Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.
National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority Bill, 1976: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, to delete lines 48 to 50; in page 7, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute:
"7.—An Foras Talúntais will remain in its present form.".
The Minister, and the House, are aware of the general position of the Fianna Fáil Party in relation to this Bill and of the dire and disastrous measure in it, the abolition of An Foras Talúntais. It provides for the abolition of the best agricultural organisation in the country, the abolition of an institute that has a well deserved international reputation. One of the most regrettable aspects of this abolition is that it is being done for base reasons, unworthy reasons, by people who are not involved in the industry at all, by civil servants and a Minister who has no connection with the agricultural industry except the tenuous connection offered by political chance. As far as I know there has not been any consultation with the industry or those involved in agricultural research or with any organised agricultural opinion at all.
One recalls, with regret, the failure of the agricultural Press, such as it is, to record any note of regret or apology or any restraining voice. One must recall that the main organ of the agricultural Press, The Farmers Journal, that journal which used boast that it was fearlessly on the farmers' side, must now confess that they are fearfully on the Minister's side, that they are fearfully a Fine Gael organ and are allowing our finest agricultural organisation to be destroyed by a person who has no connection with agriculture except one conferred by politics. I want to reiterate my belief that there is a base and sinister objective behind this proposal of the Minister. I should like to reiterate that it is the intention of the Fianna Fáil Party to repeal this destructive legislation at the first opportunity. The Minister has the boots, the silent clodhopper boots that will come into the House shortly to support him in his efforts to punch this legislation through the Dáil but if he has Fianna Fáil will get the authority of the people very soon to repeal it.
This legislation strikes at the industry upon which this country must depend more than any other for economic recovery, for the return of the economy to something like stability, stability which was destroyed by the Minister and his colleagues in the last four years. We know that these amendments can be defeated by the Minister's "boots", none of whom was present and none of whom spoke on this Bill. Two Government backbenchers spoke on Committee Stage and both spoke against the Bill. No speaker on the Government side spoke in favour of the measures recommended by the Minister. This is a shameful, squalid piece of work and we will only have to wait—we may not have to wait very long—for the opportunity to repeal this legislation the Minister is now proposing to jackboot through the House. This is a jackboot operation reminiscent, as I said earlier, of the best days of the Founding Fathers of the Minister's party.
I support both these amendments. Nobody approves of this change. Autonomy is being removed and powers taken away from the institute. Nobody ever dreamt this would be the evolution in educational research. I am surprised at the Minister doing this. We know that there are members of his own party who do not agree with what he is doing. They have said so openly but they are not here to say it in this House. We at least have the courage of our convictions. No suggestion ever emanated from any body that this should be the evolution in agricultural research. Under this Bill the Minister and the civil servants will have complete control. There are farmers on both sides of this House but no farmer on the Government benches has come in to support the Minister. He is, of course, quite capable of making his case, but we all know that not everyone approves of what he is doing here. The institute has done trojan work for our agriculture. I would give no Minister the control the Minister is taking here. This will damage agriculture. I would appeal to the Minister to accept these constructive amendments.
Deputy Gibbons says that immediately there is a change of Government Fianna Fáil will repeal this legislation.
You bet.
If this legislation works until there is a change of Government I am quite certain it will have done an immense amount of good work in those intervening years. The inclusion of the institute in the reorganisation was discussed at length and voted on during Committee Stage.
It was voted for by people who were afraid to speak on it.
The research service must be placed side by side with the advisory and educational services in the new organisation. If that were not done it would be less effective left on its own. I am convinced of that. That is the reason why this is being done.
How does the Minister know or how could he know?
I appreciate the view held by Deputy Gibbons but it is not the view of the vast majority. The IFA have come out strongly in favour of the Bill. The institute are in favour of being included and the views of members of the Opposition represent the views of a very small minority of the staff in the institute. Deputy Gibbons holds his view quite strongly and Deputy Callanan not quite so strongly but I am convinced this is the right thing to do and I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment.
Does the Deputy wish to avail of his right to reply?
The Minister says the proposal has the backing of the farming community. I am not sure there was consultation on the part of the IFA with their members. If there had been I would have heard about it. There was no consultation. The Minister's assertion that, because it seems to have the acquiescence of the leadership of the IFA, it has therefore the support of the farming community generally is not borne out. That is unsound reasoning even for the Fine Gael Party. I can assure the Minister that farmers on the ground whom I know well and many of whom I represent, and to whom I belong myself, have a different view. They view with the most incredulous dismay this wanton distruction of the institute for base political reasons, and nothing but base political reasons, and I promise the Minister that when the time comes we will put this right in due course.
Question "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, to delete line 20 and substitute:
"10.—Agricultural research will continue to be carried on by the Institute.".
Question "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 10, lines 19 to 21, to delete ", on such terms and conditions as the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, approve,".
Section 19, to which our amendment refers, has a particular effect in the case of research. It is bad enough that absolute control repose in the Minister's hands in the ordinary affairs of the advisory services generally. I am quite certain the advisory service will be a great deal less effective in the future under the Minister's Bill than it has been in the past, bad and all as it was. It is not that it was terribly bad, but it was understaffed, underequipped, had been making a little progress, and now the Minister is going to wreck it all. However, in the case of research, to have a person who has no connection with farming, like the Minister for Agriculture, sticking his nose into something that does not concern him and about which he knows nothing, is intolerable. It is bad enough to have this political fooling around but to have this interference by members of the civil service, too, who are more concerned with agri-politics than with the benefits of agriculture, sticking their noses into the business of farmers, is also intolerable. Therefore we are proposing this amendment to take away some of the absolute control the Minister proposes to give himself under section 19. We are departing from the realms of reason, of sanity. This type of legislation is not untypical of the general approach of the Fine Gael-run Coalition Government to the affairs of the country generally. There is a truly fascist approach pervading the Fine Gael Government, and this section 19 is a classic example of the fascist wish to control everything and to confer absolute control on the Minister even in matters about which he knows not the slightest thing. It is a desire to impose base political control by people unworthy to exercise that control in matters that are vital to the future of the country and therefore obviously detrimental to the future of the country and to agriculture.
I must reiterate my acceptance of the inevitability of the defeat of our amendments and our intention to put the matter right in due course. We who set up the institute must undertake to re-establish it at the very first opportunity we get.
I want to support this amendment even more strongly than the first one. This is where the Minister takes over and it is very reasonable to ask the Minister to delete these words, because if the authority must have the consent of the Minister for the Public Service in order to "approve, arrange for the performance of any activity in relation to any of its functions ...", there is no use in talking about having an independent body; there is no autonomy there. I believe that provision ties the authority completely. Again there is nothing personal in this. No matter what Minister sits there, I believe he should not have that authority. The new body should function in the interests of agriculture without being tied in the manner laid down in this Bill. I want to go on record as saying that this is the most objectionable of all the provisions in the Bill, giving complete control to the Department.
I have already explained that this is a matter of almost no significance. This section is intended to provide for situations where a relatively small proportion of the duties of a Department officer would be proper to the authority and it would not be advisable to transfer him to that body. The teaching functions of certain members of the staff of the Botanic Gardens who give courses in horticulture is an instance of this kind, and I gave this example before. Since the effect of this section would be to put additional duties on civil servants, both the Minister and the Minister for the Public Service are clearly concerned. But this only arises if the authority ask the Department to do something on their behalf on an agency basis. It does not arise in any other situation. Therefore the extent of the concern baffles me because, as I say, it is almost an insignificant matter.
Question "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 11, lines 35 and 36, to delete "at least one member" and substitute "at least four members".
I am wondering if there was not a mistake in the preparation of the document we have from the Dáil office. Possibly the error is mine. I do not want to ascribe any blame to people wrongly, but what my amendment had in mind here was the question of the representation on the board of the council that was to be set up under the Minister's Bill wherein the Minister undertakes to have from the committees of agriculture at least one member of the board. This was obviously an unbalanced situation, even with the present unsatisfactory method of the election of committees of agriculture. My amendment was aimed at achieving a somewhat more equitable representation for the General Council of Committees of Agriculture in suggesting, instead of "at least one", "at least four". It is that intent which I recommend to the Minister and to the House. The Minister must certainly be aware of the grave anxiety that exists in the committees of agriculture and in the general council itself about their representation on the new board. As the Minister reminded the House on Committee Stage, I have my own ideas about the committees of agriculture and the general council. I have stated these ideas publicly and I espoused them again on the Committee Stage and there is no need to go into them now.
The existence of committees some members of which have no connection with agriculture is an unsatisfactory arrangement, and I do not think it would be difficult to elect people from the food industry itself at the same time as members of local authorities, county councils and corporations are being elected. People from the food industry could be elected on a county basis or, in the case of Tipperary, on a riding basis. The committees could then legitimately claim to be committees of agriculture.
Committees of agriculture exist now on a purely political basis. In my own county of Kilkenny, where Fianna Fáil could say they have a majority of the popular vote but a minority on the county council, control passes to the Fine Gael Party by the draw of a hat and the committee of agriculture is staffed by people who have no connection with agriculture. It is a disgrace, a piece of political piracy. It is the reduction of agriculture to the point of idiocy. I understand that the same situation exists in County Laois.
We must also admit that in the case of counties where there is a Fianna Fáil majority they can be just as ruthless. We must look at both sides of the picture. In my own county Fianna Fáil until some years ago did control the appointment of officers to the county council and they always insisted that every member of the committee of agriculture should come from the agriculture industry. We gave the other parties, Labour and Fine Gael, the same representation as the people had given and kept for ourselves the bare majority of one member that the people had given us. A different situation exists in other counties, sometimes on the side of Fine Gael and sometimes. I regret to say, on our own side. Be that as it may. It emerges that the system of electing committees of agriculture is a bad one and we get the wrong people on many of these committees for party political reasons. Although farmers have party political allegiance themselves they do not think it belongs in their industry which concerns the production and processing and selling of food. That is what it is all about.
The Minister is concerned with political domination and there is no need for me to condemn that. There is no need for me to say any more about the need there is for some approach to a similarity in the composition of the board directors, as we might call them, and the democratic construction of the industry as represented by the votes of the people. The Minister has indicated that he may introduce an amendment concerning the committees of agriculture. This might be a worthwhile amendment which we could support. but now we are talking about the general council and its representation on the board of the new organisation. We recommend this amendment to the Minister.
What I have to say may be repetition, but we must have some in support of this amendment. If I had my way the amendment would seek eight places on the board and not four. I feel we are asking very little of the Minister. He will have to agree that we are entitled to four. After all, the general council consists of members of county committees of agriculture who are now being stripped of all authority. The Minister is setting up a new board consisting of 24 people but he will not provide at least four places on the board for members of the general council. As Deputy Gibbons has said, politics do play a part in the committees of agriculture. There are certain counties— my own is one—which are dominated by Fianna Fáil. But it must be agreed that the general council is pretty well balanced. The chair goes this way or that way over the years so that nobody could accuse the general council of being biased in favour of any one political party. While there may be square pegs in round holes in county committees, anyone who has risen to general council level knows his stuff. The general council is well balanced politically and yet the Minister will not accept that they should be entitled to at least four places. These are the people who are at present in charge of the advisory services.
I cannot understand why the benches opposite are empty. The hottest people on the general council are the men sitting on those benches. More people have approached me from the Government side than from our own side about the representation of the general council. Where are they today? They should stand up and be counted. The Minister knows that there are as many people on his own side of the House as there are on this side, if not more, who disagree with the fact that he will not provide at least four places for the members of the general council. I should like to see more than four but they could be elected from each region.
The Minister mentioned why he was setting up this statutory body and why he was continuing the country committees of agriculture. He said he wanted them to be the watchdogs for the ordinary people. What is the use of a watchdog with no teeth? If you pull the teeth out of a watchdog he is not much good. The Minister has pulled the teeth out of the county committees of agriculture. Even with four places they would be in a hopeless minority on a board of 24. I am surprised, disappointed and disillusioned. I have said this before and I will repeat it. The Minister has brought in this Bill and he will not say that the general council is entitled to four places on a board of 24.
I ask the Minister to reconsider. I get very hot under the collar about this. I have worked under various chairmen on the general council, not all Fianna Fáil, and I have worked on committees of that council, and as far as Irish agriculture is concerned they played their part and gave their service well. It is a scandal that there should not be agreement on all sides of the House. They should have at least four on the new board.
There was a very lengthy debate on Committee Stage about the representation of the general council in the board of the authority. I explained then that I was guaranteeing this organisation at least one member and that at this stage I certainly could not go any further.
The Minister must be working in a lot of organisations if he could not go any further than one on the general council.
Deputy Callanan knows that this is the only organisation getting any such guarantee. If I were to start putting numbers on it now in advance of having consultations with the various rural organisations that I feel are entitled to representation on this council, I do not know where we would finish. That could be a very long argument. It is not possible to decide in advance of having these consultations what would be fair representation. Deputy Callanan goes a little bit outside the amendment when he says I robbed committees of the power, authority and everything else that they have had. I met representatives of the general council. They welcome this legislation. They are very pleased about it and so are the staffs of the county committees. Deputy Callanan is just making his case.
Deputy Gibbons also expressed great dissatisfaction about the method by which the county committees are appointed and the type of people of which they are composed but Deputy Gibbons has had his chance and during his time in office he did not see anything wrong with the system.
I did.
But he did nothing about it and he had long enough to do it.
I was going to change it.
He did not do anything about changing this system of the appointment of the committee and there was a Fianna Fáil Government here for a very long time and they did not change the system. It is useless to say now that everything has suddenly gone wrong with these committees since we took office. This is something which has been in existence for a very long time. The general council is very happy about the whole legislation. Of course, they are going to look for the maximum representation. Every other organisation is doing the same thing. I am not prepared to say any more at this stage.
Through the Chair may I ask if the Minister is stating that the general council are now happy about the Bill?
I get no other impression but that they are happy that the legislation is going through.
Fair enough; I will convey that to them.
From Deputy Callanan's initial assessment of the matter that was the same too.
The Minister's intervention gives a fairly good illustration of his mentality. It will be worth reading in the Official Report. The Minister is concerned about pleasing people, pleasing the members of the general council and the members of the committees of agriculture. The one class that he is not so conscious of are the people in the industry itself, the fellows who actually do the job, the producers and workers in the food industry. I was waiting for the Minister from the time he stood to reply to Deputy Callanan and myself to see how he assessed the way in which he proposed to go down with the farmers. He was not concerned about them. He was concerned about the general council, the committees of agriculture and the staffs, about everybody except the poor troops in the field, literally the guys in the field. This is something that we must expect and be prepared for from a person outside the industry. He is foostering at something he does not understand and will never understand. He is like a man who tries to play the "Moonlight Sonata" on a piano never having touched the instrument before; he never did it himself but he had seen it done. The Minister is operating on that basis.
I want to offer him advice. The Minister should meddle as little as he can with things he does not understand. This Bill is a monstrous piece of legislation. It is going to cause very great disturbance, fortunately for only a short time because we will pick up the bits and put them back where they were. Possibly, I would have proposals to improve the business of the committees of agriculture and the advisory services generally. The Bill the Minister is putting up now is the mixture as before, an endeavour to use an outdated and obsolete system that may have been excellent in the time of Sir Horace Plunkett when the Department of Agriculture and Secondary Education was established in 1903. This is 1977, and the adaptation, readaptation and further adaptation of the ancient methods of the British Government in this country after the establishment of the Department of Agriculture are a waste of time. Even in my time in farming there has been an enormous revolution. In that short 30-year period there has been a mighty transformation. But in the institutional changes that have accompanied it there is only one notable change and that is the establishment in 1958 or 1959 of the Agricultural Institute by the Fianna Fáil Government. That produced excellent, brilliant results. The effects of the research work carried out by An Foras Talúntais have pervaded the whole industry, raised farm incomes, raised the quality of Irish products, have spread into every facet of land use, animal feeding, food processing and so on. The Minister and his Department in one fell swoop are going to make civil servants out of many of them and turn them into a lot of automata, and you do not get good ideas from automata. It is regrettable.
Question "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and may be taken together.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 5.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 14, line 25, before "persons" to insert "a person nominated by the Civil Service Commissioners under paragraph (b) and of".
The purpose of amendments Nos. 5 and 6 is to provide that one member of any panel to be set up under the subsection will be a nominee of the Civil Service Commissioners and to give the commissioners the necessary power to nominate a person for this purpose. At present the staff of the committees of agriculture are recruited by the Local Appointments Commission and the staff of my Department by the Civil Service Commission. A number of interested parties have suggested that since all of the new staff of the authority will be recruited by the authority themselves it would be of considerable benefit to the authority to have the advice of a representative of the Civil Service Commission on the appointments board. There is a lot to be said for this idea, and these amendments will allow the idea to be put into practice.
We welcome any proposal made by the Minister or anybody else that would guarantee a fair deal to a person applying for a position in the new service. One would have a right to be apprehensive about getting a fair deal from the present Government or any organ of the present Government, such as the one being set up under this Bill, having regard for the unprecedented exhibition of nepotism and patronage that has been the standard norm of conduct since the arrival of the National Coalition Government. The highest office in the land was degraded and blackguarded in recent times by the National Coalition Government, but in the public service, political hacks —mostly from the Fine Gael Party— occupy the highest positions in the State to the lowest. The Civil Service has been prostituted to carry briefless barristers and jobless hangers-on of the Fine Gael Party throughout the length and breadth of the country. This fact has been demonstrated at great length by this party over the last few years. One example is the barefaced appointment of unqualified people, such as flower arrangers in Government Departments, to the permanent and pensionable staff of the Civil Service, with living accommodation in Government property. Any small adjustment that the Minister can make in this Bill to see that this situation is not carried on would be welcome. For such guarantees as they give, I welcome these amendments as the Minister has explained them.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 14, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following paragraph:
"(b) The Civil Service Commissioners, whenever so requested by the Board, shall nominate a person for the purposes of paragraph (a).".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 14, to delete lines 38 to 44 and substitute the following:
"34.—(1) As soon as conveniently may be after the commencement of this section, the Board shall, subject to section 65 and following consultation with the recognised staff associations and trade unions concerned, prepare and submit a staff scheme or schemes for the regulation, control and management of the staff of the Authority and shall indicate in respect of the different grades of staff (either generally or severally, as may be appropriate) the appropriate remuneration, tenure of office, qualifications and conditions of service.".
When this section was discussed on Committee Stage, I said that the existing staff need not worry that their present rights and conditions of service would in any way be threatened by the operation of this section. I repeat that the existing rights and conditions of service of all staff to be transferred are guaranteed in their entirety under section 65, and the guarantee is quite unequivocal. I also explained that the reason for providing a staff scheme was to create the machinery whereby the different staff groups to be brought together in the new authority could be fully integrated as a team. There would be no point in bringing the various services together if each was to carry on separately doing its own thing. I am quite sure that the board would not want this, nor would the majority of the staff. I am convinced that the staff scheme is the best way of bringing the various staff groups together. No staff scheme can be introduced without the prior agreement of the staffs. That would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise. I will suggest to the board, as soon as the authority is established, that some form of council which would comprise representatives of the staff and other interests concerned, should be set up as soon as possible to work out an agreed approach to the preparation of the staff scheme. This will ensure that the staff will be involved from the outset. Notwithstanding these assurances, and in deference to the view expressed by some Members of the House during Committee Stage that prior consultation with the staff should be expressly provided for in this section, I have introduced this amendment which makes explicit what is implicit in the whole idea of the staff scheme.
This is a matter of great concern to anybody interested in even the remnants of the Agricultural Institute. I am concerned that the research personnel at present still in the institute, and about to be absorbed into the new organisation, should be able to retain their identity, against the day when this legislation will be repealed, so that the institute can be re-established as it had been before its demolition by the Minister. I am anxious about the position of people engaged in research and any member of the staff on the advisory side. The provision in section 34, even as amended, seems to put the total control of the movement of staff into the hands of the Minister. In this context that would be the Minister and the people who surround him, quite a number of whom would have their own axes to grind. This puts the livelihood and the family welfare of workers in the advisory services on the block. For that reason the gravest anxiety is felt by me and by people in the advisory services in the research institute.
We know that the Minister will not accept any amendment except his own, not a single comma will be changed for any other reason. As Deputy Callanan remarked, it is very little use talking, because we are talking to a Fascist, but we would be failing in our duty if we did not express our anxiety about the possibilities raised under this section. The Minister could shuttle people that he does not like off to bog stations and replace them with pets of his own. This is what I would expect to happen having regard to the record of the Fine Gael Party in Government.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 15, to delete lines 1 to 7.
I put down this amendment following suggestions made in the House during Committee Stage that the procedure provided for in this subsection would not only impose unnecessary restrictions in regard to the staff scheme but would also place an additional and equally unnecessary burden on the Oireachtas. While I do not accept entirely that the subsection would be unduly restrictive, I am inclined to agree that it might result in unnecessary additional work for the Oireachtas. Consequently, I am proposing its deletion.
The Minister may correct me if I am wrong but is there not a certain element of Oireachtas control in subsection (4) which appears to be in the process of being removed by the Minister's amendment?
It was explained on Committee Stage that this was the first time this was ever provided for in legislation. However, it was objected to here and because of the questions raised I agreed to remove it. Having had a second look at it, I consider it to be unnecessary and not in any way providing a safeguard. It would only put unnecessary work on the Oireachtas.
Would the Minister not agree that the provision in subsection (4) provides for some measure of control over the otherwise unchecked activities of the Minister's Department?
I am amused by some of the remarks made by Deputy Gibbons in relation to the desperate things that will result from this legislation.
Go over to Iveagh House and turn out the hacks that are working there.
There was similar provision in previous legislation in respect of superannuation but in no other regard. The provision here was objected to on Committee Stage.
By whom?
I think it was Deputy Desmond who objected to it.
The Deputy from the royal borough of Kingstown, the well-known supporter of the Irish farming industry. It is very good of the Minister to accede to Deputy Desmond's request in whose absence somebody should express thanks to him but that someone will not be me.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are cognate and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 15, line 12, to delete "its staff" and substitute "the staff of the Authority".
These are merely minor technical amendments which are dictated by legal considerations but which in no way alter the meaning of the section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 15, line 33, to delete "its staff" and substitute "the staff of the Authority".
Amendment agreed to.
Regarding amendment No. 11, amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 are related but the Chair wishes to point out that if amendment No. 11 is accepted, the other three cannot be moved or voted on although all four may be discussed together.
It is difficult to hear from here. Can they not be moved now?
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 18, to delete lines 32 to 41 and substitute the following:
" `2. Every committee of agriculture shall be composed both of persons who are and persons who are not members of the council and the number of members of every such committee who are members of the council shall be—
(a) in case the committee consists of a number of members which is a multiple of five, three-fifths of that number, and
(b) in any other case, the number which is the next whole number above three-fifths of the number of members.' ".
The purpose of this amendment is to provide that 60 per cent of the members of each committee of agriculture will be elected representatives. The House will recall that during the Committee Stage debate a number of Deputies argued strongly that 75 per cent of the members of each committee of agriculture should be elected representatives. This case has been put also by a number of other interests and having considered carefully the various arguments in this regard, I have concluded that elected representatives should be in the majority on these committees.
However, I am still convinced of the desirability of a strong representation from local voluntary bodies and, consequently, have decided that the best way of achieving a balance between these two objectives is to provide for the 60-40 ratio in favour of the elected members.
The Minister's amendment suggests that 60 per cent of the representation on committees of agriculture be elected. The inference is that the other 40 per cent should not be elected but rather selected in one way or another.
This is not a good idea but neither do I believe that the present method is entirely right. I have suggested before that the idea of electing separately county committees of agriculture at the time of local elections should be examined and that the electorate in respect of the county committees be limited to those involved in the food industry because these committees are primarily the concern of these people. In this way the committee would be composed of people from vocational bodies such as the farming organisations, the ICA and so on. In that way we would have committees of agriculture who could claim truly to be representative of the food industry. In such circumstances, too, it would follow legitimately and logically that the general council of committees of agriculture made up of such people would be entitled to have democratically elected people forming a greater part of the control of that body and of the governing body of the Minister's advisory council.
I know that the Minister will not accept this idea but I do not know why he is so adamant so far as it is concerned. Why should he condemn every proposal, however small, that comes from people like myself, from the inside and claim all the time that he who comes from outside in knows what is good for the rest? That is not so. It is an aspect of the situation we are discussing. You have watchmakers, wheelwrights and all sorts of people on committees of agriculture who have no business there. The Minister's situation is not very different from that. I ask him as a person from the industry to reconsider this proposal. The apparatus he is trying to modernise is too old; it is creaking with old age and about to collapse unless it is replaced. I am suggesting a method that he might consider.
I welcome the change of heart on the part of the Minister in agreeing to change the representation on county committees from 50 to 60 per cent but he has not gone far enough. I do not want him to think that I believe that there should be nobody on them but elected representatives. We always had people other than elected representatives on them but the percentage of elected representatives should be in the region of 75. It is a step in the right direction to have 60 per cent because with the 50 per cent proposed in the Bill we could have a position where there would be no elected representatives on the general council. Under this Bill, the county councils have to put up a certain percentage of the money required to run the new authority. With the 50 per cent there could be a line up of political parties with independent members and it could be an independent member of a rural organisation who would be sent to the general council and it need not be an elected representative.
We must be thankful for small mercies since we got very little in the Bill. Public representatives must face the people. That is emphasised very strongly. Many things are being taken out of the control of this House, something I do not agree with. At least, if a public representative does anything wrong he has to give an account of his stewardship whereas a man can be easily elected from some small organisation and he may be very much inclined to spend taxpayers' money. He has no responsibility but an elected representative has. If he does not act responsibly he will be dealt with when he goes before the people again and he will be put out. I should have preferred the Minister to accept amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14. I understand these amendments must be discussed with this one. I want to make clear that no committee objected to or thought that rural and farming organisations should not be on county committees of agriculture. Having sat for two years, we came up with a 75-25 proportion as a fair representation between elected representatives and rural organisations. Nobody should think that the general council wanted to keep rural or farming organisations out of county committees of agriculture. We wanted to strike a right balance between members who had to be elected and were responsible for spending ratepayers' money and members who were not. Ratepayers' money must be spent since there is no question of all this money coming from the Exchequer. We will have to put up a certain amount and the county councils will have to do likewise and I think the Minister should therefore have accepted the amendments put down. However, we are grateful for what we got. The people most opposed to the 50 per cent were on the Government side and I suppose pressure was put on the Minister to get the change but if we put the matter to a vote to get 75, the people who most talked about the 75 would all follow the Minister.
Loyalty. The farmers would do the same thing by the same majority.
I said that today; this is party politics but if I were a Government Deputy—I hope to be now if re-elected—I would say what I thought personally even though I know as a party man that you must toe the party line and vote with your party or get out. That does not prevent you from giving a personal view. On the opposite side, where people have views even stronger than mine—and mine are very strong—on the proportion of elected representatives, the benches are empty.
It represents their complete happiness.
There is not complete happiness and I would not tell an untruth here. People are better pleased to have it 60 rather than 50 but if it were 50 it would be the same story. I hope that the agricultural advisers will be as independent and will do as good work for agriculture under the new regime as under the county committees of agriculture when these advisers were independent of everybody. They were totally independent of politics. I come from the west where the cooperative movement was unknown but it was set up with the assistance of the advisers who also assisted every movement for the good of agriculture, Macra na Feirme and every rural organisation. This was done under the county committees of agriculture that are apparently unmentionable now; they are dirt. Not as much as I personally would like was done because there was not sufficient money. I should have liked to see the educational programme make more progress under the county committees of agriculture but one has to cut the cloth according to the measure. If we do as well under the new authority and if there is as much freedom of action for the adviser in five years' time as there is now when he is hindered in no way in giving advice to all, I shall be a happy man.
It is quite wrong for people to say we had not a good advisory service. We had an advisory service which was starved for money. We could not do the things we wanted to do. I had ambitions to do many things in my county. We are doing the best we can with Directive 161, the educational directive. We want to continue to educate all farmers irrespective of the size of their farms.
I am worried about how the advice will be given under the new authority. Will the small farmer, the man who really wants it, get the priority to which he is entitled? In the White Paper it was stated that priority should be given to the development farmers. I want to give priority to the small man who is prepared to work to a plan. The advisers have not got time to advise the farmers now because they are knotted up in paper work. From now on the county committees of agriculture will have no power. There will be 60 per cent of public representatives on the new authority. As far as it goes I welcome it, but we were entitled to 75 per cent. I will continue to say that because I know how free the advisers were under the county committees of agriculture.
I am glad the amendment meets with the approval of the Opposition.
I am not in agreement with it.
Question: "That the amendment be made" put and declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 cannot now be moved so we proceed to amendment No. 15.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 26, to delete lines 25 to 32.
This amendment refers to section 65 (4). It is submitted to delete that subsection because, in my opinion, the inclusion of subsection (4) provides for the shuttling around the country of members of the staff of the new NAAERA more or less without any reference to their family circumstances, or the work they had been doing, whether they are advisory officers or research people or, indeed, any other members of the staff. I would be apprehensive that, to use a phrase I have already used, cothrom na féinne would not always be forthcoming.
In the interest of members of the staff of the NAAERA the exclusion of subsection (4) should be effected. If it is not, members of the staff and their families may be exposed to unwarranted and possibly unfair transfers to different parts of the country, possibly in some cases staff members whose families were attending school in a particular locality would have to be uprooted and shifted to the other end of the country. I would have hoped that this type of possibility would have been excluded in this year of grace 1977. I would ask the Minister to acknowledge that this subsection should be left out of the Bill.
I explained on Committee Stage that I was not prepared to prevent the board from rearranging or redistributing the appropriate duties among the staff. This should be regarded by everybody as reasonable. The authority must be allowed to deploy their staff to the best advantage. Deputy Gibbons' amendment would restrict the authority in this respect. The amendment I introduced to section 34 (1), together with the existing sections in the Bill, in my view give adequate safeguards to the staff in this connection. No board or authority would be foolish enough to start kicking people around the country just for the sake of doing that.
The Minister's people did that to the Garda at one time.
There may be many instances where people would be glad to move, and want to move. We are all aware that we have many appeals by members of the staff of the Department to be sent to various parts of the country for a variety of reasons. They do not feel they are being kicked around when they get that opportunity. This is a rearrangement of duties, not a shifting of staff for the sake of shifting staff. We would be taking a completely wrong view if we assumed the new authority will be totally unreasonable in their treatment of people and that they will abuse them, so to speak, and abuse their own privileges.
That is being done at the moment. A livestock officer in my constituency is being compelled to go to Dublin. I suspect the reason is political.
For very good reasons I am quite sure. Deputy Gibbons makes assertions and imputations every time he gets on his feet. I do not know where he gets all these suspicions. So far as I am aware, nothing of that type is happening in any part of my Department. It is ridiculous to say it is happening.
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Recommittal is necessary in respect of amendment No. 16. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are related.
Before you leave amendment No. 16, Sir, I would ask the Minister to elaborate on it and tell the House what it refers to. Would the Minister be good enough to do that?
If Deputy Gibbons will allow me to complete my statement, I was about to suggest that we should take amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 together. They are related.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 16.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 28, line 20, after "that purpose" to insert "and agreed by the member, the legal personal representative, the staff association or trade union, as the case may be, who made the complaint".
The House will recall that every member of the transferred staff of the authority under section 65 is guaranteed no less favourable conditions in regard to salary and conditions of service than those he enjoyed prior to his transfer. A similar undertaking regarding superannuation appears in section 66. These guarantees are enforceable in the courts. Following representations from certain staff associations, I agreed to provide an alternative appeals procedure for staff members who may feel aggrieved in this respect. Section 69 was included in the Bill to meet these commitments.
Section 69, as drafted, provides an alternative to appeals to the courts and a complainant electing to appeal to the Minister would be precluded from resorting to the courts. On further consideration, and following further representations from responsible staff representatives, I have decided to remove the restriction set out in section 69 and, in effect, to give aggrieved members of the transferred staff the double option of appealing both to the Minister and to the courts. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 give effect to this decision. As a further concession, amendment No. 16 has been put down to provide that the person appointed to hear any complaint under this section must be agreed by all the parties involved.
These amendments will, I think, reassure all staff concerned that if an appeal is necessary it will be examined and conducted in a fair and impartial manner and that the widest possible means of redress is being made available to an aggrieved party.
I wonder if the Minister realised he was capable of such black humour. Out of the goodness of his heart, by the sheer dint of nobility, he is now arranging to so amend the Bill that servants of the NAAERA, who under the previous Bill would not even have recourse to the courts of law in the case of some injustice being perpetrated, may now have recourse to the courts.
They had recourse to the courts previously.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 28, line 23, to add "who having considered the report, shall give his decision on the complaint".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 28, to delete lines 24 to 26.
Amendment agreed to.
Agreed to take Fifth Stage today.
I move: "That the Bill do now pass."
We are opposing the passage of this Bill.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 43.
Tá
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- 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.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Thornley, David.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Daly, Brendan.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Power, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.