Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 May 1977

Vol. 299 No. 8

National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority Bill, 1976: From The Seanad.

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.

Perhaps amendments Nos. 1 to 5 could be taken together. I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:

Title: In page 4, lines 11 and 12, Long Title, "Advisory, Education and Research" deleted.

These amendments arise from the change of the title of the authority to be set up under the Bill. It will now be known as the National Agricultural Authority. During the debate in the Seanad various suggestions were made from all sides of the House about alternative titles for the new body. Although Senators had differing ideas what the new title should be, all were agreed that the National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority was unwieldly and unmanageable. When introducing these amendments in the Seanad I said that I was never very happy with the name originally proposed. However, the House will agree that the position has now been rectified. I am sure the new title will be readily recognised and quickly established as a by-word among the farming community.

It has been suggested also that the title of the Agricultural Institute, An Foras Talúntais, since it is already firmly established and widely acknowledged, would be a suitable name, but it would not at all of course describe the new authority which is an all embracing one.

I agree with the Minister that the title he suggests has the merit of brevity but I would not say it has the merit of accuracy. While it is a good thing to change the outlandish and ridiculous original title the organisation had, the National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority—it would take too long to say that the corn would be overripe and everything out of control before that title could be said—I must express a fear that I think will be felt by more people than myself that the very implication of the new title, the National Agricultural Authority, against the structure of chairman and board that the Minister has adumbrated in his Bill looks very like the concentration of too much power in the hands of the person who will be appointed by the Minister. Everybody has a fairly good idea who that person will be, this pocket Hitler. I am anxious and worried about the concentration of too much power in that person's hands. The Minister for Agriculture, whoever he may be, has to be elected by the people; he is acting on behalf of a Government and he has the authority of suffrage. With regard to the appointee of the Minister, some people would say that the eminence grise behind the Minister has no such authority at all nor can it be easily dismissed.

I must say that I am concerned that the area the Deputy is now entering into seems to be quite unrelated to a change in the title of this Bill.

No, Sir, the implications of the new title must make one think. For instance, consider the use of the word "authority" in the new title, and remember that this authority is vested in one person who is the nominee of the Minister. I merely want to warn the Minister that this would be the feeling of the farming community. The Minister would be unaware of this feeling, having no connection with the agricultural industry, but I want to tell him that it exists. It is hardly worth the Minister's while because we will be changing the Bill now before the House in a very short time. We are not going to oppose the change in title.

Amendment agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:

Section 2: In page 5, line 10 and 11, "Advisory, Education and Research" deleted.

Amendment agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:

Section 9: In page 7, lines 12 to 17 inclusive deleted and the following substituted:

"Part II

The National Agricultural Authority

9.—(1) There shall be established a body to be known as the National Agricultural Authority to perform the functions given to it by this Act."

Amendment agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:

Section 17: In page 10, lines 5 and 6, "Advisory, Education and Research" deleted.

Amendment agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:

Section 25: In page 11, line 25, "Advisory, Education and Research" deleted.

Amendment agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:

Section 65: In page 26, line 25, "and following consultation with the recognised staff associations and trade unions concerned" inserted after "section 34".

The amendment obliges the board to consult with representatives of the staff concerned prior to any transfers being made. This provision simply binds the board to a procedure which I am sure they would have adopted in any case but, in response to requests from some of the staff to be transferred, I agreed to take this condition and make it more explicit.

The Minister will recall that when the Committee Stage was before the House I pointed out the obvious shortcomings of section 26. I reminded the Minister of the widely expressed fear of people, especially those in the Agriculture Institute, of unfair treatment and victimisation under the Department's scheme. It has been hatching in certain parts of the Department for the last two decades and has now come to fruition.

I do not think the provision the Minister is introducing now is sufficient to protect the interests of the people working for the new authority. We have had enough examples of discrimination against people in certain areas in the sector covered by the new authority to be anxious and worried that with the new political shape the National Agricultural Authority is taking on almost certainly there will be discrimination and people discriminated against will have no proper court of appeal.

The entire agricultural advisory and research establishment of the country is being put on a political basis by the Minister and the redress that people working in the service must have is not adequate. If the Minister had the vision, the generosity and fairness of mind during Committee Stage to accept our amendment to delete section 26 altogether he would have a better Bill. It would not be a great deal better because any Bill that embodies the demolition of one of the finest research establishments in Europe must be a bad Bill but within the context of the destructive design behind the Bill the interest of the people in the service generally should be protected as much as possible. That is not being done. The amendment proposed by the Minister goes some little way but not nearly far enough.

I want to tell the Minister straight and fair that there is a great deal of anxiety throughout the length and breadth of the new service, or what is about to be the new service for a short time, about the new political structure of the National Agricultural Authority. People are worried about their jobs and their prospects of getting jobs if their political allegiance is not to the liking of those in charge. That is what the Minister is doing now. It was the basic idea behind the Bill because nowhere in it is there any suggestion that the service will be improved. There is no guarantee that the number of advisers will be increased. There is no promise of any improvement; in fact, in one section of the Bill there is an undertaking which is unprecedented, namely, that the service will not get any worse.

We are dealing with a specific amendment.

We are dealing with the job prospects and security of people who will be working for the new service. I am telling the House that there is grave anxiety throughout the service itself. There is also grave anxiety that people who would like to work in the service, for instance young graduates, will be discriminated against on a political basis. There are enough examples in the record of the present Government to show that this is a legitimate and well-founded fear and it is not in any way sufficiently relieved by the Minister's amendment. I will not oppose the amendment because it makes a gesture but it is only a gesture. This Bill will be the most short-lived Bill that ever had anything to do with agriculture.

This amendment does not do much to change the Bill. It all depends on the type of consultation and there is no appeal after that consultation. This provision does not alter the Bill in the slightest.

Whenever we make an effort to get progress through change it is natural and normal to have anxiety, fear and concern and more especially when this is politically generated by the Opposition.

That is a lie.

What does "generated" mean? It started——

I am not attributing it particularly to Deputy Callanan.

I take exception to what the Minister has said.

Nobody believes what the Minister is saying. Let him ask the staff.

Deputy Gibbons tried to see politics in every turn but in setting up the board and the authority we followed exactly the same lines and rules as were followed by previous governments in the setting up of similar boards.

That is not so.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments reported and agreed to.
Top
Share