Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Apr 1979

Vol. 313 No. 10

Agriculture (An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta) Bill, 1978: Report and Final Stages.

Mr. Bruton

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

"10.—Section 12 of the Act of 1977 is hereby amended by the addition of the following subsection:

‘(3) Courses or lectures to be provided in agriculture under subsection (1) of this section shall include, where appropriate, preventive veterinary medicine.'".

An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta, which is the new body being set up under this Bill, will be concerned with education and advice for the farming community. Under the operation of the county committees of agriculture, so far as educational advice was concerned, that was confined to agricultural subjects other than preventive veterinary medicine. No veterinary surgeons are employed anywhere in the advisory services notwithstanding the fact that veterinary matters are of central importance to agriculture nowadays. Yet the advisory services for farmers have not got a single veterinary surgeon on their staff in any county. There is no statutory body charged with responsibility or having as one of its main responsibilities the giving of advice on veterinary matters. The situation is, obviously, that private veterinary surgeons may give advice. But that is not their primary function, which is to treat disease. Indeed there is so much disease extent in the country that their time is taken up with curing existing illnesses, leaving them little or no time to devote to the educational function of giving farmers information on how to prevent disease.

The only other people apart from the private veterinary surgeons who might be interested in this area are the district veterinary officers of the Department of Agriculture. They have no educational role worth talking about because they are completely absorbed in the administrative details of the eradication schemes, in the enforcement of these schemes and, very often, in imposing penalties on farmers for breaches of the schemes. People who are charged primarily with responsibility for administering a scheme and, in some cases, with penalising people who fail to comply with its provisions, are certainly not the people best suited to adopt an educational role in veterinary matters. They do not and will not have the trust of the people to whom they are giving advice if, having given their advice one day, the next day they have to come back and penalise those people in regard to some breach of the veterinary regulations. In fact, the district veterinary officers do not pretend to exercise any effective educational role. In a case of a specific problem they may address a meeting of farmers but that would be a rare occasion. They do not have an ongoing educational role. There is no statutory body charged primarily with responsibility for imparting knowledge medicine.

The Department of Agriculture launch campaigns occasionally and advertise in the press in this regard but this is not adequate. Many millions of pounds could be saved if farmers were given advice on how to prevent disease. One of the reasons for the prevalence of bovine TB and brucellosis is that farmers are not taking the proper precautions in relation to disinfection and the isolation of animals or in relation to animals bought into herds. This situation stems from the lack of education in veterinary matters. In each country the advisory service should have at least one veterinary surgeon whose responsibility would be to advise farmers on how to prevent disease. Also, the general courses in agriculture—the 100-hour courses—should contain a substantial veterinary element as of right and be given by people who are part of the staff of the service. There must be a missionary approach on the part of the Department to this whole area of the prevention of animal disease. The approach of waiting for problems to arise and of then trying to employ a fire brigade operation is not the correct approach. I have studied the situation in Northern Ireland. There is an outward looking approach on the part of the veterinary service there where veterinary surgeons address meetings of farmers and call on farmers in an effort to put across positively the message of preventive medicine. They do not adopt a wait-and-see approach and then endeavour, for instance, to impose penalties when something goes wrong.

If this amendment is accepted and AnCOT are given responsibility for preventive as distinct from curative veterinary medicine, we would be going a long way towards remedying the situation of a real lack in our agricultural services.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Gibbons)

As I said during Committee Stage this amendment is unnecessary. The desirability of the dissemination of instruction and advice in preventive medicine is beyound dispute. I take issue with the Deputy's observations about alleged inactivity or inertia on the part of the Department in this regard especially so far as the past couple of years are concerned. The efforts of the Department in a renewed and invigorated campaign are discernible to all and approved by all through this campaign means considerable expense for herd owners.

There cannot be a sensible approach to general disease eradication without that approach having a large content of a prevention element. Can the Deputy recall, for instance, the great deal of adverse publicity in the press that followed the announcement of the requirement in October last of a movement certificate? There were outcries then about the undoubted cost that would accrue to herd owners. Though herd owners may grumble outwardly about this cost, they are co-operating because they know that it is necessary for the country generally in the long run and particularly for themselves. They may expect from me a relentless pursuit of as near perfection as we can achieve in the matter of disease prevention and eradication. I say this in order that there be removed any possible reflection on the Department or myself in the area of animal disease. I shall refrain from engaging in slogans on the subject because it is too important for a political battlecry.

I would agree readily with much of what Deputy Bruton says. There is a high incidence of disease that is unnecessary. Much of this disease could be either prevented or arrested by the dissemination of information and advice about animal hygiene but first let us bear in mind that the new comhairle will be absolutely free to make this advice available. In pre-NAA and comhairle days individual committees saw fit to be instructed even in the days when the time of veterinary surgeons was less occupied than is the case now. There is a certain degree of paradox in what the Deputy says in that on the one hand every veterinary surgeon is under pressure to meet his professional obligations while on the other hand there is an urgent need for professional advisers who are veterinary surgeons. There is no question about their desirability and the question of their procurement will be one for the comhairle. I approve of the idea but to amend the Bill as suggested would introduce an unnecessary direction to the incoming comhairle. It will be for them to make available to herd owners and others the most desirable form of advice and instruction in matters of animal husbandry and agriculture generally. It is logical and reasonable that there should be veterinary instruction in animal hygiene but it is not necessary to include a provision specifically to this effect in the Bill because such provision could be regarded as an intrusion on the duties that will devolve properly on the comhairle.

Mr. Bruton

I consider the amendment to be absolutely necessary and this is borne out by the fact that a veterinary surgeon is not employed by any of the county committees of agriculture. When the new comhairle come into existence—hopefully in June or July of this year—and take over the existing staffs of the county committees of agriculture and the staff of the educational arm of the Department, there will not even then be a veterinary surgeon employed by the comhairle. How could they be expected to dispense veterinary advice if they do not have even one vet on their staff?

The Minister has not denied that. The procurement of vets is not a problem because there are vets graduating from our veterinary colleges who are looking for jobs and who would be delighted to take jobs with the comhairle. When the Minister was in Opposition he had a lot to say about jobs for graduates. This is an opportunity to provide jobs for veterinary graduates in the comhairle, doing work where I believe the return for their salary would be far greater than almost anywhere else in the public service. The amount of money they would save to the Exchequer in compensation for reactors and in the general cost of disease eradication by dispensing preventive veterinary advice would be immense.

The present system will not provide the advice because there are one-third as many vets per farmer in the private practice in the west as there are in the rest of the country. Those vets have to deal with three times as many farmers as vets in private practice elsewhere. There is too great a work load on private vets in the west to be able to dispense advice as well as dealing with disease. The Minister seemed to question whether it was right for the House to give a direction to the comhairle with regard to what they should give priority to. I consider it perfectly right for the House to do that because the comhairle are a statutory body being set up by this House. The money for them will be voted in this House. If we are not entitled to give them a direction nobody is entitled to do so. There will be no shortage of advice to the comhairle from various sources outside the House. I believe the best people to give them advice are Members of this House. I believe this amendment should be accepted.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Bruton

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

"Section 15 of the Act of 1977 is hereby amended by the addition of the following:

‘(2) in the exercise of these functions the Authority shall devote special attention to farmers with smaller acreages and to farmers who are failing to a relatively large extent to realise the full economic potential of their land.'".

The purpose of this amendment is to direct the comhairle to give special attention to farmers with smaller acreage and farmers who are failing to a large extent to realise the full economic potential of their land. A large number of farmers at the moment are not achieving from their land what could be achieved. There are great divergences among different types of farmers in different parts of the country in relation to the degree of achievement of the physical potential of their land. Special attention should be given to the areas where potential is not being realised to the fullest extent. Special attention should also be given to small farmers.

Members of the advisory service are likely to be tempted to concentrate their resources on larger and better placed farmers. This temptation arises from two factors. First of all, the farm modernisation scheme, as at present constituted, means that only farmers who are relativly well off and large can achieve what is described as development status. It is only if they achieve development status that the advisory service get involved in the detailed drawing up of development grants for their farms and it is also only where they get the higher rates of grant in the east of Ireland certainly. Small farmers who are not development farmers do not get those higher grants.

The pressure of the EEC farm modernisation scheme is on the advisory service to concentrate their time on relatively larger farmers. That factor could be remedied if the farm modernisation scheme was changed. The Government included in their election manifesto a pledge that this would be done. I know that this is an EEC scheme and that any changes must get EEC approval. The Government are almost two years in office and so far we have not seen much progress in relation to changing the farm modernisation scheme. I am optimistic that something will be done. The fact that nothing has been done in relation to the farm modernisation scheme tends to push the advisory service to pay more attention to the relatively larger farmers as against the smaller ones.

The second factor, which will not be so easily remedied, is that the larger farmers have the resources to invest and are more likely to be able to adopt new technologies, better able to take risks and have more resources with which to take them. They are more likely to be in the forefront of technical innovation in agriculture. Farmers who do that, whether they are large or small, are doing the nation a favour and should be given every encouragement. The temptation will be for advisers to concentrate on farmers who are adopting the new technical methods because they are likely to learn more from them. If they have the time to pass this knowledge on to the smaller farmers that is very good. The danger is that those advisers will be so absorbed with administrative work on the farm modernisation scheme that they will not have the time to pass on what they have learned from the attention they are giving to the larger farms. We cannot remedy the situation which arises from those two factors by any hard and fast rule telling advisers they must spend so many hours per week with a certain category of farmers.

The amendment does not tie down the authority in relation to how they should exercise their functions. It merely exhorts them generally to devote special attention to the smaller farmers. I believe that a provision like this is necessary to counteract the in-built tendencies I have already described which are pushing advisers in the other direction. The adoption of this amendment would not tie down the authority to any great extent. The amendment is so drawn that it merely exhorts them to move in a particular direction. If the Minister looks at the terms of the amendment he will see that it does not tie them in a tight fashion but merely directs them in a particular way. I hope he will accept the amendment.

Mr. Gibbons

The exhortation in this amendment has been dinned into the heads of farmers who for decades have not been as ready seekers of advice as others from committees of agriculture. I have known advisers who introduced themselves to farmers at creameries and inquired if they would be interested in having a chat about their farming operations. The quest after the less developed farmers is a continuous effort. The amendment makes me think that Deputy Bruton would have the comhairle in the position of a back seat driver.

The intention of this Bill is to set up the comhairle and ask them, on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, to direct and guide the course of Irish agricultural advice and training in the future. As I said at an earlier stage, that course of advisory and training work is in the process of continuous change. There is continuous need for adaptation to the rapidly changing conditions that exist now. There is a growing recognition of the needs for specialist advice. Because individual groups are coming together to meet these specialist needs, it would be one of the main functions of this Bill to draw this area under the general tutelage of the comhairle.

To start defining this by law is an unnecessary measure. I acknowledge that, almost by definition, the people whose farms are not so well developed are obviously those who require most advice. There may be a great many human and social factors involved too and it will be for the comhairle to determine the approach to be adopted in this regard and, on the ground, for the individual committees to adopt a human and constructive role in their man-to-man relationship with individual farmers.

The penetration achieved has been remarkable. I believe that the alleged work load imposed on our advisory staff by the operation of the farm modernisation scheme is more mythical than real. How many Deputies have made an application for grant assistance under that scheme? It is as simple as making an application to the old Department of Agriculture, possibly even simpler. I have done a great number of jobs under that scheme and have never felt the need of an agriculture adviser to guide me nor can I imagine where the difficulty lies in cluttering up advisers with application forms and the consequent correspondence between the Department of Agriculture and the farmer. This alleged immersion in paper of our agriculture advisers in my opinion does not happen. To define by law the statutory obligation on the comhairle and its officers and servants to pay particular attention to a specific class, has many undesirable aspects. The worst one is that in my opinion it will intrude on the legitimate freedom of the comhairle when it is set up.

Mr. Bruton

I am not happy with the Minister's reply. Before the onset of the farm modernisation scheme it may have been possible for advisers to go out and look for business among the farmers who were not availing of the service—usually farmers who were not achieving the full potential of their land, particularly small farmers. That may have been the case up to 1974 when the scheme was introduced, but it is not possible now because the advisers are heavily immersed in paperwork under that scheme.

The Minister said this alleged work load is more mythical than real. I do not think he would get a single agricultural adviser to agree with him. He made that statement before and I have had discussions with advisers since. They are very strongly of the opinion that he is out of touch with the work they do. When he made that statement originally, in an interview in The Farmer's Journal, he was new to office. One might not have expected him to have been familiar with the work of the advisers under that scheme because it had not been in operation when he was Minister before. It is inexcusable ignorance on his part to make that statement after two years in office. This shows a culpable lack of knowledge of the working of the advisory service. In making this statement the Minister has made a very incautious move which is in contradiction of the sentiments expressed in his party's manifesto.

The Minister seemed to imply that because he was able to fill up his forms for grants under the farm modernisation scheme relatively easily, the adviser's job was also relatively easy. What he seems to forget is that it is simply not a question of the adviser checking the form—which would have been the case under the Department's old grant scheme where it was simply a question of a physical job being done and then the grant would be paid. Under the farm modernisation scheme it is not necessary solely to check that the work is done and that it coincides with what is on the application form; now it is necessary that farmers be classified as to their income, that plans be drawn up and approved and that the Department of Agriculture, and ultimately the EEC, be satisfied that any farmer who is admitted to development status and receives a grant is capable of achieving a comparable income over a certain period. This involves analysis of the farms, the stocking rate now and the stocking rate and income from the farm at a later stage.

Neither the Minister nor the farmer had to concern himself directly with these matters when filling up a form previously. Now when that is done the adviser's job is only starting. He has to examine that information and see whether the Minister or any other farmer can be admitted to development status on the basis of the information about his income and the plan for the development of the farm. This is a totally different operation from the one which the Minister or any other farmer has to undertake in merely filling up the form. It is a completely new type of job.

What the Minister said is in contradiction to something that was contained in his party's manifesto. In that manifesto they undertook to simplify the farm modernisation scheme forms. The Minister said he had filled up these forms and that they were simple. If they were that simple why did his party's manifesto undertake to simplify them? Has that promise been fulfilled? I do not believe it has. It is easy to see now why it has not been fulfilled—the Minister does not think that the forms need to be simplified. This must have slipped into the manifesto without his knowledge. The farmers were told that the Minister's party, on assuming office, would do something about what the Minister says in now a mythical problem. There is an unusual contradiction between what the Minister is saying now and what his party said about the complication of the farm modernisation scheme when in Opposition. I hope for the country's sake that they sort out whether or not the farm modernisation scheme needs to be simplified. It does not do for the Minister to say that it does not need to be simplified having stated in the manifesto that it does.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Bruton

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

"14.—Section 51 of the Act of 1977 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (2):

‘(2) Accounts kept in pursuance of this section shall be submitted annually by the Authority to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit and immediately after the audit, a copy of the income and expenditure account, the balance sheet and any other accounts kept pursuant to a direction of the Minister, together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the accounts, shall be presented to the Minister who shall cause copies thereof to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas not later than six months after the end of the year to which the accounts apply.'".

This amendment is a matter of concern not just in the case of this Bill but in any Bill establishing an independent or autonomous agency receiving public funds. The amendment requires that the annual report and accounts of the agency in question must be lodged with this House within six months after the end of the year to which they apply. If a private company receiving no public money fail to submit their accounts within 60 days after their annual general meeting they are liable to prosecution and fines up to £100 for the first offence under the Companies Act. However, when it comes to companies in receipt of public money and established under statute there are no requirements as to when they may submit their accounts and many agencies have been extremely lax in their submission. The Agricultural Institute in one year recently did not submit their accounts to the Dáil until 16 months after the end of the year. If they were a private company they would have been prosecuted if the accounts were not submitted within 60 days. They are receiving public money whereas the private company are not but merely enjoy the privilege of limited liability, a much lesser privilege than the receipt of substantial sums of public money.

There are other bodies whose accounts have not been submitted to this House since 1972. There is a group of bodies in receipt of £400 million from public assistance, namely the health boards, whose accounts have not been submitted to the House since 1972 or 1973. The Minister for Agriculture is in no way responsible for this and perhaps the health boards are not responsible either. The present or past Minister for Health may be responsible for the health boards' accounts not being submitted. They would be prosecuted if they were private companies. I am not blaming the health boards but the fact is that the accounts have not been submitted.

The only way in which any public bodies are directly accountable to this House is by means of the requirement that they must submit their accounts. They are not accountable directly by means of parliamentary question. If we put down a parliamentary question about one of these agencies the Minister can say that he is sorry, he cannot answer the question because it is a matter for the internal operation of the agency. If the reports and accounts are not submitted until a year, 16 months or, in the case of the body I mentioned, three or four years after the year to which they apply the agencies are not fulfilling the spirit of the requirement which exists in relation to the submission of accounts.

The amendment I am proposing is reasonable and merely requires that the accounts must be submitted within six months, which is a reasonable length of time. If people cannot get their accounts together within six months I do not know what kind of situation we are in. A private company have to have them ready within 60 days and why should a public authority not be able to have them ready within six months? My original amendment was for three months but in deference to the arguments put forward by the Minister about possible overcrowding in the office of Comptroller and Auditor General, and so on, I changed it. I believe that most of the delays occur in the bodies themselves and not in the Comptroller and Auditor General's office but, even assuming that there are such delays, six months is a reasonable length of time. If they cannot get their accounts to this House within that time we should ask questions about how they are conducting their business. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Gibbons

In making the arrangements for the annual report and accounts this Bill follows the pattern for all other similar semi-State organisations. When one contemplates the nature of the future organisation, consisting of 27 different county sub-units and the correlation of figures and data from all these sources, independently and separately, it is too restrictive to confine them and might well exceed the bounds of possibility to try to do so.

It does not follow that there is an unfavourable comparison between private companies and bodies such as the comhairle. My understanding is that private companies present their accounts before audit. Deputy Bruton's contribution seemed to imply that this was not the case. He said there was some substantial ground for comparison between a private commercial company and a semi-State organisation such as this consisting of statutorily elected members in 27 counties with a controlling council at one controlling place which has yet to be determined. It would be putting an undue strain on the comhairle which might not always be physically feasible.

It is a bit unreasonable to go on to say and reason that because they are not doing this in the presentation of their annual accounts, because they are not confined to six months their whole practice and the execution of their duties in their expenditure of public money is open to question. That is an unfair deduction: I do not think it possible to make that deduction.

I am looking for no more and no less than the same set of rules that governs other similar semi-State bodies and I have not heard of any serious difficulties in any of them. I am glad to say that most of them or all of them perform their duty to the country in a uniformly satisfactory way. I am confident that the comhairle will do the same. I would fear that the restriction Deputy Bruton contemplates would make for rushed work, work under pressure. My attention has been drawn to the fact that a three months preparation and three months audit of accounts period allowed for in the Universities Act, 1908 was found in practice to be unworkable and was abandoned. I would not propose in the taking of this amendment to expose the comhairle to the same hazard because it is quite unnecessary.

Mr. Bruton

The Minister adduced two arguments against the amendment, first that the comhairle would have 27 subsidiaries and it would be very difficult for them to get all the information together in six months. The second argument was that in the case of private companies their accounts have to be submitted before audit whereas in the case of a company such as this the accounts would not be submitted to this House until they were already audited. To deal with these two arguments, in the case of the first, I point out that the comhairle are not the only body with a number of subsidiaries. I happen to know of one of our largest private companies, Cement-Roadstone Holdings, who have subsidiaries not just in every county—which they have—but all over the world they have interests in companies—in the Netherlands, in America and so on—and they are able to have their accounts with their shareholders and presumably lodged in the Companies Office within two months of the end of the year to which they apply. I cannot see if Cement-Roadstone Holdings are able to do it—and they do not receive a significant amount of public funds—why a body who are to be exclusively funded by public money should not be able to do it within six months, three times as long.

The second argument adduced by the Minister related to the audit. If the Minister is claiming that there is a big difference between State companies and non-State companies and that the fact that State companies, as I have already demonstrated, have submitted accounts, in the case of the Agricultural Institute as much as 16 months late, and in the case of other agencies of which I am aware as much as four or five years late, is because these have to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General—that would seem to be the implication, that that accounts for the delay—I think the Minister would be making an unfair reflection on the Comptroller and Auditor General. To my knowledge, in the case of any questions I have put down about delays in the submission of accounts the length of time these accounts spent in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General was very small by comparison with the delay between the end of the year and their submission to the Comptroller and Auditor General. In many cases the Comptroller only has them for a month or two whereas they may have languished with the body concerned or with the Minister—who is to know?— for as much as ten or 12 months. So, in my view then the Comptroller and Auditor General's Office is not the road block in regard to the failure of bodies of this sort to submit their accounts in time to this House. The block exists in the bodies themselves because subsidiary bodies do not realise as fully as they should that their authority and ability to spend money derives from this House and from nowhere else, from the democratic decisions of this House which was elected by the people. Anybody spending public money must have it borne in on him that authority to spend that money derives from the Members of this House and if reports are required by this House in time they should be provided in time because these bodies would not exist but for the fact that this House by statute created them. In my view it is not acceptable that companies in receipt of substantial amounts of public money should be as late as I have said some of these bodies have been in the presentation of their accounts.

The comhairle are not to blame because they have not existed up to now and perhaps they will be able to have their reports in within a month or two of the end of the year. I hope this debate will draw attention and will also draw the attention of all other State bodies—there are about 60 of them at the last count to my knowledge—to the need to take account of the fact that their ultimate responsibility is to this House and if they are asked to submit accounts these should be submitted in time. Submitting accounts 16 or 20 months old is useless; they might as well not be submitted. These bodies must get the accounts in at most within six months.

This amendment requires that they be submitted within six months and is an eminently reasonable amendment. The Minister, as a Member of the House whose authority derives from the people, should be as much on my side on this issue as anybody because it is his authority as a Member of the House as much as the authority of any other Member that is being ignored by bodies which submit their accounts late. It would assist the Minister in the supervision of these bodies in as far as he is responsible for them as Minister if a requirement such as this exists. He would then have to get the accounts within four months if they were to be submitted here within six. That would help him as well as the House in the exercise of supervision over bodies of this sort. I hope that on reflection the Minister will accept the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Bruton

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

"15.—Section 52 of the Act of 1977 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (a)—

‘(a) within four months after the end of each financial year, prepare and submit to the Minister a report of the work of the Authority in that financial year and a copy of every such report shall be laid forthwith before each House of the Oireachtas'".

This is very similar to amendment No.3 which relates to a six months period in which accounts must be submitted. Amendment No.4 relates to a fourmonth period in which reports must be submitted. The difference is justified on the ground that, as the Minister said, accounts must be audited and so we are allowing two extra months for that to be done in amendment No.3 where the proposed period is six months. We are asking that the report be submitted within four months to this House. My arguments apply in this case as in the previous one. Members of the House are entitled to get this information in time: the Minister is entitled to get the information in time. If these requirements exist the Minister will have to get the reports quickly so that they can be submitted here. The amendment should be accepted, just as the previous one should have been.

Mr. Gibbons

The arguments put forward by Deputy Bruton in support of this amendment are similar to those in favour of the previous amendment. I should like to remind the House that the assembly of a satisfactory annual report by a body such as this with a deadline of four months is undersirable. It would necessarily introduce an ingredient of haste into its preparation and, if it did, it would introduce the necessary sloppiness that frequently goes with haste. I would prefer that the annual report would come out in good time after full preparation. I would not be happy if it came out a month or two earlier in a somewhat half-baked way. I look forward with great expectation to annual reports from the comhairle because they may be of the greatest interest to the farming community and those involved in advising them. I cannot perceived any reasons why the amendment should be adopted. I am advised that Deputy Bruton's use in the amendment of the phrase "the authority" is incorrect. That is irrelevant now because it is not my intention to accept the amendment.

Mr. D'Arcy

I accept that the amend ments are similar as far as our arguments are concerned, but the Minister has not made any case as to why the reports could not be made available earlier. He has told us that it is undesirable that they be brought out in haste but he has not told us when we can expect such reports. We are all aware that public bodies, particularly county councils, produce their audited accounts up to three years behind time. That is a hopeless situation. Deputy Bruton's request is reasonable. The Minister should tell us when we can expect that the reports will be made available. He has not specified any time.

Mr. Bruton

I am disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit to accept this amendment. The case is self-evident on the grounds of parliamentary sovereignty as far as public money is concerned. I regret the Minister has not accepted my argument but I have no doubt that in time he will. Other Members will also see in time that, unless requirements such as this are inserted and unless we insist on this authority, we will rapidly become more irrelevant in a whole area of activity here. We are failing to assert democratic control over a lot of matters where such control should exist. This is but a small example where such failure may lead to laxity on the part of a body. Most bodies are good and prompt in their submission of their reports but some are not and our failure to insist that standards should be the best from all is one we will regret.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Bruton

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 10, line 47, after "active" to insert:

"and with significant membership". The amendment concerns the nomination by the Minister of voluntary bodies concerned with farming who will have a number of seats on the new county committees of agriculture. I welcome the fact that voluntary farming bodies will be entitled in law to seats on county committees of agriculture. My amendment is not concerned with the principle of the issue, which is common cause among both sides of the House. That matter was first given statutory form in the Act put through the House by the Minister's predecessor. However, one problem occurs to me in relation to this. The Minister will be asked to decide what organisations are strong in the different counties. If four seats are to be allocated it will be the Minister's task to decide whether three of those seats should go to the IFA and one to the ICMSA or some other farming organisation or whether it should be two to the IFA and two to another farming organisation. He will have to decide what body is important in the different counties. That is giving the Minister considerable power to show favouritism to one organisation over another. That is not an appropriate power for a Minister to have.

I would prefer to see this matter being dealt with objectively by an outside body who would assess which organisation is important in a county and allocate the seats and not by a political person such as the Minister. I accept that a similar position existed in the other Bill but it was regrettable there also. The section states that every person other than a person chosen by the council to be a member of a county committee of agriculture shall be appointed on the nomination of such voluntary rural organisations active in the county as the Minister may by order designate. All that is necessary for the Minister to designate an organisation to have seats on a county committee is that they be active in a county. Such an organisation, if they have organisers active in a county and a small membership, may be given a seat. We propose that rural organisations active in a county and with a significant membership be given seats. That gets over the possible anomaly that the Minister might give seats to bodies which although they are active do not have a significant membership and requires the Minister to take account of membership. It will require him not to give seats to organisations on the basis of who makes the most noise but on membership. Putting such a requirement into the Bill would be a good move which would require that the Minister and his successors would act in an objective fashion.

Mr. D'Arcy

This area is still clouded. I do not begrudge the Minister the job of trying to allocate seats on the board to the various rural organisations. Deputy Bruton made an important point in relation to the allocation of seats on the board. We all know that those who make the most noise are listened to. A large number of rural organisations claim to represent the interests of the farming community and the recent statements on taxation and agriculture will lead to an increase in their number.

So far we have only heard the Minister of State's views on this matter. We have not yet heard the Minister's views and I am certainly interested in hearing them. I should like to know how the Minister will allocate the seats and to whom he intends to allocate them. The Minister may say that this is not an important matter, that an order can be made after the elections, but I should like to have this information now. We are all aware of the pulling and hauling of the political parties after county council elections. I do not know how the Minister will manage to keep politics out of this matter.

Mr. Gibbons

There will not be an election.

Mr. Bruton

These seats are not up for election.

Mr. D'Arcy

That is correct. I do not know how the Minister intends to satisfy the farming organisations. I have never liked the pulling and hauling that goes on after county council elections. Nevertheless, it will be easier for the political parties to satisfy their members than it will be for the Minister to satisfy the farming organisations. It is in the Minister's interests to clarify the situation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy D'Arcy cannot speak again on Report Stage.

Mr. D'Arcy

That is unfair.

Mr. Gibbons

The acceptance of the amendment would not improve the Bill.

Mr. Bruton

It is amazing that the Minister has failed to give an indication of what he intends to do in relation to this matter. Deputy D'Arcy asked him to explain the criteria on which he will decide the allocation of seats. His failure to make a statement in the matter, to disappear, metaphorically speaking, is consistent with his disappearances in relation to other matters.

Mr. Gibbons

It is defined in the section.

Mr. Bruton

The Minister has failed to answer Deputy D'Arcy's invitation to explain the matter.

Mr. Gibbons

Deputy——

Mr. Bruton

The Minister had an opportunity to speak.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bruton to reply.

Mr. Bruton

I am confident that the Minister will allocate the seats in a fair way. I do not believe that he will do anything untoward. His failure to say what he intends to do calls into question the manner in which the seats will be allocated. We already know that the Minister is involved in negotiations with the farming organisations. I believe the Minister should explain the division of these seats before the local elections so that people will be able to draw their own conclusions and exercise their votes in accordance with their conclusions. I am afraid that the Minister will defer making an order in this matter until after the local elections. Once the local elections are over it will not be possible for anybody to pass judgment on the Minister's allocation. That would be the cowardly way out and I sincerely hope that the Minister will not adopt this attitude. However, if the Minister sings dumb until after the local elections——

Mr. Gibbons

The Deputy is being deliberately provocative.

Mr. Bruton

If the Minister disappears until after the local elections, he will not be judged kindly.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Bill received for final consideration and passed.