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.