Vol. 313 No. 7
An Foras Talúntais, who receive the majority of their income from State finance, are being given power to borrow under this Bill. Up to this almost all the State companies which were given the power to borrow were self-financing companies. Their income is derived from their activities which covers their outgoings. They are in a similar position to companies in the private sector——
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
Up to now, with one exception, no State company who were largely State financed and did not have an income of their own were allowed the power to borrow. It is perfectly legitimate to give a body the power to borrow if they are a commercial body, even though they may be State owned, who are earning money with which they can repay that borrowing. It is a strange procedure to give a body who do not have an income of their own, independent of whatever they receive from the State, the power to borrow in the same way one gives it to a body like the ESB or CIE who have an income derived from the sale of their services. The income which Foras Talúntais have from the sale of their services is very small by comparison with their total income, most of which comes from the State.
It is not basically a good idea to give a State financed company the power to borrow because they are borrowing against future income which will come from the State. They are earmarking perhaps five, ten, 15 or 20 years in advance income which they will have to get from the State. They are borrowing money now and the money to repay that will have to come from the State in 15 or 20 years time. There is an old principle in parliamentary democracy that no parliament has the power to bind its successor. If we allow companies to borrow and their borrowings have to be repaid by the State when they fall due in 15 or 20 years time we are binding a succeeding administration to produce money for this purpose.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
AnCO or CERT—I am not sure which—have already been given the power to borrow and they are not self-financing. Although there are 30 State companies which have the power to borrow, they are self-financing companies engaged in commercial activities. We have now the case where a non self-financing body is being given the power to borrow. Whereas a commercial company by virtue of its commercial operations can expect to have an income derived from its activities with which it can repay the borrowing, the income to repay the borrowing of a State financed company must come from the State. This creates a new situation and one that is hard to justify. It is legitimate for the Minister for Finance to borrow to finance activity of a non-self-financing nature, but there is a safeguard in that it is the Minister who is doing the borrowing. Ultimately he will be responsible for that and will be answerable to the Dáil. If we delegate to subsidiary bodies the power to borrow against repayment by the State, there is no central answerability in respect of the borrowing as there is when the borrowing is done by the State itself and for which the Minister for Finance is answerable to this House.
If An Foras Talúntais borrow substantially under the power now proposed to be given, will the Minister for Finance be answerable for that borrowing, will it be the Minister for Agriculture or will both Ministers say that this is a matter internal to AnCOT and that they cannot comment on whether the borrowing was justified or how the money is being used. It is a serious erosion of parliamentary sovereignty if we devolve to a body that is not directly answerable to this House the power to borrow substantial amounts against the inevitable repayment by the State. I know in the case of commercial companies that borrow the State gives a guarantee and there is a possibility that the State may be called on to exercise that guarantee and to repay if the company's activities do not yield an income sufficient to enable it to repay but that is only a possibility, and indeed a very unlikely one.
However, in the case of An Foras Talúntais and the one or two bodies that have been given the power to borrow, it is not a question of a possible repayment by the State but an inevitable repayment by the State. A new principle is being established and before I go further with the amendment I should like to hear the Minister's justification for giving this power.
There is nothing new in this power of borrowing that will be given to An Foras Talúntais. Many bodies such as county councils, health boards and county committees of agriculture can borrow, as can the National Agricultural Authority. That power was given by the National Coalition. Borrowing by An Foras Talúntais must be approved by the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance.
Section 21 of this Bill is copied exactly from section 50 of the 1977 Act to give An Foras Talúntais the same borrowing powers that were given to The National Agricultural Authority in the 1977 Act. Under this Bill these powers are being given to An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta. In my opinion amendment No. 60, in the names of Deputy Bruton and Deputy D'Arcy, is far too restrictive. It restricts borrowing by An Foras Talúntais not only to borrowing for capital purposes but also to borrowing for capital purposes of a nature likely to yield a rate of return not less than the rate of interest paid on the borrowing. This is completely impracticable. Under the amendment if the borrowing is to be done lawfully it must comply with the stated conditions, but who will be the judge of whether the likely rate of return from the borrowing reaches the level set by the amendment? If An Foras Talúntais think that the yield will reach the requirements of the amendment, does this make the borrowing lawful? If not, who is to be the arbiter?
The amendment proposes to take from An Foras Talúntais the power to incur even a temporary bank overdraft for current purposes. The absence of this power could, on occasion, be embarrassing and could cause a breakdown in the services provided and cause the temporary disemployment of staff. No doubt such borrowing had to be arranged in the past. In any event, section 21 as it stands provides the necessary legal cover if this should be necessary in the future. I wonder why the Deputies want to place these restrictions on An Foras Talúntais when they did not advocate the same restrictions in relation to the National Agricultural Authority in the 1977 Act? They did not suggest a similar amendment in relation to An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta in this Bill. I would be suspicious of their attitude towards An Foras Talúntais.
As regards the proposal in the amendment that there should be a full disclosure to the Dáil within one week of the borrowing, here again an attempt is being made to lay down restrictions in relation to An Foras Talúntais that do not apply to any other semi-State bodies. In my opinion there is no good reason why such exceptional requirements should be laid down in this case. It is an unnecessary interference in view of the fact that the borrowing in the first place is subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture. For that reason I think the amendments put down by Deputy Bruton and Deputy D'Arcy are unnecessary.
Will the Minister state if An Foras Talúntais have had the power to have a temporary overdraft up to now and, if not, if that has led to redundancies of staff?
They may have done in the past but they did not have the power.
How could they have done something if they did not have the power?
There are ways and means of doing these things. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate I cannot give exact details.
Is the Minister of State saying that An Foras Talúntais actually breached their statutory authority, exceeded their powers, acted ultra vires?
I understand the Comptroller and Auditor General, who checks the accounts of such bodies, knocked An Foras Talúntais on one occasion for exceeding their borrowing requirements.
What is their borrowing power at the moment?
They have none.
This means they borrowed without having the power to do so. Were they aware that they were breaching the authority of this House in so doing?
They may not have been aware of that but, as the Deputy will appreciate, all State bodies are subject to scrutiny by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and, as I said, he knocked them on one occasion for exceeding——
How many times did they do it?
Once.
They never repeated it?
I could not say for sure. I could not give that information now.
Would the Minister of State not regard it as a serious matter that a body which is set up under statute should breach that statute in the course of their activities? What is the point of debating here the powers we are prepared to delegate to a body if the Minister of State can tell the House that a body of this sort have breached this power and he cannot give us an assurance that it did not happen more than once?
The Deputy will appreciate that this breach did not come to our notice until the accounts were audited. It is the responsibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General to check their accounts and ensure that everything is above board.
Is the Minister of State saying that the director and the board of An Foras Talúntais were not aware when they borrowed that they had no power to do so and that they were bound by statute not to borrow?
I cannot say for sure.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I asked the Minister of State to tell us how An Foras Talúntais apparently borrowed money when they did not have the power to do so and if he was concerned about that. It is a bad precedent, when we are spending days discussing what powers should and should not be given to a semi-State body, that the Minister can come into this House and in the middle of his contribution, as an argument in favour of giving them power, blithely say that they have already done it anyway without being given that power. That is making a mockery of the House and of the professed concern of all parties to reduce borrowing when approximately 25 per cent of the Government's annual income is being used to repay interest on borrowing. I asked the Minister to give some details of how An Foras Talúntais borrowed money when they did not have the power to do so. I do not blame the Minister of State for that. The money was borrowed when he probably did not have responsibility in that area and I would not suggest for one moment that he would condone such a move. As I said, I would like to know how it happened and if the Minister is prepared to carry out an investigation into the matter and see that this kind of thing does not go on in respect of other bodies which do not have power to borrow.
If a body is short of cash I cannot see why the Government cannot borrow, or introduce a Supplementary Estimate, or give them money in some other way. If An Foras Talúntais were short of money it was possible for a Supplementary Estimate to be introduced. I understand also that it is possible to give them money in advance of the Supplementary Estimate being passed because as we all know, Supplementary Estimates are passed at the end of the year.
It is difficult for me to give the information Deputy Bruton requested. I said in my contribution that the board of An Foras Talúntais exceeded their borrowing limitations on one occasion and that the matter was taken up by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the watchdog who examines the accounts of State boards. It is his job to keep an eye on those bodies and to ensure that they stay within their limitations.
Deputy Bruton knows that up to now the legislation did not state that the board may not exceed their limitations. In other words, it was not written into the Act. For that reason it was a fairly loose arrangement. Under the present Bill it is being written in and under no circumstances can the board, in future, exceed their borrowing limitations.
That is the answer to the Deputy's question. It was not written in before. There was no such thing as directing the board that they may not exceed a certain limit. If it had been written into the Act I would consider it a serious breach for An Foras Talúntais to exceed their borrowing limitations. As I said, it happened on one occasion and was corrected by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I do not think there is anything to worry about. The important thing is it is being written into the new Act and therefore there is nothing to worry about.
I am concerned about the Minister's explanation which more or less amounts to saying that An Foras Talúntais never did this although there was not anything in existing legislation about borrowing. He suggested that where bodies are not specifically debarred from borrowing it was all right for them to do it. My case is that unless such bodies have been given explicit power to borrow they must not do so. It is not good enough to say that they may borrow unless they are precluded statutorily from doing so.
I have not got anything to add. The Act is silent in regard to this matter, so who is to say whether a board would be wrong?
I suggest the Minister is wrong in thinking that if an Act is silent on the powers of a board that the board can go ahead and do what they are not precluded from doing. They could run up debts of any amount. According to the Minister's theory, the sports councils set up by the Minister for Education could borrow millions simply because they are not specifically precluded from doing so. I do not think anybody could argue in favour of such a situation. I am afraid the Minister is taking a very softhearted view and I hope his officials will advise him to reconsider.
There are other bodies under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture who have not got powers to borrow and, according to the Minister, if they are not specifically barred from borrowing it is all right for them to go ahead and do so. If that is permitted we could have boards borrowing and billing the State ten or 15 years later. I know one board who went ahead and erected a building without any authority. They came back much later looking for the money. That was highly irregular and should not have happened. It would be wrong if boards were allowed to think that when they were not precluded from borrowing they could go ahead and do so.
The Minister referred to other bodies, such as health boards and local authorities generally, who have powers to borrow. That is not a comparable situation. Such bodies were given borrowing powers because they had incomes of their own. Local authorities had rates revenue and could repay their borrowing in due course from their income from rates. An Foras Talúntais are in a different category because they do not have power to levy rates.
I should like to make it clear that the reason for my amendment is my concern about State bodies having borrowing powers without incomes of their own. As far as borrowing is concerned, it is only sensible that it should be undertaken only for capital purposes. I do not think borrowing should be permitted to cover current expenses because there would not then be a likelihood that the return would be such as to repay the borrowing. The country and the House are entitled to know to whom State bodies owe money. It is not right that State companies should borrow money and then tell us about it only after three or four years. Annual reports of such bodies are not lodged until 12 or 16 months after the end of the year in question. Therefore, An Foras Talúntais might borrow money at the beginning of 1979 and the first the House would know about it might be in the middle of 1981, 25 or 26 months after the borrowing had taken place.
That is not an acceptable control on the level of accountability. My amendment would remedy this by insisting that the House would know within one week about the borrowing, the currency involved and the rate of interest. I do not think semi-State bodies should borrow in currencies which may have their value changed to such an extent that we might be repaying twice the amount borrowed. If State companies begin to borrow in foreign currencies there is a danger of being caught by the market. I know certain State companies who borrowed money at the wrong time in the wrong currencies and had to repay double the amount.
If my amendment is accepted, if there is this one week limit within which we must be made aware of the company's borrowing, companies would be very careful before making the mistake made by certain other State bodies in the recent past.
I do not want to say anything further on the amendment. It lays down restrictions in relation to An Foras Talúntais that do not apply to any other semi-State body and I do not see any reason why these exceptional requirements should be imposed.
The position is that they may borrow against a security of land. I should like to know how this will work. How will An Foras Talúntais repay the money? Will it have to be paid out of income from the State or will they be expected to sell property? Will there be any clear understanding as to how the money will be repaid? I will repeat it again. Every debt has to be repaid. Is it understood that if An Foras Talúntais borrow, the repayment will come out of their current grant or will it come out of some other income or fund from which they will be deriving income?
It will come from their income from the current grant plus their income from private sources.
So, in fact, the State will be repaying the borrowing?
Yes, the State makes the current grant——
Why can the State not borrow the money in the first place and give it to them? Why do they have to have the power to borrow as well?
They will have power to borrow. They must have the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture for borrowing purposes and they must have assets before they can borrow because they would not be able to borrow without collateral.
The assumption is that if the State did not give them enough money to repay the borrowing they would have to sell property. It would be the State that would be forcing them to do so by not giving them enough money to repay the borrowing which the State approved in the first place. What puzzles me is why the State cannot borrow the money and give it to them. Why do they have to have an independent power to borrow given that before they can borrow they have to have the consent of the Ministers for Finance and Agriculture? Would it not be as simple for the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Finance to borrow and give them the money rather than having them borrow it, having got the consent of the Ministers?
There is nothing new in this.
I am not saying it is new.
Other State-sponsored bodies operate in the same way.
There is a difference. The other State-sponsored bodies are commercial bodies. This is a non-commercial body. Why do they have to be given an independent power to borrow?
I do not know what Deputy Bruton is getting at. Is he suggesting that we should amend——
I am trying to find out what the justification is for this procedure. As I have explained, it now appears that they have to get the consent of the Ministers for Finance and Agriculture before they can borrow. That being the case, why does the Minister for Finance not borrow and give them the money? Why do they have to have the power to borrow themselves? It is not giving them any more freedom if they have to get the consent of the Ministers. Would it not be simpler for the State to borrow and give them the money rather than having them borrow it with the consent of the State?
It would be placing An Foras Talúntais in an awkward position vis-á-vis other State-sponsored bodies. Why treat the foras in a different way? There is no reason for doing so.
I do not think the foras are being treated in a different way. The vast majority of State companies, which are non-commercial, do not have the power to borrow.
It is no different to An Comhairle Oiliúna.
There are two or three companies who are non-commercial who have the power to borrow but the vast majority of State bodies who can borrow are commercial bodies. I am not asking for them to be treated differently. It is the Minister who is doing so. I am concerned about the level of borrowing in this State and the fact that a lot of the taxpayers' money has to go on repaying borrowing. We should not be too ready to give anybody the power to borrow against taxpayers' money.
The suggestion the Deputy is making would be to treat them differently to An Comhairle Oiliúna. That would not be right either.
I accept that. I will be happy to introduce an amendment for An Comhairle Oiliúna as well. Why does the Minister have to give them the power to borrow?
They should not be treated any differently from other bodies I mentioned. Bord na gCon and Bord Iascaigh Mhara——
Bord na gCon have their own income. They do not receive any significant grant from the State at all.
Can the Minister tell us something about the endowment fund and the implications of the section?
Under this section authority is given to An Foras Talúntais to use the endowment fund for capital purposes with the consent of the Ministers for Agriculture and Finance. At present, the foras may spend only the interest on this fund and the fund itself must be kept invested. The 1977 Act provided for transfer of the fund to the National Agricultural Authority and for its use by them for capital purposes. Such a power is now being given to an foras. The United States authorities who made the subvention available in the first instance have agreed to this. The nominal value of the endowment fund is approximately £1 million.
We are going to give them power to liquidate an asset which they now have.
Yes.
I am not happy about that.
This is in relation to the grant and the way in which it must be approved. Is there any significant change in the method whereby the grant can be approved under the section?
Section 23 provides that the amount of the annual grant paid to an foras shall be determined by the Minister for Agriculture in consultation with the council and with the approval of the Minister for Finance instead of the present arrangement whereby the amount is determined by the Minister for Finance who consults both the council of an foras and the Minister for Agriculture. This is merely an administrative arrangement. We feel it is more appropriate that consultations should take place between the council and the Minister for Agriculture who is the Minister with general responsibility for An Foras Talúntais.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 9, lines 52 and 53, to delete "and the Minister for the Public Service."
In legislation coming before the House now there is this clause providing for the approval of the Minister concerned and also the approval of the Minister for the Public Service. In this case the provision for the approval also of the Minister for the Public Service is causing a good deal of frustration because of previous experience in trying to negotiate settlements. In the first instance, the approval of the council will be necessary and then it will be necessary to have the approval of the Minister for Agriculture. That would be fine but people making a claim must then have the approval of the Minister for the Public Service. This will render it virtually impossible for employees of An Foras Talúntais to negotiate either in regard to terms of employment or in regard to remuneration. We would accept the provision for the approval of the Minister for Agriculture but there the matter should rest. The Minister for Agriculture would not be likely to agree to a claim unless he had the prior approval of the Minister for the Public Service but we could not agree with the manner in which the process is proposed in the Bill. That is why we propose the elimination of the clause concerning the approval of the Minister for the Public Service. What we are doing here is putting an embargo on negotiations. The kind of personnel that we expect to be employed in the foras will hardly be prepared to operate in those circumstances because they will probably be able to find work which is much better paid. Therefore, if we are anxious to recruit and to keep the best people we must ensure that negotiations are not made impossible for them.
I support Deputy Ber-mingham's amendment. The inclusion of the Minister for the Public Service in regard to approval for agreement reached already by the Minister for Agriculture suggests there is not collective Cabinet responsibility, that if the Minister for Agriculture gives his word on something he is not acting in concert with his colleagues, that he is not trusted. The implication is that somebody must oversee the Minister for Agriculture in order to ensure that he will not give away anything to which employees are not entitled. This is a very unusual precedent. A Minister should be responsible enough not to agree if he knows that his colleagues will not approve. That should be sufficient. To carry the provision to its logical conclusion each Minister in the Government would be responsible to the other. I regard the whole purpose of the inclusion in this case of the Minister for the Public Service to be the provision of a delaying device. It suggests that the Minister for Agriculture will be afraid to stand up to the people with whom he must deal direct, that he will need some sort of cover-up whereby he may appear to be the nice guy with the people with whom he is dealing, telling them that he would like very much to give what they are seeking but that the necessary agreement of the Minister for the Public Service is not forthcoming. This is a device that will enable the Minister for Agriculture to shift his responsibility to somebody else but that is not the way in which a Government should do their business. However, this passing-the-buck attitude is unfortunately symptomatic of this Government and by giving them the power they are seeking here we are only enabling them to continue to operate as they have been operating in the past. That is why I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
I cannot accept the amendment. It is proposed in the Bill that control of salaries in respect of people employed by the foras be exercised by the Minister for Agriculture with the approval of the Minister for the Public Service but the amendment seeks to eliminate the provision for the approval of the Minister for the Public Service, leaving salaries control in the hands of the Minister for Agriculture. This is not acceptable because the Minister for the Public Service is the only Minister in a position to ensure reasonable parity of salaries throughout the public sector. Indeed, that is a primary function of his. He is the one who would have the greater knowledge of what is happening in the public service. Obviously, it is necessary that there be consultation between him and whatever other Minister is concerned with a claim.
Apparently, the Minister of State is missing the point of the argument. Negotiations, generally, are a difficult process but they will be much more difficult for the people concerned if this Bill is not amended because, having reached agreement with the council and subsequently with the Minister for Agriculture, they must then have the approval of another Minister. Surely when the year's allocation is made to the Department of Agriculture account is taken of expected increases in incomes so that the Minister should know the level of increases to which he might agree. If his agreement is obtained it should not be necessary, therefore, to seek further agreement. As Deputy Bruton said, the additional provision for the approval of the Minister for the Public Service is suggesting that there is not collective Cabinet responsibility or that the Minister for Agriculture is capable at some stage of agreeing to an increase that he knows the Government would not agree to.
Hear, hear.
Any Minister for Agriculture with a sense of responsibility would not agree to an increase in income unless he knew that he would have the approval of the Cabinet. We have some experience of what happens when the Minister for the Public Service fails to sanction increases which other Ministers may agree to. The Department of Health is an example of that.
I agree with Deputy Bermingham's amendment. The worst thing that can happen is a delay in salary negotiations. I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister of State that there is provision for three stages of negotiations. The institutions of State are breaking down at present. The reason for the increase in the number of strikes is that people are frustrated by delays in dealing with claims. The Bill proposes the setting up of a council and it also involves the Ministers for Agriculture and Finance. I agree with what Deputies Bruton and Bermingham have said. There is sufficient control in the Department of Agriculture without involving the Department of Finance. The proposal is a delaying tactic which is not in the interests of the Department of Agriculture. I appeal to the Minister of State to withdraw the section and to accept the amendment.
I cannot understand how Deputies Bermingham, Bruton, and D'Arcy have become so enlightened. In 1977, when the Agricultural Authority Bill was being debated in the House, they adopted a different attitude. The restrictions proposed in this Bill were in the previous Bill and were accepted by Deputies Bermingham and Bruton on that occasion.
The Minister for Finance controls the public service and should have a say in this matter. We can all appreciate that there would be a mad scramble for salary increases if the Minister for the Public Service did not have control. In the mad scramble for increases the weaker sections of the community would suffer. I cannot see any objection to the Minister for the Public Service having control in consultation with the Minister for Agriculture.
I am sick and tired of Fianna Fáil telling us what happened a few years ago under the Coalition Government. Fianna Fáil are now in power and they are responsible for what is happening now. I was not the spokesman on agriculture when the previous Bill was passed. I am opposed to that kind of negative talk.
This provision is a delaying tactic which will ensure that the services of the experts will be lost.
Industrial relations in the public service are bad because no one is prepared to accept responsibility for decisions. Somebody else has always to be consulted. The result of all this is that workers feel that they have nobody to go to for a decision. That sort of situation invites militant action. The philosophy which this amendment represents has contributed to the present difficult situation.
I concede the Minister's point that this provision was in the previous Bill. As Deputy Bermingham said, Fianna Fáil are now in power and they should make the right decision in the light of their experience. We must all learn from past events. The Minister is making the mistake of not listening to arguments made in this House. Satisfying himself by saying, "You did it when you were in office", shows that he has like Louis XVII after his restoration, forgotten nothing and learned nothing. We all know that Louis XVII did not last too long after his restoration and that within 18 years the monarchy in France was abolished. The Minister of State, like King Canute, is not prepared to put his toe in the water. The Minister should put his toe in the water and show that he is prepared to do his own thinking.
The lack of responsibility among Ministers is the cause of the present industrial unrest, particularly in the public service. Ministers should be willing to accept responsibility without passing the buck. One of the reasons why government has not worked relates to the system of memoranda. When Ministers do not reply to memoranda issues cannot go to the Government. That is happening now and it happened when we were in office. This section makes the delaying tactic easier for Ministers.
Will the Chair allow time for Deputy Bermingham to resume his seat and say something if he wishes on the section?
Order, please; silence.
The postion here is that the rates of travelling expenses as well as actual salaries will have to be approved by the Minister for the Public Service. Is that so?
Yes.
Sorry, Deputy Bruton. There is a lot of talk around the House. We can hear nothing. Deputies, please.
Would the Minister agree that an awful lot of paper work would be involved in this because every bit of paper will have to go to the Minister for the Public Service as well?
This would not involve a lot of paper work. This has been done for years for other bodies and I do not envisage any problem here. The effect of this section is to make a determination by the foras in respect of remuneration and allowances of their staff, subject to the concurrence of the Ministers for Agriculture and Finance. If An Foras Talúntais had remained part of the National Agricultural Authority their staff would have been subject to controls on remuneration and allowances, similar to what we are asking for here. These controls are embodied in the 1958 Act.
It is Government policy to have ministerial control of remuneration of all non-commercial and semi-State bodies. Such control applies to recently created bodies such as the National Board for Science and Technology and Bord na Gaeilge. It is also appropriate that the arrangements in regard to the staffing of the foras should be consistent with those for the new body, to counter any danger of inter-body jealousies or leap-frogging between the bodies in any salary merry-go-round.
I take it that this would apply to even very short-term contracts. If for instance An Foras Talúntais wanted to employ somebody for six weeks to do a study, that person's rate of remuneration would be subject to the same controls. I can see some difficulty with that. As the Minister will realise, I am strongly in favour of accountability for all actions by semi-State bodies. I must and will be consistent on that issue. I agree with the general principle, but a situation could arise where there could be an urgent need to take on a person who is not a member of the staff to work for a short term. If his rate of remuneration has to go to the Minister for Agriculture and then to the Minister for the Public Service and back, a short term measure which might be necessary to keep a project going, could hold up an entire project. For instance, one man might be capable of dealing with a certain problem which arose in the course of a long-term research project and it might be necessary to employ him for about six weeks or so and then let him return to his own employment. If the employment of somebody for such a short term has to be approved by the Minister for Agriculture and by the Minister for the Public Service, an entire project could be held up just because they could not get a man for a short period. Has the Minister thought about how this would work out?
This control would apply only for the person who is becoming a member of the staff. The foras, if they needed, could employ a consultant or anybody like that on a contract basis. They are quite free to do so. This only applies to a person becoming a member of the staff.
Amendment No. 62 was already discussed with amendment No. 59.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 10, subsection (1), line 6, to delete "(except the first Director)" and substitute "(including the person appointed first Director)".
Amendment No. 63 was also discussed with amendment No. 59.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 10, subsection (1), lines 27 and 28, to delete "(except the first Director)" and substitute "(including the person appointed first Director)".
This is providing a superannuation scheme for An Foras Talúntais. Is there one there already or how are we fixed?
This section alters the superannuation provision in respect of the staff of An Foras Talúntais by providing a statutory basis for the payment of widows' and orphans' pensions by limiting superannuation benefits to those provided by approved schemes and by requiring that every scheme must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Subsection (2) provides for the continued effectiveness of the existing pension scheme.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 10, subsection (1) (a), line 52, to delete "not exceed" and substitute "be".
This is for clarification. Rule 3, as provided for in this Bill, requires each county council to appoint a specific number of persons to membership of their county committee of agriculture. As the number of nominations in respect of voluntary bodies will be fixed in advance by Ministerial order, it follows that the county council must also choose a specific number of persons.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 11, subsection (1) (a), line 2, to delete "to be a member of a committee of agriculture," and substitute ", appointed to be a member of a committee of agriculture".
This is merely a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 11, subsection (1) (c), line 29, to delete "and".
This is merely a drafting amendment to provide for amendment No. 67 inserting paragraph (d).
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 11, subsection (1), between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following paragraph:
"(d) by the substitution for Rule 6 of the following Rule:
‘6. (1) The members of a committee of agriculture (other than a member appointed to fill a casual vacancy) shall be appointed in every election year at the annual meeting of the council held in that year and the appointment of such members shall be part of the first business to be transacted at every such annual meeting.
(2) A committee of agriculture shall be deemed not to be invalidly constituted by reason of—
(a) the failure of the voluntary rural organisations designated by the Minister under Rule 2 (2) to nominate the number of persons determined by the Minister under that Rule, or
(b) the failure of the council to appoint the number of members required under Rule 3,
and, in the event of either such failure, the Minister may, as the case may require, nominate for appointment as members or appoint to be members of the committee such person or persons as he may determine so that the number of members of the committee shall be the number required under Rule 3.'; and".
Will the Minister explain amendment No. 67? It is a fairly substantial amendment.
This amendment will ensure that failure to appoint or nominate the full quota of members does not invalidate a county committee. County committees must be appointed on a specific occasion, that is, at the first annual meeting of a council following a local election. It is important to ensure that an omission by a county council or a voluntary organisation, whether deliberate or otherwise, does not invalidate the constitution of the committee, and that appropriate remedial action can be taken as necessary. Accordingly, this amendment will provide that the Minister for Agriculture can take such action if the council or voluntary body do not appoint or nominate their full quota.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 11, after line 43, to insert the following:
"Amendment of Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1958
Section 2 of the Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1958, is hereby amended by the addition of the following subsection:
‘(6) The council of a county shall pay any balance of the contribution to be made under subsection (1) of this section which remains unpaid on the coming into operation of section 53 of the National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority Act, 1977, partly to An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta and partly to the committee of agriculture for the county in such proportions as the Minister may direct.'.".
This amendment adds an additional section to the Bill. Section 53 of the 1977 Act provides for the transfer of certain property of the county committees of agriculture to the National Agricultural Authority now being replaced by An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta. In this context, property includes a number of things, one of which is money in hands, in banks, and so on. Unless the transfer happens to take place exactly at the beginning of a financial year, there would be a period between the time of the transfer and the end of that financial year in which county committees would continue to receive funds from county councils and, under the existing terms of the 1977 Act, would not have to transfer any part of these funds to An Chomhairle.
The amendment provides that where, after the transfer date, which is the coming into operation of section 53 of the 1977 Act, a county council are due to pay to a county committee a balance of the appropriate contribution for the year, such balance must be paid partly to An Chomhairle and partly to the county committee in such proportions as the Minister for Agriculture determines. This is to ensure that the county committees get sufficient funds to enable them to perform their retained functions and that An Chomhairle are not deprived of their fair share of the funds.
Section 26 deals with the method of appointment of the county committees of agriculture and affords us an opportunity to discuss the whole position of the county committees of agriculture in the context of the new arrangements. I am not entirely happy with the position. To be fair, it does not derive solely from the present Bill but also from the NAAERA Act of 1977.
I am not happy that the county committees of agriculture have adequate powers to obtain information within specified times. They are being given power to get information, but not power to get it within a particular, stated time. They are not being given power to get information from all the people, from whom they should be able to get information to enable them to do their job properly.
On the question of voluntary organisations to be represented on the county committees, we will now have a substantial number of people from farming organisations on the county committees in addition to people selected by the county councillors. I am not happy at the way in which this is to be done. I am not sure that I could put forward an alternative proposal, but there are certain doubts which must be raised about the proposal in the Bill.
The number of members to be nominated by each such rural organisation active within the county shall be such as the Minister may by order determine. A number of farming organisations may be active in a particular county, for example, the ICA, Macra na Feirme, the Irish Farmers' Association and the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association. Those four organisations are all active in my county. There are also other organisations such as the Small Farmers Defence, the Land League, and so on.
Who is to decide the relative strength of these organisations? The Minister for Agriculture. What evidence will he have on which to make his decision? We do not know. Will he go on membership figures? That would mean he would have to get membership returns from each of the organisations. If he does not go on membership figures, what other basis has he got to go on other than his own purely subjective judgment? If it is to be done on the basis of the Minister's subjective judgment that one organisation is more important than another, the Minister will either be put in an invidious and awkward position, in that he will have to make decisions about bodies and their strength, bodies with which he has to negotiate, as against other organisations which would be very difficult for him, or he will have the temptation to pursue a line of favouritism and to give one organisation more than it is entitled to because he gets on better with that organisation.
I am not saying the Minister would do that. In fact, I would be very surprised if he did, but the temptation will exist for any Minister operating this Bill in the absence of any objective criteria in the Bill as to how the organisations' relative strength should be assessed in deciding how the voluntary people are to be selected. There are no objective criteria in the Bill. I know this situation existed in the previous Bill but this will put whoever is operating the Bill in an awkward position. He will be involved, so to speak, in local farming politics in every county in Ireland. He will have to examine the relative strength in each county of each farming organisation before he decides how many votes to give them. Obviously you could not apply the same principles in one of the Munster counties as you might apply in Meath, Westmeath or Roscommon. There are going to be differences. One cannot see far ahead what is going to happen in these various organisations. The Minister should not be put in this awkward position. Something should be contained in the Bill which would give the Minister a definite line to go on in making the decisions. How is this to be done?
The other point I want to make relates to the powers of county committees of agriculture. These powers are contained in section 36 of the 1977 Act and the committees have power to review and to make recommendations to the Minister regarding the programmes and so forth of the operations in the county. Of course, anybody in the world has power to make recommendations to the Minister, and so telling the committees that they have power to make a recommendation is not telling them that they have any more power than any individual in the entire country. If the post is working, presumably any individual who wishes to do so can write a letter to the Minister and make a recommendation. That is not giving anything to the committees. Of course, they are being given the power to request reports from time to time from the chief agricultural officer on the progress of the advisory and educational programme of the county and also to request reports from time to time from the appropriate officers of the Minister about schemes operated by him in the county.
I have two criticisms to make on this, one a major one. The committees have not the power to ask either An Foras Talúntais or An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta for information.
The matter of the powers of committees of agriculture does not arise on this section. As far as the Chair can see, it deals only with the composition of the committees.
One cannot discuss the composition of a body and is it worth the bother of composing it at all if one cannot discuss the powers it is going to be asked to exercise having been composed?
The Chair is limited in what he can allow on any section. On committee he can deal only with exactly what is in the section. The Deputy is aware of that.
I will not labour the point. The committees should have power to request reports from An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta and from An Foras Talúntais in the same way as they have powers to request reports from the Minister. The powers given to committees to request reports are valueless unless the committees can get information from the people who have the responsibility. I will leave it at that.
I want to make a few remarks on the composition of the board. I foresee great problems in this field because the Minister cannot come up with a formula that he can apply to every county committee of agriculture. I see great problems in trying to decide what rural organisations represent the farmers within an area and what the representation should be. We had this at one stage of the Bill but the Minister for Agriculture threw no light whatsoever on how he is going to work out this formula and apply it in each county. Deputy Bruton said that his county has three or four organisations. Wexford has as many organisations as any other county. We have the IFA, the ICMSA, the small farmers' organisation and so on. There are eight or nine of them, all claiming that they represent agriculture in that county and they will all claim that they will be entitled to a say on the county committee of agriculture.
The erosion of powers of the county committees of agriculture by this Bill will take away the interest that was there heretofore. We have seen what happened in the health boards and local health committees when their powers were taken away. Once that happens, so will the interest be taken away. Powers are necessary for decision-making, and decisions are not being made in the county committees of agriculture.
The Minister of State was very eloquent on these points.
The question of decisions is important. Unfortunately, only half of the decisions will be made even by the new board, and the county committees of agriculture will have no say whatsoever from now on. Deputy Bruton made the point about reports. I understood that they could get reports from the Minister.
Not from An Foras Talúntais or An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta.
We are getting on to the powers of the committees rather than their composition, which is in this section.
The section deals mainly with the composition of the board. The Minister for Agriculture threw no light on the situation. Would the Minister of State be prepared to give some indication of how these rural organisations are going to be representative of county committees? For many years I have known the difficulties that county councils have in trying to select members. I am prepared to accept that it was done on a party basis, but there was some base that they could work on. There will be queer politics in it now with the present composition.
There is nothing in this that was not included in the Act of 1977. The question of what rural organisations will represent the farmers or what formula the Minister might apply in dealing with this is something that the Minister himself will have to fix by regulation. He will do so in consultation with the farming organisations in the county. This is better than having it written into the Bill at this time.
Section 26 has a fourfold effect. First of all, it replaces the provisions of section 42 of the 1977 Act and provides that a county council can select members of the county council and also non-members in nominating 60 per cent of the members of the county committee of agriculture. Secondly, it fixes a set membership for each committee of four times the number of county electoral areas, whereas previously the membership could vary between three and four times the number of the county electoral areas. Thirdly, it requires that every person appointed to a committee of agriculture, whether chosen by the county council or nominated by other organisations, must have an involvement in agriculture. Fourthly, it ensures that a casual vacancy on a committee of agriculture can be filled by the organisation or organisations which made the original choice.
As regards the first point, under the Agriculture Act, 1931, county councils were free to choose members or nonmembers, and nearly all committees have non-council members. This has been a feature of the county committees throughout the country. Section 42 of the 1977 Act, however, requires that all of the 60 per cent of the members of a county committee chosen by a county council must be council members. No doubt this was just an oversight and so section 26 as drafted in the Bill restores the old position in this respect.
The second point is that the provision in section 42 of the 1977 Act that a specific number of members of a county committee, equal to 40 per cent of the total membership, be appointed on the nomination of a voluntary organisation designated by the Minister proved to be unworkable. As the total membership of a committee could vary between three and four times the number of electoral areas in a county and as members must be appointed at the first meeting of the county council after a local election, it would not be possible to specify in an order made beforehand the number of members to be nominated.
As regards my third point, the previous Rules 5 and 5A in the Second Schedule to the 1931 Act, in relation to qualifications of membership, referred only to members chosen by the county council, so it is necessary to revise these articles to include persons nominated by other organisations.
The fourth point regarding a casual vacancy on the county committee of agriculture, is self-explanatory. The principle involved was referred to already by the Minister in the debate on section 11, membership of the board of AnCOT.
Am I correct in interpreting what the Minister of State has said to mean that the Minister is prepared to consult with the farming organisations in every county in order to determine what percentage each organisation will get?
The Deputy will understand that the Minister would not leave it to the rural organisations to decide who is to represent a county, or voluntary organisation within a county, on the county committee of agriculture. Certainly he would have to have consultations and I expect that he would do so.
With all the 27 county committees of agriculture.
I would expect that he would have to have consultations at least with the leaders of the principal farming organisations within the counties.
All of this will have to happen before July.
As soon as this Bill is passed those organisations will be making the approaches themselves for membership on the county committees of agriculture.
I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's explanation. In the final analysis it will be the Minister's subjective judgment that will take effect as to what vote should go to what organisation. That is not a very good system because it means the Minister is being given tremendous power to decide that one organisation is more important than another. If there was something in the Bill specifying that he must take account of active membership or of certain factors, at least that would provide him with some guideline. In those circumstances, if he was accused of being unreasonable, he would have something to refer to and could maintain that he was following the line of the statute. At present not only does the temptation exist for him to show favouritism but the temptation exists also for others to exercise pressure on him to show favouritism because they know he is not tied in any way by anything contained in the statute. If there were more specific criteria contained in the Bill they would constitute a protection for the Minister against unfair pressure being brought to bear on him. Surely any sensible Minister would welcome the existence of something definite in the statute as to how the relative strength of one organisation should be measured against that of another. The Minister might get away with it this time.
I should be very interested to know if he will announce the composition of the organisations in question that he will decide in respect of each county before the local elections, or if he will wait and make these orders after the local elections but before the first meeting of the county committees or of the councils which they select. If it is done in that sort of backhanded way it would be very serious indeed. I should like to know how the Minister will do it. If it has got to be done soon surely he must have some idea of the method he will use to select these people and, if he has, he should tell the house and should not be trying to keep it a secret.
Certainly I hope he will give an assurance that whatever scheme he will adopt will be announced before the local elections, that he will not wait until the people have voted and then introduce whatever order he has in mind, containing God knows what provisions on which nobody will have an opportunity to decide at the polls or elsewhere.
I agree wholeheartedly with Deputy Bruton here and feel that this issue should have been dealt with in the Bill itself. At least we should have been given some indication of what the order will contain. The Minister is taking enormous risks. I do not know whether the Minister of State is talking off his own bat or is assuming that the Minister will take this course, but the time available to him in which to get involved in the 27 county committees in the country and in which to reach some sort of uniform decision must present enormous problems.
The Minister of State has said that the Minister may have consultations with the main farming organisations only. Those main organisations may have particular vested interests. We have all experienced within different groups this pulling and hauling, one against another. If the Minister is going to get involved in this type of thing he will create problems galore.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not given some indication—and I believe here we could be of some help to him—of what exactly he has in mind. I warn the Minister that he would be walking headlong into trouble on this issue. It could well be somebody from this side of the House over there who would have to make this decision, but any Minister who takes upon himself power to select 40 per cent of a county committee of agriculture in the rural organisations amongst the 27 county committees will have some job, and is really taking something on. Some guidelines should be laid down or some criteria specified by which any Minister could measure— particularly when he will be going into each county—who should represent a particular organisation within that county.
Perhaps on Report Stage the Minister would introduce an amendment spelling out exactly what he has in mind and give us an opportunity to discuss it because here we could be of help to him rather than a hindrance. Anybody who has any knowledge of county committees of agriculture and what goes on after each local authority election as people endeavour to obtain membership on these boards, the pulling and hauling that goes on, will know that what I maintain is correct. If the Minister takes in every rural organisation on top of the politicians he will really have a problem on his hands.
May I be permitted to put one further point to the Minister, that is, the possibility that organisations will be created solely to get places on these committees. That is another danger against which there is no safeguard in the Bill. The Minister would benefit from having well-defined criteria laid down. Now that the day is approaching when he will have to make decisions, he may have second thoughts and will want to introduce an amendment on Report Stage clarifying this position, when he would be doing himself a favour also.
Perhaps the Minister of State would convey to the Minister that we should like some indication of what he has in mind because I consider this constitutes 40 per cent of the county committees of agriculture. We should like to know what procedures he will adopt in selecting these people. There is a cloud hanging over us as to what the Minister has in mind and it is wrong and irregular as far as I am concerned.
I see nothing wrong at all with this section. In fact the same principle is applied here as was applied by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Clinton, in relation to the national agricultural authority. It is nothing new. The Minister and indeed Deputies opposite know well the main farming organisations in any particular county.
At present, but this Bill will be on the statute book for years.
Yes, but the Minister will be making these appointments by regulation which can be changed at any time. He knows as well as we do which are the main farming organisations in any county. I do not see it being such a marathon job to have consultations with their leaders. Whether or not this will be done before the local elections will depend on how fast this Bill is passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas and, in that regard, we can all help.
Is the Minister suggesting that he cannot consult about this until the Bill is passed, because, if so, that is ridiculous.
Of course he can consult.
The Minister should not use false arguments here.
I would not like to mislead Deputy Bruton, or Deputy D'Arcy.
Surely we are entitled to know something about the set-up? What is the point in discussing a Bill if there is a cloud hanging over one of the main parts of it?
There is not a cloud hanging over it and everybody is aware of what is happening.
What criterion will be used in each county? The Minister stated that it is his intention to consult with the main organisation. We have one main organisation, the IFA, and I should like to know if the consultation is to be confined to them. In Wexford we have a very important organisation, the BGA, which represents farmers who grow 27 per cent of the beet grown in the country and, while they are part of the IFA, they are still separate.
The Minister is aware of the main farming organisations within the different counties and I expect he will have consultations with them.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Now?
I do not agree because we must be given an opportunity of tabling amendments. We cannot be expected to submit amendments now, unless the Minister is prepared to accept oral amendments, which I doubt.
If the House intends sitting on Friday will the Deputy agree to taking Report Stage then?
If there is agreement to sit on Friday we can deal with Report Stage.
Would the Deputy agree to ordering Report Stage for the first sitting day after the Recess, subject to agreement between the Whips?
Yes.
