriculture. The subsection provides:

The Minister may, in conveying approval, indicate such further amendments of the programme as he considers necessary.

That is very strong language. It indicates to me that the Minister will have the final say in any programme submitted by the board. For that reason, they have lost the freedom they require to promote and develop agriculture. That is a very retrograde step.

Mr. Clinton

Unless Deputies opposite want me to abolish the office of Minister for Agriculture entirely, I believe I could not give any more power or authority to the board than they are getting.

Mr. Callanan

They have none.

Mr. Clinton

It is very good times when Deputy Callanan talks about mini-provisions and a mini-budget when he is talking about £18 million. If that is a mini-provision for the services we are talking about, we have gone very high up on the scale.

Mr. Callanan

The Minister knows it is not adequate.

Mr. Clinton

I am endeavouring to get better use of the money being spent on these services by combining them and getting better teamwork and better results from the same amount of money and any additional money I can find for them.

Mr. Callanan

I can assure the Minister he will not.

Mr. Leonard

Would the Minister agree he is retaining power to restrict the financing of the programmes of the authority?

Mr. Clinton

That was always there.

Mr. Leonard

The Minister mentioned the availability of money. With the inflationary rate——

Mr. Clinton

I said in real terms.

Mr. Leonard

He is retaining that power and he should admit it.

Mr. Clinton

Every Government have to retain power to decide how the taxpayers' money will be spent.

Mr. Daly

When the proposals are submitted and the plan is prepared for the succeeding year, if an item of urgency crops up that needs to be examined can it be dealt with?

Mr. Clinton

It can.

Mr. Daly

Under this Bill?

Mr. Clinton

Yes.

Mr. Noonan

Is there power under the section to have proposals recommended by the local county committees examined by the authority, or will they have to go to the Minister's office for approval?

Mr. Clinton

Yes, for final approval.

Mr. Noonan

In the overall plan?

Mr. Clinton

Yes.

Mr. Noonan

Again we have a restriction on the programme. This section should be deleted.

Mr. Clinton

Invariably money is the restriction.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Minister plucked a figure of £80 million out of the air——

Mr. Clinton

£18 million.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Right. Is the modernisation scheme from the European Community included in this figure?

Mr. Clinton

No.

Mr. J. Gibbons

We oppose the section.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 33.

Question proposed: "That section 33 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. Gibbons

I would ask the Minister to tell the House that this section does not mean what I suspect it means, that people on the staff, whether they be specialists of one kind or another engaged in research or advisory or educational work, will all be equated and made into a kind of milk pudding mixture in which men will lose their identity and be stamped with a particular grade, a Department of Agriculture grade, like eggs and the possible reward for specialisation which might go to a more independent authority will be gone under the provisions of this section? I would ask the Minister to enlighten us as to the true meaning of this section.

Mr. Clinton

In this section the method of recruitment and the determination of the staff's conditions of service are set out, and the board of the authority are given the widest possible discretion in regard to staff matters. Why should people lose their identity suddenly when they are run by another board? Why should that board decide that a man with certain qualifications should not be put in an appropriate position and get an appropriate job to do? That will give him his own identity if he has what is necessary to identify himself in his work. I know something about the people Deputy Gibbons is concerned about. These people will always come through as exceptional people if they are entitled to identification. They are part of a bigger organisation and that is a good thing for them as well as for the country.

A number of people have voiced their concern about the position of staff within the new authority. I take this opportunity to dispel these anxieties which are, I am certain, totally unwarranted. First, it has been suggested that the considerable freedom given to the board in section 33, which will take effect immediately following the establishment of the authority, will be nullified through the subsequent application of section 34 which requires the board to submit a staff scheme or schemes for the regulation, control and management of the authority staff to the Minister and to the Minister for the Public Service for their approval. The point is that there is no reason why the autonomy in regard to staff matters which the board will enjoy initally by virtue of section 33 should not be subsequently incorporated in the general scheme or schemes under section 34. A good deal of anxiety has been felt about this matter and I wanted to clear it. What I am saying is that people come into the authority with certain rights. They retain those rights absolutely and no staff scheme can change them unless the staff want voluntarily to accept what is being offered in the new staff scheme that may be subsequently prepared. Therefore, in my view there should be no fears for staff coming into this authority.

Mr. B. Desmond

I am relieved by the assurances given by the Minister, but which are not necessarily contained in section 33, in relation to the staff transfer situation. It is undoubtedly true that there has been a good deal of concern about the full implications of this section. There is a particular difficulty in relation to this section and that is that the board will be given authority under it to determine from time to time the qualifications, numbers, grades, tenure of office, conditions of service and so on, of the staff of the new authority. This is, of course, subject to sections 34 and 65.

While I am pleased to note the Minister has amended section 65, the full import of section 33 is still a matter of some concern. It is not unfair to draw the Minister's attention to the somewhat similar proposals which are contained in the Bill relating to the National Board of Science and Technology where such stringency as is seen in sections 33 and 34 are not to be found.

It is difficult to discuss section 33 in its entirely because subsections (4) and (5) are subject to sections 34 and 65. Perhaps we should have taken sections 33 and 34 together. In no way should the concern of the staff of the Agricultural Institute be heightened by the complex staff industrial relations situation which inevitably exists in any relatively large organisation.

While I am certain the Minister will honour the undertakings he has given that in no way will staff conditions be worsened on transfer—that is implicit, clearly understood and accepted by the staff—nevertheless, I would have been happier, and the trade unions involved would have been happier, if section 33 had been permitted to stand apart without the caveat being entered into in relation to section 34.

As an ex-trade union official, I do not know of any other legislation, even when we were drafting for organisations like AnCO, the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and so on, where such implicit control was inserted. I am fearful that there may be industrial relations problems in relation to section 33. Admittedly the board can now proceed, on immediate transition, to determine the qualifications, numbers, grades and so on subject to section 34, that is, subject to their submitting a staff scheme as soon as convenient.

In any organisation where there is a wide variety of grades, research staffs and so on employed, it is almost impossible to define just what is a staff scheme. Knowing how bloody-minded some people can be, it may take an inordinately long time to get a consensus, particularly with a new board, on what precisely constitutes a staff scheme. Under section 33 this would be subject to the Minister, the senior hierarchy of his Department, the Minister for the Public Service and the Houses of the Oireachtas. Perhaps the Minister would have a fresh look at this before Report Stage so that undue fears may be mitigated.

I fully accept the Minister's good faith in this regard. I know his intentions are the very best but I am concerned lest it would unnecessarily give rise to areas of what one might call disaffection and contrariness which would impose undue restrictions on the negotiating staff procedures, particularly of the Agricultural Institute. Perhaps I might remind the Minister that his ministerial colleagues when introducing legislation did not find it necessary to have such rigidity as exists in this Bill. Sections 33 and 34 could be composed in a more flexible manner. I share the Minister's view that we need integration and rationalisation, but unfortunately some people are interpreting this as a dilution of their status, prospects or salary scales.

Inevitably one is suspicious of a new organisation. One always tends to fear the worst. I would be quite happy with subsections (4) and (5) standing as they are without being subject to section 34. Somebody must be the final arbitrator, the Minister for Agriculture in relation to the global provisions and the Minister for the Public Service in relation to staff structuring. Organisations are, of course, very complex. Invariably one has in them a wide variety of expertise and skills. Invariably there are certain precedents. Over the 20-year period of their existence the Agricultural Institute had built up their own structure and their own negotiating procedures. It is important that in this transition undue friction should be avoided. To avoid anything like friction the Minister should have a look at sections 33 and 34 between now and Report Stage to see if there is a necessity to have staff schemes formally approved by the Oireachtas. God knows, we have enough to do without embroiling ourselves in staffing arrangements.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does seem to the Chair that we are now discussing section 34.

Mr. B. Desmond

Sections 33 and 34 are inextricably bound together.

Mr. Noonan

The final sentence of subsection (3) says: "the Board shall consider the recommendation of the panel". Does it follow from that that the board need not necessarily accept the recommendation of the panel? On my next point I will be guided by the Chair. Where promotional facilities are concerned within the existing staff I do not want a situation to arise in which the existing staff might find they would have to transfer to another field in order to gain promotion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would arise on section 65. Sections 33 and 34 are related but what the Deputy is now talking about would arise relevantly on section 65.

Mr. Clinton

I agree with Deputy Desmond that the two sections are more or less inextricably bound up with each other.

Mr. Noonan

Would the Minister answer my question about the recommendation of the panel?

Mr. Clinton

The wording here is exactly the same as that in the Act setting up An Foras Talúntais. There is no change.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 34.

Question proposed: "That section 34 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Clinton

I fully appreciate the difficulties we are facing here and I agree with Deputy Desmond there is no precedent. However, there is no time within which a scheme or schemes must be prepared. The section simply requires the board to submit a scheme as soon as it finds it convenient to do so. The reason for specifying the submission of such a scheme is to provide for the closer integration of the existing staff groups which will be combined within the new authority so that the staff will act as a team in a proper environment designed to make the maximum contribution to the development of agriculture. The scheme will have to be agreed voluntary and so it should not hold any fears for the staff. I repeat that the existing staff come in with all the rights they have at the moment unchanged and with all the conditions they enjoy at present. The approach will be one of encouragement, not coercion. That, in my view, would be counter-productive. There is no question of the conditions of the staff transferred being worsened. I emphasise that.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I would like to accept the Minister's assurances but I simply cannot. First of all, I do not see the necessity for the collectivisation of all the people involved in all the different sectors amalgamated in the new authority. It is as if the Minister put all of them into khaki uniforms of the same kind and deprived them of any personality or identity of their own. I do not think this will be readily accepted by people in the service, whether on the advisory services, in what is left of the remnants of An Foras Talúntais or in agricultural education. I do not think it will be popular with any of them. I do not see any need for treating a man whose business is teaching in the same way as a man whose business is research or possibly a third person whose work is advisory. They are three different separate functions. This section will give rise to trouble because it seeks to impose uniformity that does not exist.

Mr. Clinton

There is no doubt in my mind but that it will give rise to trouble. However, the fact that there is nothing binding on the staff and that such a scheme can come into existence only with the agreement of the staff makes it worth-while. I was asked if I would be prepared to look at this matter again before Report Stage and, of course, I am prepared to do this. If anything it puts additional work and responsibility on whoever is in my place and on the people responsible for the effective working of the organisation subsequently but if it could be done it would be desirable to bring the staff together, to let them feel they were all staff of the one authority and as a result, they would work more as a team. That was the reason for including the provision. I am not particularly tied to it and, if it is the wish of the House that I should look at it between now and Report Stage I will do so.

Mr. B. Desmond

I thank the Minister for his comments on this matter. Perhaps the inclusion of the words "following consultation with the relevant staff organisation concerned" after the words "the board shall prepare and submit to the Minister" might be considered. This would be a major acceptance that these things are subject to negotiations. I am only suggesting consultations at this stage because inevitably the question of negotiations will arise. In relation to section 4 the Minister may consider it unnecessary. For example, the order for an increase in the salaries of Deputies was placed before the House some weeks ago but it will not go through before the middle of May. We will not get any money before June but people in the country will think we are getting another rise. The Minister might want to have an urgent amendment of the staff scheme following national wage negotiations or some internal negotiations. The board might submit this to the Department and it would have to be before the House for 21 sitting days. We might be in the middle of the summer recess——

Mr. Clinton

That is democracy breaking out.

Mr. B. Desmond

The Minister has been superb in his accountability. Perhaps section 4 is unnecessary and the whole of section 34 might be looked at. I would be glad if the Minister would do so before Report Stage.

Mr. Clinton

I can give that guarantee.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I am opposed to the section.

Question put and declared carried.

Section 35 agreed to.

SECTION 36.

Question proposed: "That section 36 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is generally accepted that the functions and duties of committees of agriculture as we have known them are going to be radically changed by the provisions of this section and this will apply to the composition of committees. The last function they had as independent bodies in the appointment of temporary staff is mercifully being taken away. However, there is a considerable opinion that new arrangements for the new committees will convert them into rubber stamp organisations. It is thought they may talk until the cows come home but they will have little effect on policy if what they recommend does not meet with the approval of the Minister and his most immediate servants in the Department of Agriculture.

I made certain suggestions about the advisory services. They are my own ideas and I stand over them and if the Minister wants to regale the House by quoting them again he is at liberty to do so. There is a large body of opinion, in his party as well as in other parties, that would reject the removal from committees of agriculture of the last little vestige of authority which they had. I do not approve of the creation of rubber stamp bodies of any kind. I should prefer to see proper county committees of agriculture elected possibly by a restricted electorate composed of people from the farming and food producing industries, including food processing as well as food producing. An electorate such as that could exercise their franchise just as other people use their local authority franchise. I put that idea before the House as my own idea of a possible way out, of creating a democratically elected worth-while organisation. The individuals concerned would be elected by people from the food industry to carry out similar functions to those envisaged in the Bill.

There is an anomaly in this Bill. This afternoon the Minister accredited some considerable importance to the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture. He indicated that their representation on the board will be at least one member. It could possibly be two, three or four. Under this section the real effectiveness of the committees of agriculture is taken away. A considerable part of their democratic structure is taken away along with it. It is all very fine to say that we will have representatives from the IFA, the ICMSA and other organisations, like Macra na Feirme, that may or may not be represented on the committee of agriculture. It is unsatisfactory that the people we are talking about will not have been elected by the people from the industry as they could fairly easily be elected by people from the farming industry or from the industries that develop from farming.

That is not the kind of committee we will get under section 36. We will get a committee that is neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. There are some realities that stand out no matter what one's general approach to agricultural research and advice may be. One of those is the very strong county allegiance. It does not matter that one might say that the county boundaries were prepared by different English administrations in the country in the 16th and 17th centuries but the county allegiance is very strong. One has to live with it whether or not one likes it. If we take a sample of popular opinion from farmers and people in the industry in general, a very heavy majority I believe favour the continuance of the committee of agriculture. Since this is so, the committee of agriculture should be a worth-while community representative of the industry. I do not think we can get that under section 36 and, therefore, I oppose it.

Mr. Callanan

I am opposed to this section because it suggests that county committees of agriculture will only be in an advisory capacity. The way they will be constituted under this Bill the people who pay the piper will have very little to say. As the Minister knows, the people to whom he will give representation are elected by the county committee of agriculture. The Minister proposes a 50 : 50 basis on the advisory committee. All the powers which the county committees had are taken from them. We are not sorry about some of them particularly the one relating to the appointment of temporary staff. I believe the county committees of agriculture were doing a reasonably good job. I cannot see what the benefit will be. I am chairman of a county committee of agriculture and I know we would like to do a lot more. We could only get so many pence in the pound. Since it was increased, the amount of money is still inadequate. We have still to get a certain amount of money from the ratepayers. It is 50 : 50 in the east and in the west of Ireland it is 75 : 25. That is the ratio of the collection of money from the ratepayers.

It could happen, if some public representatives did not want a particular man to get on to the committee, and they lined up with rural organisations that no member of the local authority or any elected representatives need be on the general council. The general council will get direct representation on to the board. This is completely undemocratic. We all want to see farming organisations on the county committees of agriculture but at least 75 per cent of them should be elected representatives so that we can be sure that the people who pay the piper know a little about how the tune is being called.

This is not a party issue. I do not know what is wrong with this House. Everybody knows political parties and that one must toe the line or get out when a vote is called but I did not think we were compelled to sit down and not express our views. I am always prepared to vote for my party but I will stand up and express my views. I know the views about county committees of agriculture on the Government side of the House but there are empty benches there this evening. I cannot understand why they do not come in here and try to convince the Minister to change the system which he has put into the Bill. The Minister said he wanted us to be the watch dog for the people but this is a watch dog without any teeth whatever. We are going away from democracy here.

I know that good people may get on to this new council but they have no responsibility. They have not to go back to anybody or give an account of their stewardship to the people who pay the piper. If the elected representatives do not do a good job, the people will tell them in four or five years time to get out. We are taking from the people who pay the piper the power to remove people who do not do a good job when 75 per cent of the members of those committees are not public representatives.

I know that the Minister can come back at me and say that this is not the case. My own county can be fired back at me. It does not mean that any county do everything correctly. In the interests of democracy the public representatives should be in the majority so that enough of them get on to the body that the Minister will give representation on. It is important that the county committees are constituted from elected representatives from every county.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that what may be dealt with under this section is limited. It deals with the functions of the committees.

Mr. Callanan

As far as I can see, the functions are nil. As Deputy Gibbons said, they are a rubber stamp. County committees cannot put up programmes because they will be vetoed along the line. Now there will be a board consisting of 24 members that will examine programmes submitted by every county. If the board do not like a certain programme submitted by a particular committee, they may go back to that committee saying, perhaps: "You will have to modify this in some way". When the money is pooled, what will happen committees at present doing a good job who are, perhaps, spending a little more money than others? The board will have a say in what will it be spent in, say, County Galway, County Kildare and so on. They will vet the programmes submitted by the various county committees. When one has no responsibility there is the tendency to prepare very elaborate programmes and such may be the case with regard to people who did very little before this board was set up. For instance, if I were a member of a committee with no responsibility but charged merely with the job of preparing a programme of agricultural advice in my county, I could prepare one that would be completely unrealistic from a financial point of view. Is there a danger that, when the county committees of agriculture have lost their status, they would be somewhat irresponsible in preparing programmes for their counties?

I believe the Minister, in this Bill, will be doing a bad day's work by taking that responsibility from the present county committees of agriculture. At present they know the amount of money they can get from the ratepayers; they have to keep within that estimate and spend it to the best of their ability.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps section 39 is the one under which the question of finance and programming might be dealt with.

Mr. Callanan

I accept the Chair's ruling but I thought it was relevant to the duties of the county committees of agriculture with which we are now dealing. The functions of such committees are to prepare programmes and submit them to the new authority. I contend that a committee, having no responsibility, might prepare very elaborate programmes. I am afraid also that, when all the programmes from all the rubber stamp committees have been submitted to the authority for fine combing, the new board will have an impossible task. I should like the Minister's opinion on that aspect. I am speaking of the advisory committees, having no responsibility, everybody wanting to do the best they can, getting as much money as possible from the authority. I know that the ratepayers of such counties will have to put up the money but the county committees will not care if they do not have to account to their ratepayers.

Mr. Clinton

They have to go back to the ratepayers.

Mr. Callanan

They will not because they will not be public representatives, except, perhaps, very few of them. Therefore, they will be able to prepare any type of elaborate programme and shove it over on the ratepayers of their county. The problem I foresee is that of rubber stamp committees preparing unrealistic programmes with no responsibility whatever for their implementation or financing.

Mr. Noonan

Subsection (1) says that every committee of agriculture shall submit the programme to the authority for consideration by the board, which programme may or may not be accepted. Will the county committees of agriculture themselves have any further function in this regard? Can the relevant programme be returned to the committee in question by the board for further scrutiny with, perhaps, further consideration by the board subsequently?

Subsection (2) (a) says:

Every committee of agriculture shall have, in addition to the powers and functions mentioned in subsection (1), the functions that were exercised or performed, or were capable of being exercised or performed, by it immediately before the commencement of this section....

This brings me to the point raised by Deputy Gibbons about the functions of the county committees of agriculture, the powers being transferred by them to the new board. What will be left to the county committees of agriculture? One might answer that they will submit programmes for their counties that may or may not be accepted by the board. Therefore, the situation will be that we will have county committees of agriculture with no real power. Here-tofore they had the power of selecting and appointing staff—although that was not very satisfactory from the point of view of temporary staff. Nevertheless, they had the power to provide education and advice which, as was rightly pointed out by Deputy Gibbons, is now being taken from them. Henceforth they will be rubber stamp committees.

As Deputy Gibbons further pointed out, it would be far better to have no committees at all than have ones such as are proposed in this Bill which would be more or less talking shops or rubber stamp committees for want of a better description. The Minister should give further thought to these county committees. I am not speaking here of their composition, which will arise later in the Bill, but rather of their functions under this section. Perhaps the Minister would comment on the power the committee may or may not have if a programme, as submitted by them, is rejected by the board.

Mr. Leonard

The question may correctly be raised: have the county committees of agriculture any functions at all left? In future, I fear their programme will tend to be over-ambitious, that they will aim high knowing that such programmes will be diminished, thus leading to a lot of frustration when they would see that they had no real power left.

I foresee great danger in this Bill for the weaker agricultural counties, that they will not receive proper attention. There arises also the question of the pooling of funds. How does the Minister propose that such funds be used because it would be very difficult to have them spread evenly. Certainly, I feel it will be the cause of a lot of frustration within the county committees of agriculture and that they will become ineffective.

Mr. Clinton

I might say that the functions of the county committees of agriculture are spelled out very clearly in the White Paper. If the House wishes me to restate those functions, I shall do so. My opinion is that such committees of agriculture will continue to perform a very important function under the new authority. Any board, and particularly that of the new authority composed of the people I described earlier, would be less than responsible and would not be doing their job properly had they not considerable regard to the programmes put up by the people living on the spot. Deputy Gibbons is quite right when he says that there is and will continue to be a lot of county loyalty, so to speak, and pride in what happens locally. This is a good thing, but they are given a very important role in the first instance. They will have to decide what they believe is the sort of programme that should be provided by the authority for individual areas in the county and individual counties.

Deputy Noonan asked what they can do when they have that done. Can they do nothing more about it? Can they appeal to anybody else if this is rejected? Of course the answer is that they can appeal. Section 36 (1) (a) says they may:

review, and make recommendations to the Minister and the Board, as appropriate, regarding, the operation of such programme and the schemes operated by the Minister in the county;

When they submit a programme they can follow it up and make representations either directly to the Minister or to the board. How effectively county committees will continue to function in future will depend to a very considerable extent on the sort of man the CAO in the county happens to be whether or not he is a dynamic, interested person, concerned with providing the best possible services for the farmers in that area. It will depend too on the quality of the county committees.

Deputy Callanan is concerned about the quality. We will be talking later on about that. He does not agree with the composition, but this is not the section under which to discuss that. However, it is unnecessary for me to go down through (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the responsibilities that are left with the county committees. They are important responsibilities and they will continue to be very important. I would be extremely disappointed if the committees regarded them as anything else and if they did not make the maximum use of organisations in existence at the moment and use them as they should be used.

Mr. Noonan

Can the county committee appeal to the Minister if their programme is rejected by the board?

Mr. Clinton

Yes.

Mr. Noonan

I thought the Minister in setting up this board was trying to rid himself of his responsibility, and here we are now back to the Minister. In other words, the Minister is a sort of appeals officer if the programme is rejected by the board. I was wondering what function the Minister would then have. Would he say to the board "My decision is that the recommendations of the county committee of agriculture concerned should be accepted by the board"? I am confused with regard to what the Minister has stated.

Mr. Clinton

It is spelt out in section 36 (1) (a).

Mr. Noonan

That the county committee can appeal to the Minister?

Mr. Clinton

The Deputy has it in front of him.

Mr. Noonan

I have, but has the Minister spelt it out himself? What will be his function when the appeal is made to his office?

Mr. Clinton

I want to get out of the heads of Deputies that there is somebody in my position going around with a big stick walloping everybody if he is not doing what I think he should be doing in this. I want to encourage people to talk to one another in a friendly way and to work as a team. That is the only way the thing is going to work. This is giving the committees the right to approach the Minister or the right to approach the board and make further representations about their programme in case of misunderstanding or not seeing the importance of what they were proposing and recommending by way of programme to be followed in their area for the year ahead.

Mr. Noonan

Who makes the overall decision, the board or the Minister?

Mr. Clinton

The board will have the overall decision in consultation with the Minister.

Mr. Callanan

I have no doubt that the board and the Minister will have a lot of applications before them. The Minister did not answer my question. There is a lot of development that could be done in agriculture in every area. If there was a dynamic committee in each area not responsible for paying the piper, the Minister will have a very heavy and expensive programme coming from every county if the committees are worth their salt. The Minister must say whether the board or the Minister will prevail finally. If we in Galway put up a scheme which is not acceptable to the board and we appeal to the Minister will he go to the board and say "The county committee have put up a scheme and why have the board turned it down"? The board may still turn it down. Is it the Minister or the board who then has the final decision as to whether the programme will be allowed or not? That is the most important question on the whole Bill.

Mr. Clinton

"When are you going to stop beating your wife?" Is that what Deputy Callanan is saying?

Mr. Leonard

Would the Minister answer the question?

Mr. Callanan

I am not interested in beating my wife. It is a very important question and I want an answer.

Mr. Leonard

Does it not seem that the next step would be to set up an appeals board? Would the Minister agree, from recent experience in this House regarding applications or pressures from counties to include a greater portion of the counties as handicapped in the underdeveloped areas, that he will have the same type of appeals coming now? He will have committees putting forward a fairly ambitious programme which in all probability will be turned down in many cases and will be going to the Minister for appeal and the matter will be back in the political ring with a tug here and a tug there to see that one county would get more than the other. Does he not see a danger in this that he will have to set up, as the Minister for Local Government had, an appeals board?

Mr. Clinton

All these fears are based on the foolish assumption that this is going to be an unreasonable, ineffective board when set up and that it is going to do everything in one county and nothing in another. Part of the responsibility of the board will be to see that every area in the country gets fair play as far as the money available from the State and from the local authorities will go to providing the best possible services available. Deputy Callanan does not like the job of going back to the county council to look for some of this money. He has that responsibility at the moment. Only half of the members on his committee have to go back at present and he is killed with the idea that the same half will have to do it in future under this Bill.

Mr. Callanan

Let the Minister not forget that there is a limit on the amount of money to be got from the county council and schemes must be kept within that limit. Under the new board as far as I know whatever money is asked for must be given.

Mr. Clinton

Oh no.

Mr. Callanan

It is written into it. The county council cannot refuse.

Mr. Clinton

That is so.

Mr. Callanan

When we are doing a programme at present we must keep within the limited amount we get from the county council. Under this new board there is no limit. If the new authority ask us for money, the county council have to cough it up. I would like the Minister's opinion on this.

Mr. Clinton

This is not on this section at all.

Mr. Callanan

It is the functions.

Mr. Clinton

Provision is made for this in another section.

Mr. Callanan

The function of the county committees of agriculture is referred to in this section. The function of the county committee is to prepare a programme. I am referring to the programme that may be prepared in all the counties in Ireland, because much development in agriculture is needed where there is no restraint whatsoever in relation to the amount of money they can ask from the local authority. I can see such programmes coming up and I would like the Minister's views on this. There is plenty of scope for development in every county in Ireland.

Mr. Clinton

We are dealing with section 39.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It has emerged from discussion of this section that both the Minister and this side of the House share the view that committees of agriculture in counties are necessary. My party holds the view that committees, as the Minister envisages them in this Bill, will be deprived of any real value and of any function. The Minister appears to feel obliged to retain committees of agriculture because it would be politically unacceptable to do anything else but in retaining them he wants to deprive them of any effectiveness that they might have. I put it to the Minister that this is not necessary.

Since we require committees of agriculture we require them to be as effective as possible. In order to be as effective as possible they should be elected by people from the industry. I reject, and have always rejected, the idea that people from casual occupations have a real function on committees of agriculture. Other people in my party and in this House do not share my view. It should be possible to have an electoral list confined to people in the industry, farmers, farm workers and their families, workers in the fruit processing industry and their families, people in industries like Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann whose business is producing and selling food, whose livelihood and future is wrapped up in the food industry. They have a legitimate case for forming a specialised committee in each county to represent the food industry people, a committee with real functions who can say that they are the democratically elected representatives of the people from agriculture. Elections of this kind can be carried out at the same time as local government elections.

I can see no objection to a person who is a Member of the Dáil, a county council or a corporation, being also a member of a committee of agriculture, provided he is from the industry. Until people have a democratic base and have the right to call themselves democratically elected representatives of the people, they cannot insist on a certain status, and the committees of agriculture will not mean much. They will mean less than ever when the Minister's Bill is law. They meant little enough under the two-tier appointment system we have at present. Under the system I am suggesting, people from the farming organisations, from Macra na Feirme and so on, could put themselves forward for election on the same basis as everybody else. People from the processing side of the industry are entitled to representation. It is feasible to make a restricted electoral roll which would carry out the business of electing these committees of agriculture. If we do that we will have committees of agriculture with a real function. I would be grateful for the Minister's views on this suggestion.

Mr. Clinton

I do not feel I am entitled to discuss the composition of committees of agriculture under this section. It comes up under section 42, not under section 36.

Mr. Noonan

Is the Minister setting himself up as an appeals officer in regard to a programme which will be submitted by a county committee and rejected by the board?

Mr. Clinton

No.

Mr. Noonan

There is no comeback to a county committee whose programme is rejected by the board.

Mr. Clinton

The Deputy is misreading subsection (1) of section 36.

Mr. Leonard

Earlier the Minister said that they could appeal to him.

Mr. Clinton

Yes, that is here in writing. They can appeal to me and to the board. The good sense of the Minister and the board should be sufficient to decide one way or the other as to whether a programme is a proper programme. Programmes will be amended because, as the Deputy said, committees will be too ambitious, especially if they think they have not to pay for them. They will have to pay for them and how they will pay is indicated in section 39 of the Bill.

Mr. Leonard

In the event of a programme being turned down by the authority, the Minister adjudicates.

Mr. Clinton

It is not a question of turning down.

Mr. Noonan

The Minister adjudicates in consultation with the board. Is that correct?

Mr. Clinton

I have not said so.

Mr. Noonan

There is no comeback then. It is a matter for the board completely.

Mr. Callanan

Does the board make the final decision? Who is the adjudicator? Before the Planning Board was set up, the Minister had the final decision on a planning application. Now we are going to have a county committee of agriculture which puts up a programme which is not accepted by the board. They appeal to the Minister and the Minister consults with the board. Who has the authority to say whether that will or will not be accepted?

Mr. Clinton

That is all dealt with in section 32.

Mr. Callanan

Would it be any harm for the Minister to inform us here and now who is to decide? I do not remember it coming up in section 32. Somebody must decide. It is a simple question.

Mr. Clinton

The size of a programme that can be carried out always depends on the amount of money available to carry it out.

Mr. Callanan

Of course, that is so. If a completely unrealistic programme is submitted and it goes on appeal to the Minister and the board, who says yes or no? Somebody must be in a position to say.

Mr. Leonard

Have they the right of appeal at all?

Mr. Clinton

Whether a full programme can be accepted eventually by the Minister entirely depends on the amount of money that can be provided for that programme.

Mr. Noonan

We accept that, but who is the final arbitrator?

Mr. Clinton

The man who provides the money eventually has to decide what will be possible.

Mr. Noonan

So it is the Minister.

Mr. Clinton

Priorities have to be set by somebody on behalf of the taxpayers and the ratepayers.

Mr. Callanan

It is the Minister all the time.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I oppose the section.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 37.

Question proposed: "That section 37 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. Gibbons

Is the purpose of this merely to exclude forestry functions?

Mr. Clinton

There is only a small bit of forestry being done and it is in Donegal.

Mr. J. Gibbons

What about the shelter belt scheme?

Mr. Clinton

That is being done by the Forestry Division.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I am thinking about projects such as the growth of popular trees becoming a sizeable and profitable proposition on bits of waste land—something that could be included in an overall farm scheme.

Mr. Clinton

I have explained that the shelter belt scheme remains. The Forestry Division provide grants for the type of thing Deputy Gibbons is looking for. They have the expertise and they are the right type of people to do it.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 38 agreed to.

SECTION 39.

Question proposed: "That section 39 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. Gibbons

When a scheme is submitted, presumably by a local committee, the Minister can either accept or reject it. I am referring specifically to subsection (2). This seems to bear out what we said earlier, that the new committees can talk their heads off for as long as they like but if the Minister decides a scheme is not to his liking he can reject it. I do not believe this is a good system in modern days and it will bear very heavily on counties like Leitrim and Mayo, areas like west Cork, west Limerick, parts of Kerry and the Ulster counties in our jurisdiction. Subsection (4) will bear on county rates and militate against development in poorer counties, possibly to the overall advantage of the better-off counties. This is contrary to what should be national policy. If I am mistaken in what I have been saying I apologise.

Mr. Clinton

There is no change here. Seventy-five per cent of the salaries of staffs was met by the State and that will continue to be the position in those counties. We can therefore say that special consideration was and is being given to poorer counties. If the board have the money and if those counties want more staff there is no reason why they cannot get them.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not want to be contentious on this, but as I see it in the modern context, certain areas will perish altogether unless special measures are taken to assist them, and such assistance will have to come from the Central Fund.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.