Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Feb 1979

Vol. 312 No. 3

Agriculture (An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta), Bill 1978: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 11:
In page 5, before section 10, to insert a new section as follows:
"10.—Section 12 of the Act of 1977 is hereby amended by the addition of the following subsections:
`(3) Courses or lectures to be provided in agriculture under subsection (1) of this section may include preventive veterinary medicine, and the authority shall make arrangements to ensure that qualified persons are available to provide such courses or lectures in so-far as they concern preventive veterinary medicine.
(4) The Authority shall provide courses and lectures specially designed for employed farm workers if, in respect of any part of the country it is satisfied that employed farm workers are not being adequately catered for in existing courses and lectures provided on a general basis'.".
—(Deputy Bruton.)

I am sorry that the Minister so far has not been able to meet any of the points we have been making on this amendment but I hope he will see his way to meet some of the suggestions. So far, the Minister's case has been that the amendment is not necessary to achieve what we seek, that it is not necessary to put the words we are suggesting into the Bill to achieve our objective. It is my view that our objective is not being achieved as the Bill stands. There is no reason to believe that, if the Bill is passed without the amendment, our objective will be achieved in the future. In the advisory service and under the courses operated by country committees of agriculture there should be an element of preventive veterinary medicine. The courses may contain an element of advice on preventive veterinary medicine but they are provided by persons who are not part of the service. The services of persons in the district veterinary offices are sought but their skill and training is not in the area of teaching or in the area of imparting knowledge. Their concern is purely with the administration of the existing regulations.

The Minister may say that the district veterinary offices are in a position to give that advice but officers there are so bogged down with administrative work in relation to the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication schemes that even if they had the training to give this advice they do not have the time.

They are not bogged down; they are eradicating those diseases.

Our proposal is that the terms of reference of the new body should be extended to give them a mandate to give advice in preventive veterinary medicine. We are all aware how important prevention is in illness and the Minister earlier adverted to the high loss occurring here through calf-mortality. He told us that many calves die because of inadequate knowledge on the part of the farmers looking after them. Those farmers are not getting the proper advice on preventive measures to be adopted in cases of illness. It is not enough to tell farmers that they can go to the open day at Grange where they would get advice on calf management, because Grange in County Meath is of little use to farmers in the west or south. We want a service which will obviate the necessity to call the veterinary surgeon in every county. Our amendment seeks to give a mandate to the advisory service to give advice to farmers. The fact is that there is not a veterinary surgeon employed by the advisory service in any county. How could they possibly give advice on veterinary matters when there is not a qualified person among their number? Whenever they want to give advice they have to call on the district veterinary office who are concerned with the administration of disease eradication programmes and have no mandate in the area of advice or of education. The case I am making is a very good one and my amendment is reasonable because it does not require them to do it in every county. It simply says "the lectures or courses may include preventive veterinary medicine". Further on they say that the "advice given may include preventive veterinary medicine". We are not requiring them to do it in every county; we are merely saying that they may do so.

I believe such a section is necessary to make it quite clear that the intentions of this House were that advice on preventive veterinary medicine should be given as part of the functions of the advisory services. If it is not in this Bill, it is likely that representatives of the profession might say at a later date "You are not entitled to start employing vets or giving advice in veterinary matters. That is a matter for the private practitioner. It is not in the Act, so you are not entitled to do it". I can see that happening.

If, in five years time, a Minister were seeking to have preventive veterinary medicine included in the work of the advisory services he might find that the profession could stop him because it is not in the Act. I am not saying they will do that. I hope they would not adopt that attitude and I have no reason for believing they would adopt it but, in drafting legislation, one must provide for every contingency. In the absence of statutory provision allowing—I stress the word "allowing"—the advisory service to give advice and the education service to give education on preventing veterinary medicine, I do not believe we can be sure that it can or will be done. That is why I believe this is an essential amendment and I hope the Minister will accept the case I am making. I am not making it in any sense as a criticism of him. It is something I hope he will be able to accept as being constructive and to the benefit of agriculture and of all parties in this House.

The second point I am concerned about is that AnCOT should be in a position to give courses specially designed for employed farm workers. I am not saying that employed farm workers are not catered for in some of the courses being given in agriculture but the majority of the people taking part in these courses are self-employed farmers or farmers' sons. Why is that the case? In some areas, such as the western counties, there may not be a sufficient number of employed farm workers and there would not be a demand for courses for these workers but, in other parts of the country, for example, Leinster, where there are substantial numbers of employed farm workers the courses are organised at times and under conditions which appeal to farmers, not farm workers. They are run during the day when a farm worker may not be able to be released from his employment to attend. There are no provisions for compensating an employer if he let a farm worker off to attend a course. He may not need to be compensated in some cases but in others he might require compensation because he could be at a loss by releasing the farm worker to attend a course to acquire additional skills. The farm worker could them move on to more remunerative employment.

There should be a special mandate for the authority to provide courses. In some cases employers might not want their workers to get involved in such courses. The authority should have a mandate to ensure that the professional competence of employed farm workers is raised to the maximum extent so that they can make the best contribution to agriculture and command the best wages or salaries that can be obtained for their skills. At the moment that is not happening.

This amendment would allow the authority to make arrangements to have courses specially designed for farm workers if, in respect of any part of the country, they are satisfied the employed farm workers are not being adequately catered for in existing courses and lectures provided on a general basis. As I said, such arrangements need not be made in every country. They should be made if and when the authority are satisfied that the existing courses are not meeting the need. This is not an unreasonable amendment. We are not tying the arms and legs of the authority in this matter. We are not saying they must do it whether it is reasonable or not. We are merely saying they must do it if they are satisfied it is necessary. That puts the discretion in the hands of the authority and points them in what I believe is the right direction. This amendment is framed to be reasonable and not to damage the structure of the legislation. I hope the Minister will see his way to accepting it, or that he would introduce an amendment worded in the way his advisers would see as more appropriate.

The Minister has not answered the suggestion in my amendment that special attention should be given to those farmers whose performance in terms of the income they derive from their land falls furthest below the physical potential of the land. We all have information available through the soil surveys carried out by the Agricultural Institute in Wexford. We know what the agricultural potential of various types of soil is. We know how many cows land can carry. We know the maximum grain yield that can be achieved in various parts of the country. We also know that actual performance falls very far below that. There is one midland county—not Kildare—I will not mention the county—where the potential is furthest from being achieved. In another county, Cork, the nearest to the potential of the land is being achieved. The difference between the two countries is very great. In terms of optimum use of our natural resources our advisory and educational efforts should be concentrated in those counties and among those farm families which are furthest from achieving their potential. There should be a deliberate policy of concentrating manpower resources where the greatest return can be obtained. It is to achieve that end that this amendment is being introduced.

This amendment is not simply and solely concerned with the potential of the land. It is also concerned with the economic potential of the land. There may be areas where there are many farmers working, where there are manpower or financial resources, large cash balances in the bank and those cash balances are not being used to develop the land to the full. That could be a consideration for the specific direction of advisory and educational resources to those areas.

The distribution of advisers is not revised on a rational basis. There are some counties which have large numbers of advisers and a very favourable ratio of advisers to farmers, although they make good use of them, there is not the same need for them as there is in other parts of the country. Because the tradition has been to think of this service on a county basis, if a particular county gets a certain number of advisers they will always keep that number, regardless of changes that may occur or the growth of new needs elsewhere. A particular county may have 25 advisers; the agricultural population may have fallen drastically in the county, optimum production may have very nearly been achieved and the return in terms of economic output per adviser may have fallen, yet the advisers are not shifted from that county to other counties.

I realise that for any Minister to try to shift advisers from one county to another, to reduce staff in one county and increase it in another, is to take a very grave political stance. I do not believe it would be an easy stance for the present Minister or any successor to adopt. However, we are setting up an authority who are to be independent in these matters and they will be able to take decisions which would be politically difficult for us as Members of this House. This amendment will direct them in making assessments about manpower distribution to look at the economic potential of different counties. If there are some counties whose economic potential is not being achieved, this amendment will direct the authority to see that advisers are moved into such counties.

I want to make a general point which relates to some amendments I introduced which were ruled out of order. It is essential to set targets for the advisory service in each part of the country in regard to agricultural growth. Advisers should not be able simply to limp along in a particular county without a return in terms of growth in production in the area for which they are responsible. If a large number of advisers are working in a particular county, there should be seen to be a response in terms of increased production in that county; if that is not happening, we should look at the situation. We should have an agricultural plan in each county with targets for that county in respect of different commodities. Over a five-year period we should see if the advisory and educational services are working there. If it is manifest that the targets have not been achieved, whereas in another county with the same resources in terms of numbers of advisers and educational facilities available the targets have been achieved, there must be a case for reassessment of the resources as between those two counties. There is no way in which that issue would come to light unless there is a county agricultural development plan with specific targets for each county. This is something towards which the Government may be working in the context of their announcements in the White Paper. If not, I would urge them to consider this.

The Minister has not dealt fully with the case we have made in the fourth part of this amendment. It is a very polyglot amendment containing four quite disparate parts. The point I wish to make concerns the farm home management service. This is a service which gives advice not on farming matters but to farmers' wives or to farm families on how to manage the home, how to budget properly, the kinds of food which are good for children and the way to lay out a kitchen from the point of view of minimising labour. As things are developing, the husband could now be doing much of the work. These are the things the service is setting out to do. They do it by means of lectures and 100-hour courses for wives. In my opinion it is a very valuable service. What we are questioning in this amendment is whether it is being provided for the people who are most in need of it.

There is no doubt that anybody could benefit from these courses, whether male or female. Given that the number of farm home management advisers is limited, as is the amount of money available from the Exchequer for this service, is it right that it should be confined only to farm families? I contend that deprived families who are not from a farming background and may not live in rural areas have a greater need of this sort of advice than the majority of farm families. I know from my own limited experience in this area that lack of ability and knowledge about how to manage the home is one of the most common reasons for deprivation. The reason so many children do not succeed at school is that they do not receive proper nutrition in the morning before going to school. I am talking now about poor families. I produced figures in this House when discussing the provision of free milk showing the number of children who go to school every morning without having had any breakfast. The number is alarmingly high. The reason is not that the parents cannot afford to pay for breakfast but they are giving them the wrong sort of food—chips, for instance—at night, instead of giving them the right sort of food at the same cost at a time when they need it most. This is not due to lack of love on the part of the mother but simply lack of knowledge as to what should be done.

I believe this service could provide advice for deprived, poor families throughout the country. It is a pity these advisers are not able to help non-farming families on a systematic agreed basis in conjunction with the health boards. The amendment proposes that this advice may be given by the authority, by arrangement with the appropriate health board, to needy families of a nonagricultural or non-rural background. It is not saying that it should be done holus-bolus and that the service should cease to be a farm home management service. Before any advice is given to a non-farming family, it is necessary that the authority should agree to it and that the health board should also agree.

There is nothing here which states that the health board should not have to compensate the authority for the fact that their advisers are giving advice to people who are not strictly the responsibility of AnCOT and giving it on behalf or at the request of the health board. There is no reason why the health board should not compensate the authority for the fact that their staff are being used to do work which is primarily a health board function. The Minister was worried that the acceptance of this amendment would mean that it would no longer be a farm service, that it would not come within the mandate of this authority and that the money would be provided in the agricultural Vote for something which is not essentially agricultural. That is an objection not to the principle but to the practicality of this seggestion. The objection could be met by the health board undertaking the financial responsibility for reimbursing AnCOT for any services rendered by the farm home management advisers to the health board in relation to deprived families.

That would get over the Minister's difficulty without dividing the service. It would be a pity if the situation had to develop where the health board had to employ their home management advisers in addition to others being employed by AnCOT, one dealing with non-farm families and the other dealing with farm families. That would be a gross waste of resources. We have already an existing service under the county committees of agriculture and it should be used to help both farm and non-farm families where they need advice on home management. My amendment seeks to achieve this in a practical way and I hope that the Minister, on reflection, will see his way to meeting this. If he does he will be doing something small but significant to deal with a genuine social problem. It is not an agricultural problem——

That is just it.

My amendment allows it to be met by arrangement with the health boards. Perhaps they would provide the money and the personnel resources of AnCOT could be used for a purpose that all of us would agree is in the best interests of the country.

We are dealing with amendment No. 11 which proposes the insertion of a new section. On the previous occasion Deputy Bermingham reported progress on this amendment and if he wishes he may come in on the debate now.

I should like to support the amendment. As I stated previously, not all of the courses available have been open to agricultural workers. As Deputy Bruton pointed out, it may be necessary to provide for payment of a kind that will allow for substitution so that the worker concerned would not be at a loss with regard to wages.

What Deputy Bruton said about home management courses is very important. In my county it has been the practice to provide home management courses and they were open to people in towns who were interested in them. In Kildare we found that the demand for the courses was not as great among rural people as among town people and some courses were not run for that reason because essentially they were, I suppose, farm management courses. There was a considerable demand from urban areas for admission to the courses.

That could be stopped at any time because it is not within their mandate.

There was a greater demand for the courses from urban areas.

There is a greater need for them in urban areas.

If I concede the good faith of Deputy Bruton's sincerely expressed concern for people who require home guidance, the business of instruction in domestic house-keeping, the logical conclusion would be a farm advisory service penetrating into darkest Dublin. To say the least the idea is rather far-fetched. Classes for farm workers are available now. There is no power in the land to prevent them from attending classes sponsored by county committees of agriculture and that will continue to be the case.

Deputy Bruton may be under a slight misapprehension about veterinary advice. Are we talking about veterinary advice or advice on animal husbandry? The Deputy knows that mortality among young animals is most frequent where the standard of animal husbandry is low. Animal husbandry and veterinary medicine are related but essentially they are dissimilar. The business of animal husbandry is the job of the stockman and all stockmen need instruction in these matters.

We are rehashing what we said already. There was no suggestion such as that put forward by Deputy Bruton now in the 1977 Bill. I do not know if it was a sudden flush of inspiration that inspired the suggestion in this case. I think the comhairle should be allowed as much freedom as possible in the direction of the advisory and training services but to fan out almost to disappearing point into the business of deciding what colour of wallpaper an urban or suburban housewife might put in the living-room——

The Minister knows that is not what I meant. I was referring to needy families.

Inclusion of such a provision would be too far-fetched even for Fine Gael. It is not really sensible.

This is ridiculous.

There may well be a social need. Deputy Bruton spoke about the distribution of agricultural advisers throughout the country. Under our present rather antiquated system of county advisory committees that is being revised and the question of deployment of staff will be a matter for the comhairle. The Deputy was rather simplistic in equating the efficiency of performance in certain counties as against others to the single factor of availability of farm advice. It is one factor but there are many others in certain regions of the country. Another very potent factor is the relative age of the farm operators; their marital status has a profound bearing on it as has the innate ambition that may wane in a man's life under certain social conditions. That is a problem but it cannot be assisted to any noticeable extent by the provision of agricultural advice.

An amendment such as the Deputies have been advocating would be an unnecessary and undesirable limitation on the freedom of the comhairle to decide how best to do their own housekeeping. Deputy Bruton strayed miles from the amendments and spoke about a five-year plan or a county agricultural plan. This is a matter for the comhairle to decide. My immediate reaction to that suggestion is that counties as we know them do not by definition constitute a particular region with particular peculiarities. Within a county there are different types of agricultural land and different kinds of farming enterprises. A county plan based upon the notion of a geographical entity alone would be unwise. Agricultural development should be built around some economic project, the production of some lines of commodities. Indeed, agricultural development is taking place in that form.

When we discussed this matter before we spoke about the evolution of specialised advisory services in certain areas of production. We must not only recognise the existence of but should actively encourage this evolution, where we will see the participation of the processing end of an enterprise in the whole scheme, from the sowing of a seed in the ground to the production of the basic food materials right through to the manufacture and the sale of a product. That rather than some geographical concept is a far more rational way to approach agricultural development. However, these too, are matters for the comhairle. The people who make up the comhairle will have the special and single assignment of looking after these matters of training and advice.

I will not continue to re-hash because almost everything that was said today was said when we last discussed this section and I do not see any point in repeating it.

The Chair would point out at this stage that we appear to be repeating what was said on the last day on this amendment.

I was waiting to see the Minister's reaction to what Deputy Bruton said. The Minister did not give enough of his views on one major point in the second part of the amendment in relation to including preventative veterinary medicines. This is very important. It is an area where great progress could and should be made. Deputy Bruton rightly makes the case that not one practising veterinary surgeon is employed by the county committee's advisory services. Veterinary surgeons in the Department deal with the eradication of disease but are not qualified to carry out this type of instruction. I am prepared to accept that a great number of lectures can be given by people other than veterinary surgeons in this field but I cannot accept that there is a dire need for this type of man to be attached to the advisory service.

Deputy Bruton has asked that this section be added to the Bill to bring this to the attention of the comhairle and so that there would be provision whereby these people can be employed. This does not interfere with the Bill, it only widens the scope and the responsibility.

Will Deputy D'Arcy give some details as to why he expects veterinary advice to be available in counties at all times? Almost in the same breath the Deputy says that a veterinary surgeon dealing with animal disease eradication would not meet the case, that there was something wrong with that. What kind of instruction was the Deputy looking for?

Animal disease eradication is one thing as the Minister knows. For example, can the Minister say how many new diseases appeared in cereals this year that were never heard of before?

They were never recognised before, but they were there.

Neither were they there to be seen before.

They were.

They were not there to be seen. They suddenly seemed to appear from nowhere and to some degree the same applies to new diseases in cattle and sheep. Deputy Bruton did not say that these people should be attached to every county but said that the service should be available so that these people can be called to give instruction in classes. The important point was that provision should be in the Bill to ensure that if needed they can be employed without the Bill having to be amended in the House. The Minister admitted the number of fatalities in calfing and in lambing. I talked about 12 per cent and the Minister said it was higher in sheep. I blame this on the lack of knowledge by the farmer of how to treat sheep and sows prior to the calving and lambing seasons and of how to treat liver-lamb disease.

Twin lamb disease has something to do with nutrition.

That is just one disease. The only person properly equipped to give instruction in these areas is a practising veterinary surgeon. The men attached to the Department do not have the up-to-date knowledge of the diseases. New drugs for the treatment of diseases are coming on the market all the time. It is hard for any farmer to keep abreast of all these drugs and it is as hard for the men in the Department who do not use the drugs in the eradication of TB and brucellosis to keep abreast of new developments. A vet from the Department visited my yard and I referred him to a problem I had with a cow. He said that "my job is TB and brucellosis, you will have to get a practising vet". The vet from the Department said that he had been in that job for ten years and had lost touch, and that he would have to get a refresher course to learn about all the new diseases. This is a simple and valuable request.

The Deputy is wrong in talking about new diseases. I have never heard of a new disease. Diseases do not appear from nowhere, they have always been there althought they may not have been diagnosed.

The Minister comes from a tillage county like my own so I will ask him a simple question. Had every farmer in the Minister's county a knowledge of the new diseases that appeared on barley and wheat this year?

I would say the knowledge is scanty but the disease is there all the time.

Now, the answer is no. I went out to look at my own corn. I had to get my agricultural instructor. I did not know what was going wrong. The same applied to about 90 per cent of farmers—they did not know. These diseases seem to come from nowhere.

So, we are wrong.

My mind is clear on this. I am a practising farmer. The thing seems to appear from nowhere. It comes from the pressure of the soil, over-use or under-use of manure, lack of this, that or the other. It is an extraordinary situation. Many people had sprayed for rust in corn for the past 10 years. I never sprayed for it but this year we had to spray every acre of corn we had. We were then told there was mould and three or four other things tending to appear. We will not call these new diseases but they are there and people do not know of them. The same applies to cattle and sheep. This is an important request which does not upset the Bill in any way but it just puts in a provision that is needed to bring down fatalities in calves and lambs. That would add significantly to the increase in lamb and cattle numbers. It is a very valuable area.

The biggest factor in lamb mortality is plain starvation.

That is the Minister's view. I know a herd that was very well treated this year and the owner has all types of problems and he looks after his sheep exceptionally well. I asked him what was the reason and he said that all types of things were appearing. It was not starvation. I accept that in mountainous areas where people are inclined to leave sheep out about six weeks too long, not bring them down and give them some feeding, in those cases it certainly can be starvation but I do not accept it where people are treating sheep well on low land.

It is the main cause.

Any good farmer would be very foolish if he did not provide adequate feeding for his stock. That is borne out very much in the returns made.

As regards the provision for the agricultural worker, I understand that the agricultural worker can avail of the 161 EEC course which is in operation right across the country at present. I hope I am right in that; the Minister did not say whether we were or not, although I made the point on the last occasion. The Minister may have missed it but that is my understanding, that all agricultural workers can avail of this course. It is important to have specialised courses for agricultural workers. It would be in the interest of agriculture and of everybody if these courses were made available.

As regards home farm management, I think the Minister pushed Deputy Bruton's ideas a little far when he said the Deputy was getting lost in the urban areas.

I was not talking about wallpaper in Mount Merrion.

Deputy D'Arcy should be allowed to finish. We appear to be dealing with the whole field of agriculture on this amendment, stock disease, root disease and corn crop disease. We might discuss all that on the Estimate and keep now to the amendments before the House.

The disease element is relevant to the amendment we are seeking to have included.

We are talking about preventive veterinary medicine.

The Deputy is also wasting time as he wishes to do.

We are not interested in wasting time.

No. If the Minister would meet us even quarter way, he would get his Bill much quicker.

I think the farm home management courses are valuable. Deputy Bruton has widened it considerably by saying that we should take in the question of where there is a problem in a home in providing food and so on. What I am interested in, not from a selfish point of view in my own county but right across the country, is that the farm home is providing good holidays and is a good money spinner where it is properly developed. Farm home management courses are essential so that we give the proper type of food to people who come here. The courses should not be confined. They are not confined in my county. If an individual comes to the advisory service in our county and wants instruction in farm home management, our committee has given responsibility to the instructors and instructresses concerned to give those people the service they need.

See how easy it is.

It should not be confined to the farm home.

Is the amendment withdrawn?

I should like to ask one question.

I shall allow that and then I will put the question. We have spent two hours on this. I do not think the Chair can be blamed for curtailing the debate. We are having a good deal of repetition.

Very well. Is it the Minister's opinion that it is entirely in order for the comhairle, if the Bill is passed unamended in this respect, to give advice and courses in preventive veterinary medicine?

It is not only possible but it would be very desirable that they should do so.

The Minister is quite satisfied that no objection would be raised?

I am. Perhaps they do it now if they want to, but there will, I hope, be greater emphasis on animal disease prevention.

We will reserve our position as regards the Fourth Stage. We may come back with an amendment then.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 5, before section 10, to insert a new section as follows:

"Section 2 (1) of the Act of 1977 is hereby amended by the addition of a new paragraph (f) in the definition of `agriculture' as follows:

`(f) design and erection of farm buildings, yards and other structures,' ".

The point was raised that the design and erection of farm buildings, yards and other structures was not included among the matters contained in the definition of "agriculture" and, therefore, that the giving of advice or provision of courses of education in such matters would not be included specifically in what the advisory services could do. From having attended a course I know that in fact advice is being given quite liberally on this matter of the design and erection of farm buildings, yards and so on. This is being done but from the point of view of clarity its non-inclusion within the term "agriculture" may be a lack of clarity in the Bill. From this point of view I would ask the Minister to consider accepting the amendment.

On the Deputy's own admission advice in all these matters is available. One could put down a hundred amendments on all the different facets of farming, to get advice on geological structures, on drainage and every specialist item in every county involving a certain pool of specialists. The practicality in the long run is that you have to decide where to concentrate your men, and what kind of men they will be. I would not wish the Dáil to fence in or inhibit the comhairle from doing what they see fit. I am quite certain things will change.

Deputy D'Arcy spoke about the remarkable incidence of cereal disease in recent times. A number of things are happening which are causing this. One is the concentration on growing cereals. Greatly expanded production and changed practice in rotations are responsible for some build-up in the fungus diseases in cereals. For instance, the frequent growing of cereals in the same field——

We are talking about farm buildings.

I want to deal with the basic unnecessariness——

The Minister is going back to the previous amendment. He should stay in order. What he is saying is irrelevant.

They both must have the same tendancies. They tend to interfere with what ought properly be the domain of the Comhairle.

The Minister talked about wasting time. He is at it himself now.

I do not think Dáil Éireann should send the comhairle about their business with too restrictive marching orders: "You must do this and you must not do that. You must hire a veterinary surgeon and you must have an engineer to give instructions in the construction of buildings." That might give rise to problems. I cannot accept the amendment.

I do not think the Minister has read the amendment.

I have it here before me.

I do not think he has grasped what is involved. I am not proposing in this amendment to require anybody to give any course in anything. This is where it is different from the last amendment. It is not concerned with the functions of the comhairle at all. It is concerned purely with the definition of the term "agriculture" within section 2 of the 1977 Act. It is merely widening the definition of the word. It does not require courses to be given. If the Minister does not want to accept it I am not in the least bit worried, but I am worried when he starts using arguments which were relevant to the previous amendment against an amendment to which they do not relate.

The Minister should look at what is included in the definition of "agriculture" in the other Act. Why has he deleted farm building which are most important?

He has not deleted them. He is not putting them in.

I thought they were included in the other Act.

If you look down the list, farm buildings are as important as any item in the definition of agriculture. There are some very trivial things there.

It will be comprehended in the definition in the Bill without any further embellishment.

Do I take it that it will be in it?

The amendment will not be in it, but the capacity of the comhairle to look after the areas the Deputy appears to be worried about will be there.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 5, before section 10, to insert a new section as follows:—

"The following section shall be substituted for section 4 of the Act of 1977:

`4.—A draft of every order proposed to be made under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each such House.' ".

I am concerned with a very basic principle of parliamentary accountability for the actions of Ministers. This amendment seeks to provide that a draft of every order made under this Bill by the Minister shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and shall not take effect until a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each House. Minister have order-making powers and should have them, but I believe very strongly they should be accountable in respect of the orders they make. They should not simply make orders and lay them on the Table of the House because, unless somebody finds something objectionable in them, they never come before the House. They should have to get the approval of the House before they are made so that the House will be conscious of what the Minister is doing.

The objection the Minister will raise to what I am proposing is that a great deal of parliamentary time would be taken up in approving orders made by the Minister. That is not the case. If it is a non-contentious matter, the order could be put through in ten minutes after a simple introductory statement by the Minister. We will not delay unduly, nor would any Opposition. The important point would be achieved, namely, that the Minister would be accountable to the House for the orders he made under this Bill, and they would be seen to be approved by the elected representatives.

That is a reasonable provision. Far too much power has been delegated over the years to Ministers to do this, that and the other by order, without any reference to this House. That dilutes and reduces the democratic supervision of the administration, and that is a bad thing.

I support the amendment. Down through the years Ministers have had power to legislate by order. These orders have to be laid on the Table of the House and any Member can object to them, but they may be missed for many reasons. If we are to have real democratic control of legislation by order, it is imperative that such an order should have to be brought before the House and passed. This may take time if somebody decides something is wrong. It could be done now if Deputies were alert but in practice there are so many orders—and Deputies are overworked and have not got research facilities available to them—that they are missed. Such orders should be at least mentioned in the House. Estimates for millions of pounds have been brought in and passed in a matter of minutes. The relevant Minister explained the necessity for doing that. The Minister for Agriculture would be doing a good job if he accepted this amendment.

This approaches the frontiers of idiocy. I do not know of any legislation which embodies such an absurd proposal as this: that every order made by any Minister for Agriculture in the future must be debated before it is agreed. I would expect that a great many orders would be made by a Minister for Agriculture, and necessarily so.

The section was imported bodily from the 1977 Act without any trouble. The notion that every order made by the Minister would have to be discussed by the Dáil—possibly at great length, and possibly it would suit a political party, maybe my own, or maybe some other party to filibuster it—would reduce the comhairle to complete impotence and induce the Dáil to spend its time on political gamesmanship when it should be doing its work.

Protective mechanisms are provided in all similar legislation, including the 1977 Act, whereby the order is laid before the House and can be annulled after 21 days by a vote of the Dáil. The mechanism which will prevent abuse certainly is strong enough. But we do not want to bring it to the point where it will actually stultify the purpose of the legislation in the first place.

The trouble about the existing 21-days procedure—as we know—is that the Government will not provide time for these to be discussed very often until the measure is so long in effect that debate is irrelevant.

In which case?

I will give the example of food subsidies. Food subsidies have been withdrawn. We have put down an order to annul them. It will not be discussed for a few weeks. Yet they have been abolished for a good while. That example illustrates very clearly the inadequacy of the 21-day procedure. That was a major change in policy which should have been discussed in this House before it took effect.

I do not think so.

Well, I think so.

Now we are really on to a matter of procedure that Deputy Bruton has argued on numerous occasions. We cannot discuss the fact that something is not allowed to be debated in the House. The present Minister would not have any responsibility for that.

He has; he has responsibility for subsidies on milk and butter.

He has no responsibility for the allocation of time to any matter in the House. That is a matter for the Whips and somebody else. We are on a procedural matter. Is the amendment withdrawn?

Does the Deputy wish me to put it?

Amendment No. 13 proposes that a new section be there inserted. The question is, "That the new section be there inserted."

Question put and declared lost.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 5, before section 10, to insert a new section as follows:

"Section 13 (1) of the Act of 1977 is hereby amended by the addition of the following paragraphs:—

`(c) arrange, as far as possible, that the provision of classroom space in any given area by it or with the aid of the Minister for Education is jointly planned so that to the maximum use is made of such classroom space.

(d) make arrangements where appropriate for the exchange of staff on a part-time basis for particular courses' ".

This amendment is concerned with the provision of classroom space by the comhairle and the Minister for Education. At present—at very considerable public expense— agricultural education centres are provided by the county committees of agriculture throughout the country. Structurally and in every respect they are very little different from exactly similar classrooms, with similar facilities, being provided in schools perhaps a few hundred yards away from the agricultural centre. Very often they are not in use and will not be in use at the same time of the year. It is not the best use of public resources, in some cases, that these two facilities—the agricultural facilities and the strictly educational facilities run by the schools—should not be provided jointly. Some of the buildings would need to be separate. Obviously the offices would need to be separate. But, as far as possible, these facilities should be provided and used in common to avoid the waste of national resources in this area. That is the first point. The second concerns the arrangement for the exchange of staff on a part-time basis for a particular course. We all know that the schools are concerned with education in agricultural science. Amongst their teaching staff, in some schools anyway, there are teachers qualified in agricultural science. It should also be a responsibility of the Comhairle to ensure that where their advisers could usefully give instruction in schools, they should do so. There should be an acceptance of the principle that exchange should take place, where necessary. This is what this amendment proposes to do. It is concerned with making the best use of the manpower and physical resources available to the Government in the joint interest of education and agriculture.

I do not think this amendment is necessary in the matter of the interchangeability of resources. I need hardly go further than my own county of Kilkenny when I was fortunate enough during my last term as Minister for Agriculture to acquire Kildalton College, now probably the best agricultural college in the country. There is a constant exchange of students and teachers between the regional technical college in Waterford and Kildalton. To put a stricture on that, to lumber it with all sorts of ifs, buts and provisos would be to make it less effective. The existing provisions are perfectly adequate. I would not accept the amendment.

What happens in Kilkenny may not happen in every other county. I believe that the thinking behind this amendment would be very useful—an interchange of teachers and space is important. Since this debate began we have stressed the need for education. While I may be somewhat ignorant of the position in every other county, the question of education, space and interchange of teachers is important. The Minister has given us one example of what happened in Kilkenny. Might I ask him what happens in Galway, Mayo, Cavan and all the other counties? Is the Minister satisfied that there is adequate space in those counties for the agricultural education of the farmers within that area? They may not all be in the position of having an agricultural college situated in the middle of their county. Is the Minister satisfied that the rest of the country is as adequately served as Kilkenny?

The ability to make the changes called for by the new amendment were conferred in the 1977 Act, in section 12 (1) (f), section 13 (1) (b) and section 24 (2) (d).

Is the amendment withdrawn?

I do not think that deals fully with the question of providing classroom space in common. As I understand it, they have not got that power.

I think it does.

It is section 24 we are talking about here?

It says that the comhairle may:

so far as may be authorised by the Minister, join with other bodies in leasing or otherwise acquiring land, offices or premises and in erecting offices or premises.

Does that provide for joint use as well as joint leasing or acquisition? I am talking about 2 (d).

Certainly it does not preclude arrangements between two educational training authorities nor does it impede the objective of providing a training and an advisory service. I can see that the inclusion of the amendment the Deputy is advocating might.

I do not think that is true but I am reasonably satisfied that what I want can be done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 15 is ruled out of order. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 have already been discussed with Amendment No. 3.

Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 5, line 9, after "Minister" to add "or on which it is of opinion that its advice should be made available to the Minister in the national interest".

Amendment No. 18 provides that the Minister might seek the advice of the comhairle in relation to a matter on which they are competent, but it does not allow the comhairle to provide advice of their own accord. This would be a reasonable power to give them. The Minister has been stressing throughout the debate how much confidence he has in the wisdom of the comhairle and in the fact that they will do all the things that we would all hope will be done. If that confidence is justified he should have nothing to fear from allowing them, of their accord, to give him advice on some matters in regard to which they have a certain competence and in circumstances where they feel such advice should be given. I hope therefore that the amendment will be accepted.

Amendment No. 19 is related to this so we will discuss them both together.

I also believe that if written advice is being given it should be made known to the Dáil so that proper formality would be achieved in regard to relations between the Minister and the comhairle. I am not as anxious about amendment No. 19 as I am about amendment No. 18, because it recognises that there are circumstances in which the Minister might not want to publish his advice Amendment No. 19 says that, if the Minister does not want publication of the advice he has received from the Comhairle in certain matters, he can refrain from publishing it and he can lodge a statement in the Library of the House saying that he is not publishing it and giving the reasons why. As a general principle advice of this nature should be made public and the House should know of it. Whether or not the wording of Amendment No. 19 is too restrictive and would prevent the Minister from having even reasonable discussion in the matter is open to argument. I am not entirely happy with the wording of amendment No. 19 and would not press it for that reason.

Amendment No. 18 is a good amendment. The comhairle should, as is provided in the amendment, be free to give advice to the Minister when they think it should be given and not just when the Minister asks for it.

There is no barrier to the giving of advice to the Minister for Agriculture by the comhairle. The provision in section 30 (2) of the 1976 Act is imported into the new Act and the same arrangement for the exchange of views between the Minister and the comhairle persists. It is interesting that at that time Deputy Bruton or any member of the party that is now in opposition did not express any opinion of this matter. They seem to have felt at that time—and indeed I must say I felt—that the communications between the comhairle and the Minister were adequately and sensibly provided for. To put a statutory obligation on the comhairle to communicate with the Minister would be to reduce the thing to a degree of fatuity that I cannot see the sense of.

What is the need for section 10 then?

The provisions for communication at the moment are adequate.

If that is the case why do we need section 10?

I am talking about the amendment.

If the amendment is unnecessary so also is the section.

I would not think so.

Would the Minister explain that? The Minister is using arguments which are not working to his own benefit. He is saying that it is fatuous for us to give the comhairle power to give advice to the Minister and of course they can give advice to the Minister. Well, if that is the case why is it necessary to have section 10, because section 10 gives the Minister power to ask advice from the comhairle? If the communications are so good surely there is no need to give the Minister power to look for advice in section 10 as is being proposed to be done.

The Deputy should read the section.

Section 10 reads:

The following section shall be substituted for section 21 of the Act of 1977:

"An Chomhairle shall advise the Minister on any matter relating to agricultural training or advice on which its views are requested by the Minister.".

If communication is so good there should be no need for this section because if the Minister asks for advice he should get it without having anything in the Act. It has been deemed necessary by whoever drafted this Act—and presumably by the Minister himself—to insert section 10 so that such advice could be sought by him. If that is necessary then surely it is equally necessary to add the words I am proposing to add to allow the comhairle to provide advice to the Minister on their own initiative. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

In this case one goose will be the Minister for Agriculture and the other will be the comhairle. If, from time to time as the Minister sees fit he wishes to consult with the comhairle, the comhairle is required to consult with him and the Government decisions in these agricultural advisory matters must be discussed between the comhairle and the Minister. If the comhairle wishes to talk to the Minister about some point or policy there is nothing to stop them. That is the purpose of section 10 and it is also the superfluity of amendment No. 18.

The Minister is not answering the question. Does the Minister not agree that the comhairle should have the same provision as the Minister in the event of their wishing to discuss a national issue?

We are not talking alone about this Minister for Agriculture. We are talking about the office of Minister for Agriculture. By virtue of his office the Minister for Agriculture is the person who is mainly responsible for the law in relation to agriculture.

The Minister has put up no sensible objection to this amendment. The Minister has the authority to go to the comhairle but the comhairle will not have the authority to consult with the Minister.

I would have thought it should be the other way round. We all know that in any event the Minister will be providing the money for the comhairle and that regardless of the provisions of the Bill he will be able to seek their advice. Therefore, there is no need for a statutory provision such as that envisaged here.

I would not agree.

But there is a need to give the authority a statutory right to give their formal advice to the Minister where they consider that necessary. If, for instance, the Minister of the day is adopting a policy relating to advice and education, the comhairle should have the power to advise the Minister that he is pursuing the wrong course. If the Minister is doing something that is inimical to the opinions of the board he will not ask their opinion and in the absence of power to give the advice they might consider themselves inhibited in that regard. Therefore, there is a greater need for the amendment than there is for the section.

Was that view held by the Deputy in 1976?

At the time I had no specific responsibility in this area.

But the Deputy was a junior Minister in the Coalition Government.

I was not then concerned directly with agriculture. I had enough to do, being responsible for Industry and Commerce and Education without going into the minutiae of the legislation in respect of agriculture.

These provisions have been imported from the 1976 legislation.

That is a feeble argument.

It is a spurious argument. We are debating this Bill now and I am entitled to put forward reasonable amendments. The fact that the provisions I am suggesting were not included in legislation that was before the House in 1976 when I was concerned with matters other than agriculture is not an agrument against my amendments. The Minister should have the sense not to introduce such arguments into the discussions but if he opposes the amendments he should have other arguments to use against them.

I should like to see accepted by Deputy Bruton the importance of the office of the Minister for Agriculture regardless of who may be the incumbent of that office at any time as against the function which must be secondary to that of the Minister in that he is a democratically elected Minister in a Government elected democratically by the people. This important democratic provision does not apply to members of the board. Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge the importance democratically of the Minister's position. He has a serious obligation to the Government and to the people he is serving but the responsibility of the comhairle is different. In any event in order to achieve results there must be close co-operation between the comhairle and the Minister. From time to time it will be necessary to discuss the policies of the comhairle because they will require a substantial contribution from taxpayers' money. That is why we have included section 10.

The Minister has that power anyway.

That is not so.

He will have the power to seek advice from the comhairle.

It is conceivable that a Minister might use the negative line of choking off the money supply. It would be far better to act intelligently and make clear that in matters such as these the Minister must be consulted. It is his duty to ensure that he is consulted.

We are talking about giving advice. Section 10 purports to give the Minister the power to seek formally the advice of the comhairle. The reality is that the Minister has so much power anyway in respect of the comhairle that regardless of whether we include section 10 he would be empowered to obtain their advice. It is not that I am objecting to section 10 but I am saying that perhaps it is not necessary and that the amendment we propose is necessary. We say this because the comhairle do not have the powers of leverage that the Minister has. Our amendment is designed to allow the comhairle to give advice on their initiative in respect of matters on which they consider they should give advice.

There is no point in the Minister introducing arguments about the dignity of the office of Minister, an office to which perhaps all of us aspire. The question at issue is whether this subsidiary body should be free on their own initiative go give advice formally to the Minister. In addition the comhairle should be in a position to publish if necessary any advice they give.

This is a democratic House.

That is so and ultimately this House will decide on the various issues but it should have available to it all the evidence and a subsidiary body such as the comhairle who have expertise and who know what they are about should be free to advise the Minister formally. If the Minister is pursuing a line which is inimical to the interests of advice and education the comhairle should be in a position formally and on their own initiative to advise him that he is pursuing the wrong course of action.

If, having received such advice, the Minister were to continue pursuing his line of action he is of course accountable to this House and finally the issue will be decided by this House. A Minister should not be afraid of receiving advice from anyone and if he does not agree with that advice he should be able to reach his own decision and to say why he disagreed with the advice. Only a Minister who is afraid and who is not able to defend his position would be afraid to receive from an outside body advice that might not directly be in line with the Minister's opinion.

Could the Minister foresee a situation developing in which there would be a massive difference of opinion between himself and the council and would he not consider it a safety valve to have included in the legislation a provision whereby the council could give advice?

If there was a profound difference the Minister might not be too happy to receive the advice.

But the point is that the comhairle are being empowered to give a certain line of advice. If that legislation had been in operation at the time of the budget the Minister might have received some advice.

It might have been advice that the Minister would not have wished to hear but it might have been in the interests of the country to hear it.

We shall see about that.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill".

I do not know why section 10 is necessary because, as we know, the Minister can seek advice on anything. He does not need statutory powers to do so. Would the Minister tell the House why he considers it necessary?

We have been talking about this matter for upwards of half an hour.

Question put and declared carried.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 5, before section 11, to insert a new section as follows:

"11.—No fee may be charged in respect of any advice given by An Chomhairle under this Act.".

I tabled this amendment as a matter of principle. It has always been accepted that advice under the advisory service was free but this Bill proposes to impose charges for certain advice. Those who avail of the service always appreciate that it is for the purpose of helping them to improve their knowledge of agriculture. Unfortunately, some farmers do not make use of the service, even though it is free, and they are the people we should be encouraging to avail of it. The introduction of a charge for the service will not encourage such people to make use of it. We should continue to provide this service free of charge. It would be a retrograde step to charge any fee. We are all anxious to encourage farmers who did not avail of the service in the past to do so now, but we cannot do that if we charge a fee.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the Green Paper published last summer the Government indicated that they intended introducing charges for certain advice but, subsequently, in the White Paper they temporarily abandoned that proposal. It was never made clear why they proposed the charge and then abandoned it. The Government have abandoned other things that had been more formally adopted as Government policy in the recent past. If they can change their minds in one direction, they can change it in another just as easily. We could find ourselves in a situation where the Government, having abandoned the idea of a charge next July, might introduce such charges, and reintroduce other matters, to the detriment of the farming community. In that context a guarantee such as that sought by Deputy Bermingham would serve a useful purpose because the Government would have to declare their position on this issue and foreswear the possibility of introducing such charges.

We are aware that the Government considered such a move and abandoned it, possibly in anticipation of electoral pressure. They abandoned other things under threat of one sort or another, but who is to know that the sands of time might shift in a different direction next July when certain events have passed and the urgency will not be there to the same degree. Such a guarantee would be useful in what one might describe as a fluid political situation.

I do not think there is any reference in the Bill to the charge of fees. There was a reference in the old Act, but that has gone. I do not accept Deputy Bermingham's point that this is a traditional advisory service that farmers got free. That is not the case. People are paying fees now for the type of advisory service they require and that indicates that for a certain type of advisory service farmers will put their money on the line. I say that to illustrate the inaccuracy of Deputy Bermingham's observations. The service has been free to farmers under the committee of agriculture system, a system we are altering, but we are not talking about fees in the Bill.

On many occasions I stated that the whole business of farm advice is in a state of evolution. It may well be that we will see our way in a couple of years to concentrate specialist advisers in a certain area. It would be idle for the House to anticipate at this stage what the situation will be in relation to such advisers in the future. Deputy Bruton, who raised a point about what was contained in the White Paper and the Green Paper, mentioned some weak-kneed forebodings about what might happen on 8 July. I take it he was speaking about the aftermath of the direct elections to the European Parliament. If he wants to engage in some cheap political point-scoring, he can go ahead, but I had hoped we were involved in a serious attempt to start on the right foot in establishing an advisory and training service for our premier industry.

The Minister's instruction is most edifying particularly when one bears in mind that on the last occasion he spent a lot of time referring to Fine Gael farmers. He did not quite mention the Blue Shirts, but I imagine he would have had he been given any encouragement. He was dealing in dead political controversy. His rapid conversion to political probity and the responsibility of these matters seems to be somewhat belated and, one could say, opportunistic. Because what I am saying does not suit him, he is adopting the mantle of virtue and does not want to hear what I have to say.

The Minister referred dismissingly to Green Papers and White Papers, as if he had no part of them, although he was a member of the Government that produced the Green Paper, their discussion document. One of the few ideas in that Green Paper in relation to agriculture, to which the Minister contributed no doubt, was the suggestion that there be charges for the advisory services. That was Government policy last June. But it ceased to be Government policy for the time being in December when they published their White Paper. If they could change their minds so quickly, and with so little evidence being produced as to their opinion in the first place or to their change of opinion in the second, there is no reason to believe that in another six months, whether there was an election or not, they might not change their minds again. Therefore, Deputy Bermingham's guarantee in this matter is relevant and is not just political point-scoring.

There may be an element of justifiable point-scoring, in the context of what happened lately, to be made in this issue. However, there is also a substantial point in relation to the charging of fees which the Minister has not dealt with, because he has not referred to the Green Paper which contained this suggestion. Did he agree to the inclusion? Did he believe there should be charges for the advisory service when the suggestion was made in June? Did he change his mind in December, or was it the case that he disagreed all along, or that he agreed all along but other people prevailed on him to change his mind last December and drop the idea? We do not know. But there is no guarantee in the absence of that knowledge that the proposal to impose charges might not rear its head again.

I understood the Minister to say that the advisory services provided by the committees of agriculture were not always free.

Under the Coalition 1976 Act——

I am not concerned with that Act.

The provision that An Foras had to charge fees was willy-nilly being extended to the committees of agriculture and the council of the NAA. The Coalition Act had the concept of charging fees, but this Bill does not.

The institute always charged for certain services because they were not part of the advisory service as such and the Minister is removing them in this Bill. Is that so?

When the 1976 Act went through the House An Foras were abolished, but the ability to charge fees spread itself into committees of agriculture and into the council of the NAA. That is gone now.

That may be. But what I am asking in the amendment is that it be put into the Bill that no fee will be charged in respect of any advice given. The Minister seems to be assuring us that it will not be.

It is not in the Bill.

They cannot charge fees.

There is nothing in the Bill to say that. Where does it say in the Bill that the comhairle may not charge fees? What section?

The committees of agriculture do not have the legal powers to charge fees.

That is not in the Bill.

It is not in this Bill.

What Act?

I know the ex-Coalition are very self-conscious about this because their 1976 Act incorporated a very definite foretelling of charges that would be made. An Foras are being reestablished under this Bill and will retain the right to charge for research of one kind or another. That power would have been conveyed to committees of agriculture and to the council being set up under the Clinton Act. Fine Gael wanted to charge fees——

So did the Minister in the Green Paper.

In the Green Paper there was a substantial proposal——

That was only a discussion document.

This Bill does not contain any reference to fees. Fees are precluded because committees of agriculture may not charge fees and therefore the comhairle cannot charge fees.

I am still confused. The Minister says that committees of agriculture may not charge fees. But, as I understand this Bill, the comhairle will be providing the service, not the committees of agriculture, who will now be advisory bodies. Is that correct? Have the comhairle power under the Bill to charge fees?

That is fair enough, but I cannot see where that is spelled out.

It is not spelled out in the Bill nor is it in the 1931 Act.

Look at section 15 (1) of the 1976 Act.

If the Minister goes on much longer he will blame the Coalition for putting the question of charging fees in the Green Paper. He is being very unfair. He is not comparing like with like. In the 1976 Act the Agricultural Institute were included: it was essential that they be allowed to charge fees for research. That is why that provision was included. Deputy Bermingham is asking for guarantees that the comhairle will not have the power to charge fees.

As I said, the Minister is not being fair. He is not comparing like with like when he tries to compare the 1976 Act with this Bill, because it had embodied in it the Agricultural Institute, a research body which had to charge fees. That is the difference between the two Bills.

Section 10 of this Bill abolishes An Foras.

If it is being abolished it is up to the Minister to give us a guarantee here and now that he will not allow the comhairle to charge fees.

I would not like to emulate Fine Gael in agricultural matters.

Nor they the Minister.

Their Bill incorporated a capacity to charge fees——

In the Agricultural Institute——

In the 1976 Act.

Be fair. The Agricultural Institute were in that Bill and are a research organisation.

They were abolished.

They are in the Bill the Minister is holding up in his hand.

Section 10 of this Bill says that An Foras Talúntais are hereby abolished.

I asked if the Agricultural Institute are embodied in that Bill. The Minister does not answer because it does not suit him. Provision was made in our Act to have charges for the research side, but the Minister will not admit that. His Bill is completely different. He is not comparing like with like.

I asked the Minister a question and I hope he will be able to answer it. Where does the provision exist in any of the legislation governing the county committees of agriculture or the comhairle, which now succeed them, which says they may not charge fees at some time in the future? Is it in the 1931 Act?

That is a question of parliamentary research. I am not a clerk. I am discussing my own Bill.

The Minister is very fond of the 1976 Bill.

The Minister is discussing his own Bill but he is also making an assertion in the context of Deputy Bermingham's amendment—that it is unnecessary to have a guarantee that fees will not be charged because the comhairle do not have the power to charge fees. Is that what the Minister said.

If they are prevented from charging fees by a provision in some other legislation, I am asking the Minister—and I am entitled to ask him—what other legislation? What section? There are not many Acts involved. There is the 1931 Act and the 1977 Act. If it is not in either of those Acts, I respectfully submit there is no guarantee that fees may not be charged.

The Minister says that the authority will not under this Bill have power to charge fees. If that is correct, he should accept my amendment which spells this out clearly. We do not know the legislation in which it is spelled out that the authority will not have this power.

The 1931 Act did not have any provision concerning the charging of fees and, therefore, fees were not charged. The Bill before this did not have provision to charge fees. I do not see that the inclusion of Deputy Bermingham's amendment is necessary, any more than the inclusion of such an amendment was necessary in the 1931 Act. I am not accepting the amendment.

Could the Minister introduce an order allowing the authority to charge fees?

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 38; Níl, 69.

  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan.
  • Clinton, Mark.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • D'Arcy, Michael J.
  • Deasy, Martin A.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Mannion, John M.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • O'Brien, William.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.

Níl

  • Ahern, Kit.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Farrell, Joe.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Filgate, Eddie.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin South-Central).
  • Fitzsimons, James N.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Fox, Christopher J.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Dennis.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gibbons, Jim.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Keegan, Seán.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Killeen, Tim.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Loughnane, William.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Murphy, Ciarán P.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy C.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Woods, Michael J.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers:—Tá, Deputies McMahon and J. Ryan; Níl, Deputies P. Lalor and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 21 is related to amendment No. 11 which was withdrawn.

Amendment No. 21 not moved.

Amendment No. 22 is in the names of Deputy Bruton and Deputy D'Arcy. Amendment No. 36 is consequential and amendment No. 23 is related. Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 36 may be taken together.

NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 5, before section 11, to insert a new section as follows:

"11.—The following section shall be substituted for sections 26 and 27 of the Act of 1977 and section 5 of the Act of 1958:

`(1) The Board and the Council of the Institute shall have the same membership.

(2) The Board and the Council of the Institute shall consist of a chairman and twenty-two members.

(3) The Chairman and ordinary members of the Board and of the Council of the Institute shall be appointed by the Government in accordance with the following provisions:

(a) seven persons shall be nominated by such agricultural and rural organisations and in such manner as shall be determined by the Government,

(b) one person shall be nominated to be an ordinary member by each of the following:

the Governing Body of University College, Dublin,

the Governing Body of University College, Cork,

the Governing Body of

University College, Galway, and

the Board of Trinity College, Dublin,

the Minister for Education,

the Minister,

the staff of An Comhairle,

the staff of the Institute,

the Irish Veterinary Association,

(c) two members shall be nominated by the General Council of Committees of Agriculture.

(d) the remaining members shall be representative of institutions providing courses of study in agriculture mentioned in section 12 (1) (d) of the Act of 1977.

(4) The provisions of the Schedule of the Act of 1958 shall apply to the Board and to the Council of the Institute.

(5) The Minister may provide by order as regards the members who are to be representative of the staff of An Comhairle and of the staff of the Institute for the selection for nomination of such members. Nothing done by or on behalf of the Board or of the Council of the Institute shall be invalid solely by reason of the fact that representatives of the staff have, due to unavoidable delays, not yet been appointed.

(6) The Chairman shall act as chairman both of the Council of the Institute and of the Board. He shall hold office on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Minister from time to time.' ".

This is the major amendment we are putting forward to this Bill. It seeks to go to the heart of the Bill and to the purposes in the Minister's mind in proposing the Bill. To explain the case for our amendment it is necessary to go back to what has happened in the recent past, I hope not in a manner in which one gets involved in any unnecessary politics but simply for the purpose of illuminating what the amendment has in mind.

The previous Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Clinton, on assuming office found himself with a series of reports and recommendations from various people to the effect that the advisory, educational and research services under the aegis of his Department needed to be reorganised and streamlined. He proceeded to take decisions, decisions that in fairness it should be said had been long delayed, on the issues contained in the various recommendations. His decision was that the advisory, educational and research services which hitherto had been operating under separate directions—the research service was under An Foras Talúntais and was set up in 1958; part of the educational service and the advisory service were under the county committees of agriculture and the remainder of the educational service, the college education service, was the direct responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture—should be reorganised and brought together under one authority which was to be known as the National Agricultural, Educational and Research Authority, which was subsequently abbreviated to NAA.

The main principle was not one of title but that the various services should be brought together under one single authority with one single direction and with the staff being employed under one authority and the previous separate entities that had existed with independent functions should exist under a single guiding authority. The then Minister's purpose in doing so was to ensure that they followed the same line of policy and that decisions in research which obviously had implications for education were taken with a view to their educational implications and that decisions in education also took account of the decisions taken in the field of research.

The idea was that one policy would be followed by one authority in the single overriding interests of Irish agriculture. This was incorporated in the 1977 Bill. During the debate on that Bill, the present Minister, then Opposition spokesman on Agriculture, declared his total opposition to the principle of the Bill in so far as it involved bringing the Agricultural Institute in as a component part and merging it with education and research services under one authority. The then spokesman felt that the decision to abolish the Agricultural Institute was unwise, that they should retain their independence and that it was only if they retained their independence that they would be able to work as well as they should.

This was a genuine difference of opinion. The present Minister was wrong. However, whether he was right or wrong, it was a legitimate argument, a political issue on which there could be a difference of opinion. On attaining office the Minister reversed the work of his predecessor and introduced this Bill, the purpose of which is to take the Agricultural Institute from under the authority of the National Agricultural Authority and have them as a separate entity with freedom of action subject only to their responsibility to the Minister.

There are certain advantages in this from the point of view of the Minister, the staff of the institute and other people. By exercising greater freedom some good may come from their research programmes. But there are also disadvantages. The Agricultural Institute could pursue one line while the comhairle, which is concerned with research, advice and education, could pursue a different line. There is no easy way to reconcile these operations unless the Minister intervenes and tells them to co-ordinate their activities.

That one must go to the level of the Minister to get co-ordination between two separate institutions whose basic objectives must be the same suggests that no matter how well intentioned the Minister may be, there will be instances where the proper degree of co-ordination will not take place because there are two separate institutions with separate staff structures and separate interests. We all know that institutions tend to acquire an interest of their own rather than the interests of the people they are intended to serve. This is not to suggest that there is anything selfish or wrong about these people. But it is a fact of administration that institutions tend to acquire interests of their own. So long as there are separate institutions concerned with research, advice and education there will be divergence of interests between them and divergence arising from the fact that they are separate administrations. It is inconvenient or difficult to co-ordinate them when there is one institution in one town and another somewhere else and no central direction keeping them together, when one is doing research and the other providing advice and education. Deputy Clinton proposed to join them together so as to make sure they were co-ordinated. The Minister may have accepted a lot of the arguments put forward by Deputy Clinton, but felt there were other arguments in relation to the independence of research and the continued existence of the Agricultural Institute which were of greater importance. This is a legitimate area of disagreement and I do not propose at this stage to argue one case against the other.

I have tried to approach this Bill on an independent basis, looking at it on its merits and trying to put forward amendments in the light of my experience. I am not seeking to follow everything done in the 1977 Bill. I am quite ready to put forward other proposals if I think they will meet the case. The amendment we are putting forward is designed as a compromise to meet the legitimate argument of the Minister and the legitimate objectives of his predecessor. It proposes that the Agricultural Institute as a legal entity would continue to exist: it would not be abolished as was proposed in the original Bill. The comhairle being created in this Bill would also continue to exist. Legally they would be two separate institutions, but with one major difference, in that they would have the same personnel on both their boards.

This would not make the employees of An Foras Talúntais the employees of the comhairle or vice versa. The staffs would be separate and would have the right to have their own staff structures, promotional opportunities and so on. Perhaps fears about the staff position was one of the reasons why some of the staff of An Foras Talúntais were so opposed to the proposals made by the previous Minister. Their fears will be met by this amendment, because the institute will continue to exist as an independent entity, as will the comhairle. But there will be only one guiding voice in the policy field, because the two boards will consist of the same members.

The board will meet on one day as the board of the comhairle and perhaps the same day or another day they will meet as the board of the institute. The same chairman will preside and the same people will represent the different interests. The result will be that there will be continuity of policy. When those people are dealing with the affairs of the institute they will be the people who met the previous week as the board of the comhairle. Therefore, they will be aware of the needs of the comhairle and of their difficulties in relation to obtaining results in research or whatever. They will be able to bring the knowledge they have as members of the board of the comhairle to bear on the exercise of their functions as members of the board of the institute and vice versa. While the two institutions will remain separate and the Minister's major objection to Deputy Clinton's proposal will be met, the overriding objective of Deputy Clinton to ensure a unified direction in policy will also be met by the fact that the same board consisting of the same people will be doing the two jobs.

This is a very reasonable compromise between two sincerely held and legitimate points of view. It meets the bulk of the case made on both sides. If it is a good compromise—and I hope it is; I have only my own opinion to go on yet until I hear what other people say—I am only sorry that it was not put forward earlier. If it cannot lead to a solution we shall have to try again. The Bill has not gone through the House and if this amendment does not meet the case we can put forward another. Naturally, we reserve our position to do that if this does not meet with agreement. As of now, I think this is a reasonable amendment which meets the Minister's case and also the case made by his predecessor. It is a proposal which is in the interests of Irish agriculture.

Although this amendment may be related to my amendment 23, as the Chair has said, it seems to me to be different. We are suggesting that one member of the board shall be appointed on the nomination of the Minister for Education, that at least one member shall be appointed on the nomination of the council of the institute. In the Bill it says two. I accept the arguments of the Minister for keeping the institute separate—I said that on the Second Stage—and I am not in complete agreement with Deputy Bruton when he says there should be one board. I have sympathy with the Minister's arguments to keep them separate and if that is what the Minister wants to do I will not hold up the Bill on that decision. I do not think they should be involved too much in the other way either. I am saying one instead of two; I believe there should be a connection but I do not believe the same board should operate for both the institute and the comhairle.

The number of members in the Bill for the General Council of County Councils is two, I think. If that is correct, it seems to be very small. I think that four would be reasonable because you could divide the country into four areas of production. I do not mean areas such as provinces but people on the General Council of County Councils should come from areas which would represent the different kinds of farming we have in different areas. If you have four, you would have more or less full representation of the various areas where different kinds of farming are operated. I think there should be at least four.

We say the remaining members shall be representative of agricultural and rural organisations from which at least one farm worker shall be appointed. It is necessary to have at least one farm worker on the board, somebody who is employed as a farm worker. There is little doubt that that very important section of the agricultural community have not shared in the general wealth percolating through the agricultural area in the past few years. That is a pity; they are a great body of people. They must be skilled people at present because agriculture is a very skilled industry. They should have at least one member on the board.

Paragraph (B) says that the staff of the comhairle shall constitute one-third of the membership of the board. This is something I must press. This is the criterion laid down for semi-State bodies in the Worker Participation Act. One-third of the board of semi-State bodies is now to be made up from the employees of the company or organisation. I cannot accept that legislation now introduced would provide for less than the same proportion in the case of the comhairle being on the board. We must spell that out clearly, that we recognise worker participation in any boards that are being set up under legislation. If we were ever serious about worker participation, here is a genuine case where the people employed are mainly in the advisory services and who would be very knowledgeable on programmes to be carried out and so on. It would be a retrograde step if we did not recognise in the formation of the Comhairle the principle of worker participation.

The Minister may argue that this is not an industry but I believe worker participation in the comhairle is even more essential, if such a term could be applied in that context, than in industry. It is essential that these people should contribute in a substantial way. The criterion here should be at least equal to what is provided in the worker participation legislation recently introduced for semi-State bodies. I believe that these two provisions—that there be at least one agricultural worker on the board and that one-third of the board should consist of employees—are vitally necessary. I shall have to press strongly for them. I should like to have the Minister's opinion on these proposals.

We now come to the controversial area of this Bill. The former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Clinton, who brought in the previous Act and had it passed in the last stage of the life of that Government, genuinely believed—and it is a widely held view—that all institutions participating in our agricultural development should co-ordinate their services so that agriculture might grow for the benefit of the whole nation. The Minister has taken up a certain stand on this issue and he has separated the Agricultural Institute from the advisory services. With his large majority in the Dáil, he can enact whatever Bill he feels is in the best interests of the nation, but it will not be too long until we see whether this Bill is a success or a failure. The separation of the Agricultural Institute from the advisory services will erect barriers between the people engaged in research and those providing advice. There is a wealth of knowledge in the Agricultural Institute which should be channelled through the advisory services to the farmers. The Bill introduced by Mark Clinton——

Deputy Clinton.

He hardly went far enough in trying to provide this information through the advisory services. While I did not agree entirely with his Bill, I felt in principle that all the services should be co-ordinated in an attempt to get this information across.

This is the most important section in the Bill. Deputy Bruton and I spent a considerable time in trying to work out what we consider to be a fair compromise. We suggested the compromise that the same board should represent both institutions. This is a good attempt to co-ordinate the services. There is no use in the Minister denying that barriers have been created. I am prepared to accept that when Deputy Clinton enacted his Bill barriers were erected, but they were easy to take down. The barriers which will be erected now will not be easy to take down because, in between the barriers are the advisory services, and the Agricultural Institute are at one end and the farmers are at the other.

The setting up of one board to run both these institutions is the last chance we have to find common ground and common policy. We all have the same thing in mind, that is, to provide a better, more progressive and more worthwhile service to farmers. We may have different ways of doing that. The Minister believes his way is the right way. We believe Deputy Clinton's way was right. We have suggested a reasonable compromise whereby the research and advisory services can, to some degree, co-ordinate the available services.

Huge sums of money are being spent on research and advice. I want to bring to the Minister's notice the amount of money the Agricultural Institute costs the taxpayers. I understand the figure is somewhere in the region of £7 million per annum. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong. I further understand —and I am subject to correction on this also—that the cost of the advisory services is around the same figure. The Minister will have to justify to the taxpayers and to everybody else the expenditure of that sum on the Agricultural Institute. He will have to show he is getting value for that money and that he is doing the right thing in the national interest. That is important because the growth of agriculture is basic to the economy. The Minister has been Minister for Agriculture for long enough to know what I am saying is true. I lay great emphasis on the fact——

a Second Reading speech.

It is not a Second Reading speech. I did not say previously that the Agricultural Institute costs £7 million.

The Deputy understands that at this stage we can discuss the amendment only.

Am I not entitled to make the point that the integration of the Agricultural Institute and the advisory services is very important?

On Committee Stage we can deal only with amendments. We cannot go through the whole Bill again. There is plenty of scope in the amendments.

I am not absolutely sure of the figure of £7 million. I thought the Bill would be taken tomorrow. It is a massive figure which the Minister must justify. We have asked to have certain people put on the board because the educational aspect is important. We have named certain colleges and institutions of education which should have a member on the board to ensure that the educational aspect is always to the forefront.

The General Council of the County Committees of Agriculture should have two members on the board. The county committees have done an exceptional job on a voluntary basis. It would be very unreasonable and unfair if the Minister did not give them reasonable representation. Down through the years, in difficult circumstances, when money was not very plentiful, they increased agricultural output and kept the advisory services going. The Minister's proposition is to give the council one member, but that is shabby treatment of them. They represent the 27 County Committees of Agriculture.

As a compromise we have suggested one board. Both institutions have the same purpose in mind, to increase agricultural output. I appeal to the Minister to accept amendment No. 22 to ensure that the co-ordination of the services, which are costly to the taxpayer, will provide the best value for the nation.

I shall deal first with the amendment put down by Deputies Bruton and D'Arcy and then talk about Deputy Bermingham's amendment. Deputies Bruton and D'Arcy's amendment seems to me to be a rather awkward and clumsy effort to resurrect the old idea to which Deputy Bruton referred—moderately enough, I must say—that in the monumental words of the 1976 Act, section 10, An Foras Talúntais is hereby abolished. They would create this concept.

Our amendment specifically does not do that. Our amendment specifically forbears that policy, and that is an important point.

It is an effort to install a board that would be, indifferently, on a Monday An Foras Talúntais Board and on a Tuesday, An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaiochta. It would be quite grotesque. It would be a board of the kind that might opt for one or the other. I do not propose to reopen the discussion. Such discussion would be quite pointless on the merits or demerits of separating or amalgamating An Foras and An Comhairle except to say, as I have always said, that the amalgamation and obliteration of An Foras would be absolutely fatal to the research concept. I shall say no more.

The amendment seemed to incorporate this. It would seem to have a kind of dual-purpose board. The board I am thinking of for the comhairle is a smaller board because its function is less. Its importance is not less. The numbers of its duties would be diminished by the retention of the board of An Foras Talúntais, and their activity would be confined to advice and training. Therefore an over-large board would not be necessary for the comhairle. In any event, to have the same, over-large, board functioning in a dual capacity would be quite unprecedented and unreal. I would not entertain the idea at all.

Deputy Bermingham's proposal would make for a very unbalanced comhairle. For instance, in his amendment the number of nominees allotted to the Minister for Agriculture is none. In any fair approach to the matter that is hardly a good situation. The general council with their representation would be over-large. One must bear in mind what one is trying to do. One is trying to bring together a number as small as will be acceptable of the best agricultural brains in the country. I would propose that these would be selected regardless of their political stripe and hardly any by the Minister. I will be looking for people whose concern it is to ensure that agriculture and the agricultural industry develop. It is important at all times to think of the agricultural industry, not to think merely of the production of crops and their process and sale. It is people from these disciplines I should like to see comprising the greater part of the personnel of the board of the comhairle. There are many groups. I do not believe that the universities have a function in this, because the comhairle themselves will not be concerned with third-level education in their functions.

On Deputy Bermingham's point about worker representation, the intention embodied in the legislation of which he seemed to be thinking did not contemplate the incorporation of such a non-industrial body as the comhairle in that context. It might be worth recalling what was said at the time of the passage of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977. Because of its innovative nature the Government decided to confine its scope initially to seven companies. The reason behind this decision was to facilitate a close and effective monitoring of the operation of the scheme in order to discover what lessons might be learned from its practical application and to see whether any changes might be called for in future legislation on the basis of this practical experience. Based on the successful implementation of the proposals, it is intended to extend it by way of further legislation to other State enterprises. This is an extract from——

Could the Minister tell us which are the seven companies?

I am afraid I cannot. I am certain that the Sugar Company is one.

Are they all commercial?

They are all industrial. For instance, RTE are not one because they are not industrial. I was about to say that the author of the quotation I have just given was the former Minister for Labour, Deputy M. O'Leary, speaking on the Second Stage of that Bill in the Seanad. Fortunately, Deputy O'Leary is still with us. I laud his moderation in that respect. With all due respect to Deputy Bermingham—and I have respect for his opinions—I do not think we should start an exercise in this type of council participation on the part of members of the staff because of the definition I have given: that the people I would hope to see on the board in the future would be people who will be expert in the complicated export manufacturing and production fields. I do not wish to denigrate in any way the people on whose behalf Deputy Bermingham spoke, but I submit to him that I do not think this is a suitable place for the application of worker participation. Therefore with some regret I must inform him that I cannot accept his amendment.

Progress reported; Committee to meet again.
Top
Share