I move amendment No. 43:
In page 12, line 40, after "Finance" to insert "and having taken into account the views and requests submitted to him by ACOTT".
Agriculture (Research, Training and Advice) Bill, 1988: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
SECTION 11.
Deputy O'Keeffe and I will be tired looking at each other by the time the debate on the Bill is over.
It does not matter, if we get some good results.
We have not got any so far.
We are seeking to amend this funding section to take into account views and requests submitted to the Minister by Teagasc before decisions on the finances of the Exchequer are made by the Minister and the Minister for Finance. This section goes to the core of the operations of Teagasc, because without adequate funding I do not see how the new organisation will be able to operate effectively. I do not intend to go over the background to this amendment except to mention that at the conception stage Teagasc got off to a bad start with a cut in their funding by 43 per cent. I am concerned that after birth the Minister will be able to present a more hopeful case for the new organisation.
It is important that before a decision is made on the amount of the Exchequer contribution the views and requests of the board of Teagasc are taken into account. The views of the directors and boards of ACOT and AFT were not taken into account last October and that has left us in an appalling state, with Teagasc being expected to get underway with a cut in the current year of its Exchequer financing from £35 million to £20 million. I have no doubt that my amendment will improve the Bill.
I should like the Minister to deal with two further points which are related to my amendment. My first point concerns the funding of Teagasc in the current year. To date ACOT and AFT are existing on a hand-to-mouth basis and Teagasc, which is expected to be up and running within the next month or two, will inherit the liabilities of its predecessors, ACOT and AFT. The Exchequer provision for ACOT and AFT will, I have no doubt, have been used by those constituent parts, ACOT and AFT, in the first seven or eight months of this year. The very minimum the Minister should do is indicate how in practical terms Teagasc are to operate over the balance of this year. How does he suggest Teagasc will be properly funded in the medium term, particularly from next year?
There are three issues arising out of this amendment. The first is the reasonable suggestion that, before decisions are made as to what the Exchequer advance should be in any year, the views of the board of Teagasc should be taken into account. The next is the question of how this organisation will survive after its birth. The Minister made a vague statement last February, repeated by the Minister of State when replying on Second Stage, that Teagasc would not be left short, or words to that effect. Many people in the organisation want a much clearer picture of what exactly is meant by those remarks. The third issue is how the Minister sees funding for the future, particularly in 1989 and 1990.
The position both in the short term and the long term can be dealt with on a different level. In the long term the board of Teagasc will have a major responsibility. I will try to give general guidelines as to the position in the short term and what I would envisage in the long term. The Estimate of £20 million for this year was based on certain expectations, the first being that this legislation, which we have been debating since February, would long since have been passed. We are doing much more positive work on the Bill today than at the earlier stage. Because the Bill was not completed, the Estimate for the joint authority will be inadequate. As Minister for Agriculture and Food, I am determined to make up the shortfall within whatever savings I can achieve in my Department. That is only one element. It will not be possible until much later in the year to identify the extent of those savings, particularly in relation to intervention. Figures suggest that intervention and storage costs will be somewhat less, and that will make a contribution. It will not be anything like sufficient to bridge the gap due to the delay in getting this body under way. I have had consultations with the authorities and the joint chairmen urging them to enhance as best they can their revenue this year and next year from the services they provide. I should like to place on record my appreciation of the manner in which they have responded. The indications are that revenue receipts are quite buoyant, but they will be a lot better when we have an authority who can measure the cost of services to sectors who are ready to use them. AFT's receipts for the first quarter of the year are of the order of £1.3 million and there is a State grant in respect of the first three months of £3.5 million. The difference between the two is narrowing. ACOT's receipts for the first three months of the year are £0.5 million, which is very commendable. Until we get this legislation cleared both organisations are working on overdraft accommodation, which I sanction from time to time as required. We may have to adjust, where necessary, the monthly allocations.
I have given an indication before, which I now repeat, that the Estimates were based on the expectation of a reduction of 1,000 in staff numbers through the early retirement-voluntary redundancy scheme. The scheme the Government have agreed to is a voluntary one which depends on the choice of the individual. I do not intend to break the understanding in the Programme for National Recovery. Those who remain in their posts will be paid and the Government will provide the necessary resources on a month to month basis until the new authority is in place. This is not ideal and obviously I would have preferred the earlier establishment of the authority. The staff reduction is of the order of 460 as against the 1,000 envisaged.
The new Authority will have very considerable scope and it will be a matter for them to put a value on the services they provide. They must not look simply to the existing services provided by the two organisations. Teagasc will have to advertise and sell their services by making people aware of the value of what they have to offer. Within the service area they will have to act in a commercially aggressive way. I believe they can and will do it. An area where they have great scope is product development and marketing in the food sector. Research will not be confined to product research. The most important area is market analysis. They could provide a great service by identifying market prospects across a range of countries for some of our smaller companies and co-operatives.
I know that from discussions I have had with directors of existing bodies and from representatives in my Department on both bodies who have played a very active role in all these consultations and have kept me informed at all levels, we have a good relationship with them. We are opening up a whole range of new avenues. It will be up to the new Authority to decide the scope of those services. Next year is another year in terms of the Estimates of public expenditure. I cannot anticipate at this time, any more than any Minister can, what provision will be made for the new Authority. We will be starting the Estimates examination early, as we tend to do, but I would be literally estimating an Estimate at this point and I do not think the Deputy would want me to do that.
I do not want to go back to any criticism about the delay in introducing the legislation or the fact that insufficient time was allocated for Second Stage. That is water under the bridge. We are making some progress today. The comments from the Minister were helpful from the point of view of outlining the financial position in the immediate future. Could the Minister give an estimate as to the expected shortfall in the current year, bearing in mind the level of uptake in voluntary redundancies to date? Secondly, while I do not expect the Minister to disclose Cabinet discussions as to what will happen in 1989, will the Minister agree that Teagasc and its constituent parts have already been cut not just to the bone but to the marrow of the bone and that it should be the last area to be hit with the axe in any future round of cuts? Thirdly, in relation to the amendment before the House will the Minister agree that it is sensible that before such decisions are made the views and requests of Teagasc be taken into account?
The Deputy used the amendment, and I can understand why, as an opportunity to refer to the funding. I did not address the amendment as such. The amendment is unnecessary as there is ample scope under section 13, when Teagasc are submitting their proposed estimates for the year, to put forward their views and requests then. That is what is intended to be done. These will have to be taken into account by the Minister in determining a response to that.
I would be giving a guesstimate of an Estimate as to what the shortfall might be this year if I was to give a figure and I do not think that would be helpful. It is too early to give that information for two reasons. The receipts will depend on the returns of existing services. I am encouraged by the information I am getting. I do not know what will emerge and it is too early for me to guess that. As regards the level of charges, again, I would be guessing if I was to give a figure. I can only say I am reasonably encouraged by the information available to me. The indications are — and I do not want to give a wrong impression on this — that there will be more redundancies but that would be a voluntary decision for the people concerned. Again, that element has to be taken into account.
Finally, I cannot know what the possible savings will be. If we achieve further savings in relation to intervention costs, for instance, which would be very welcome on every front, I would be guessing at this point if I were to say what it is. I would prefer not to speculate as to what the shortfall might be but there will be a shortfall and there is no question about that.
Does the Minister think that the figure of £7.5 million which I originally estimated might not be too far off the mark?
At least it is much better than £13 million which people were talking about originally. There was talk of a shortfall of £13 million, £14 million and £15 million. Perhaps the Deputy's estimate is a little short but we will have to wait and see.
I suggest to the Minister that in considering the Estimates for 1989 the base figure for 1988 should not be £20 million but should be £20 million plus, be it £27.5 million or otherwise. That is very important in the context of future decisions on the funding of Teagasc.
I am calling Deputy Martin Gibbons.
I wish to make one comment.
We cannot have a question and answer session when other Deputies are offering.
I just want to make this point to the Deputy. When the Minister makes a comment on a figure it takes on a different status from the Opposition spokesman suggesting a figure. That is the reason I cannot comment on such figures. If I make any vague comment about a figure it will be thought that that is the figure that will be involved.
I view the whole question of funding as fundamental. If we do not have adequate funding for this new body it is not going to work. Already research in AFT is under-funded. If adequate funding is not made available, advice, research and training will grind to a halt. Morale is already extremely low, as the Minister knows, and we have already lost some of our best people. The Minister will have to do what he can to make the necessary funds available.
During the earlier Stage of the Bill the Minister of State gave a very firm commitment that there would be absolutely no shortfall and no shortage of essential funds. It has been calculated fairly widely that the figure required to be provided is about £10 million more than has been provided. Given the section we are dealing with, can the Minister for Agriculture and Food now tell us that his colleague, the Minister for Finance, will provide this money, in the knowledge that the services and the functions of Teagasc cannot be carried out without this money? It is absolutely essential that it be made available. The Minister will have the full support of all Opposition parties in his approach to his colleague and to the Cabinet in seeking this funding. It is needed for staff and for all the other costs. Enough money has not been provided and I think the Minister accepts that.
The Deputy will appreciate that when the Government look at expenditure programmes they have to do so on the basis of calculation and precision in relation to that calculation. It has to be said that Government control of expenditure has been precise to the point of being almost unreal. I cannot just start to adopt new procedures in Government accounting and ask the Minister for Finance to give me "enough money". The question arises as to what precisely you are speaking of. I would have to say to the Minister for Finance: "I am not sure how much money I need but just give me enough". That is not the way Government business is conducted. As I have indicated, I am not in a position at this point to say precisely what the amount required will be but when we have that information adequate money will be provided. In the meantime we are funding on a monthly basis.
Secondly, I want to make sure that we have our terms clear. Deputy Stagg said that the Minister of State at my Department said there would be no shortfall. I do not think he could have said that because it is evident, from the delay in getting this legislation through the House, that there will be a shortfall on what is required. I was negotiating in Brussels at the time, but I assume what he did say was that whatever moneys would be required would be provided. That is different from saying there would be no shortfall, and I am saying the same thing now. The Government are very much aware of the importance of this. I discussed the question of funding well in advance with my colleagues in Government, but not to the point of reaching a decision because we cannot do that at this stage.
The point raised by Deputy Gibbons falls into the realm of argument. I have noted two points, two constants in terms of presentation, in the course of public statement on this issue. The first is that "morale is at an all-time low". There is nothing original about that statement. It is an Irish style statement that could fit any type of condition and it is being used widely here. I would like to see a little more original thinking in presentation, I am not saying in the Dáil. The second point is: what kind of people are always lost in a condition like this? The answer immediately has to be "the best people".
The brightest.
The brightest and the best are, by definition in an Irish presentation, always the people to go. I repeat: two things have arisen, morale is at an all-time low and the people who have opted for voluntary redundancy are by definition the best people.
Some very good people have gone.
It is time we faced reality and presented issues as they really are, not as global statements and generalities which do not measure up.
I have inquired regularly from the directors of both organisations, and I can understand that in a limbo period — and this limbo period has been too long, as far as I am concerned — there is apprehension and a certain degree of insecurity, but it is not true to say that morale is at an all-time low. One of the directors told me he never found his staff in such a sharp, competitive and aggressive——
(Interruptions.)
I can assure the Minister that is not so.
I do not want to have this ochón, mo mbrón, táimíd go léir ag fáil bás agus ní bheidh aon rud anseo tar éis an lá seo. We have gone long past that stage.
The damage has been done.
You can get it on the back pages, the front pages, in gossip columns, "the damage is done" and "things are awful"——
I did not think the Minister reads gossip columns.
To tell the truth, I do not and my days are not deprived because I do not read them.
I understand the apprehension felt by the staff in terms of the transition period and my concern is to get over that as quickly as possible. I believe the staff are doing a magnificent job in both areas during this transition period. I have been to these organisations and I have spoken to the staff and directors.
The Minister is talking to the wrong people.
I am sorry to speak to the "olagóners". I do not want to include Deputy Gibbons in this group, but it is for him to decide if he wants to be included. But morale is very high.
The Minister is wrong.
Rubbish.
This morning the Minister said he came from an agricultural background, but I speak with first hand knowledge about morale in the Agricultural Institute and the advisory services centres. I have close relatives in both organisations and they say morale is absolutely shattered — that is a new word I am introducing into this debate.
Not a very original word either.
If the Minister consults the directors of AFT about morale he is consulting the wrong people. The people in managerial positions are the wrong people to consult about morale. I suggest the Minister go to the people who are doing the research or advising the people.
I do not want to leave an implication——
May I remind the House that we must stick to the order already agreed. We hope to reach section 18 by 4.45 p.m. If we are to indulge in the elaboration of the kind we have heard over the last 15 minutes, I am afraid we will give very little attention to the other amendments. However, it is for the House to decide what we will do. I am calling Deputy Durkan.
May I reply to the point?
I am calling Deputy Durkan.
It would be helpful if the Minister were to accept the amendment because if a body is given a specific function and if the finance for which it depends comes from a Department or a Minister — and in this case two Ministers — is it not reasonable to expect that the views, representations and submissions made by that body would be taken into account by those Minister when they determine the advances that are to be made to that body?
This is a reasonable amendment and is valid in the sense that Teagasc will make their submission in good faith because they are given a job to do. Obviously, like local authorities, health boards and so on, the people who are given the responsibility of carrying out the function on the ground are in the best position to give some indication to the Ministers of what they feel is required and the Minister can make a decision on the basis of that submission rather than on a purely financial basis.
Deputy Stagg, relevant to the amendment, please.
On 11 May 1988, at column 1225 of the Official Report, the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy J. Walsh, said:
There will be no running out of funds. There will be no lack of essential funds for this body.
I find it extraordinary since this Bill has been lying around since last February — the Second Stage started on 18 February and ended on 11 May — that we have to rush it through the House in one day. After all that time I find it extraordinary that these bodies are working on a day to day basis — described by the Minister as a limbo period — and the Minister does not know all the variables that are involved and cannot tell this House exactly the amount of money he requires for this body for the year. I suggest that what he has seen and mistaken for high morale is a group of people fighting very strongly for survival. One of the things they need to survive is additional funding from the Department.
I am calling the Minister for what I hope will be a final comment.
While I accept the validity of the concern expressed by Deputy O'Keeffe and supported by Deputy Durkan, I said this amendment is not necessary because there is ample scope in section 13 under which Teagasc submit their proposed activities and estimates for the year, to put forward their views and requests at that stage and that they will be taken into account.
I do not want to engage in further argument, but I cannot leave Deputy Gibbons's statement on the record without repudiating it. He said that consultations with the directors are not giving me the correct flavour of what is happening in the organisations. In fairness to both directors, even had I confined my consultations to them, I could not leave the implication on them that they were not in contact with their staff. I believe that they very definitely are.
They are in their very cosy offices.
Knowing the two men concerned, their capacity and the respect given to each of them——
Perhaps the Minister would want to make the cuts in the administrative areas.
The interruptions of Deputy Gibbons are quite disorderly. Would he desist from them?
If a point has been made, I do not think that it has been made on the basis of what is called an argumentum ad hominem, an attack on many individuals, particularly when this attack is not warranted. In addition, apart from the consultation with the directors, which has been a feature, I have also had regular consultations with the authorities. I have my own staff constantly involved there. In addition, I have met ACOT personnel and An Foras personnel at many levels, locally, regionally, constantly.
So have I.
The Deputy seems to have the impression that I was confining my consultations to directors. In case that would be left on the record, I have been available regularly and have met them constantly, in Dublin, in my own home and around the country at various conferences. I do not have any member of my family involved and perhaps it might be as well because one would get a more objective opinion when they are not.
Is Deputy O'Keeffe pressing his amendment?
At this stage I have an undertaking from the Minister that he will ensure that the shortfall for 1988 will be fully covered. I also have a reasonable expectation from the Minister's remarks that he will fight the best battle possible to ensure that the difficulties of the organisation will be taken into account in settling the 1989 Estimates. The Minister has made the point that under section 13 the views of Teagasc can be taken fully into account before those Estimates are settled and on that basis I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill" put and agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Amendment No. 44 is in the name of Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 50 are related. With the agreement of the House we can take for discussion those four amendments. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 13, subsection (1), line 18, after "shall" to insert ", within one month of the receipt of such report,".
I want to make sure that, whereas there are constraints from the point of view of Teagasc to submit reports, programmes and so on, the Department also will be cognisant of the need for expeditious action on their part in dealing with any such reports. My first amendment is a simple one in relation to the laying before the House of the reports of Teagasc. I am suggesting a time limit of one month after the receipt of the report by the Minister.
With regard to amendment No. 50, I am particularly concerned that, where Teagasc submits a programme of proposed activities and estimates of expenditure for the coming financial year, these be not left sitting in a limbo awaiting a response. At the very minimum I want to see them approved before the beginning of the financial year so that Teagasc would not be in the position that they are in this year, although I know that these are exceptional circumstances. Before the beginning of the financial year they should be assured of approval for the proposed programme of activities and perhaps the proposed estimates would be either accepted or modified. That would be the most efficient way in which the organisation could be left to carry out their activities.
Basically, the same points that have been made by the last speaker are pertinent to my amendment. To sum up, we want quick decision-making and the minimum of bureaucratic and ministerial delay. The amendment proposes to put Teagasc in a position to have approval for their proposed programme before the end of the financial year to which it relates.
I am very conscious of the reasons behind the Deputies' suggestions. Very briefly, I want to convey to the House that the whole basis must be on the understanding that approval for the annual programmes would be forthcoming before the end of the year preceding the year to which it relates. That is my intention and I want to put that on the record.
That is the Minister's objective.
I want to go a step further. I do not want to tie the authority if they put forward something in September and are thinking of doing something else in June. There may be occasions when something can arise. If there are amendments to the programme, they should be considered and, it is hoped, approved if and when they arise. I want reasonable flexibility there. It is in the interests of the Authority and the Minister that this should be so. I think that I can understand what the House would want. They would want not only the Authority but the Minister and his officials to be on their toes as well. I accept that.
We know that the Minister is.
There is no hard and fast rule about the time limit for laying the annual report of State bodies before the House; in fact, I have noticed the very opposite. There is no such time limit, for example, in the case of ACOT, but I understand that there is a two month limit in the case of AFT. It is reasonable that annual reports be made available without delay. Let me suggest, as a measure of my recognition of the point, that I would be prepared to have a two month time limit acceded to in the new Authority. If we adopt the two month limit which currently applies to AFT, I shall try to get an amendment to that effect on Report Stage, which will be coming in very shortly.
I am prepared to withdraw my amendment on the basis of an undertaking from the Minister to circulate on Report Stage an amendment proposing a change from one to two months.
I am prepared to accept that now. On a point of procedure, can we adopt that now? I shall be guided by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I would be agreeable to a change to two months.
If the Deputy seeks to have his present amendment changed, to make an alteration in it now, I think that we could proceed on that basis. On the other hand, to make assurance doubly sure, I shall consult as to whether it would be wiser to have the amendment circulated and accommodate it as an amendment on Report Stage.
I am formally making that request.
If the House is in agreement now, the Deputy is entitled to amend his amendment. Does he propose to amend his amendment?
I propose to amend it from one month to two months.
I can agree.
On the amendment that I have before the House on the same section, does the Minister accept the spirit, at least, of the proposal, which is simply to write in a safeguard that the programme would have to be cleared in time for action?
I do. I would expect and require that approval would be forthcoming before the end of the year preceding the year in question.
On that basis, can the Minister accept the amendment?
No. If we spell it out in detail in all these cases of specific conditions and regulations, we will be getting into far too much detail. I assure the Deputies that that is my intention and in the consultation procedures that will be in the legislation when it will be passed, it will be my intention to ensure that that is done. Let me tell the Deputy that it is already in the legislation in respect of the AFT.
I am not suggesting that there is any cosy arrangement.
It is already in the legislation in respect of the AFT and I have not had any consultations on it.
I would like to speak to amendment No. 46 to see if what The Workers' Party propose has already been agreed between the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the spokesman for the Fine Gael Party. Provision is made in section 13 of the Bill for Teagasc to furnish a report in writing on their proposed activities and on the estimated expenditure for the following year. This report must be submitted to the Minister three months before the end of the financial year. Is the Minister now saying that that report should be submitted within one month?
No, what I am saying is that the request would be approved before the end of the year which in effect amounts to what the Deputy is proposing. It would be approved before the end of the year provided of course that the report was submitted within the timescale the Deputy mentioned. If for one reason or another they were very late in putting in their request and programme, it would be unreasonable to expect the Minister of the day to give approval. That is the only reason why I cannot tie it down.
Under our amendment the Minister would have to give approval and outline any changes before the beginning of the new financial year. We believe that this is a reasonable request and is necessary so that the new body would be able to plan their work for the year. If there were to be any delays it would make it impossible for the board to plan their activities properly. On this point we say that three months should be adequate for the Minister to consider any proposals, financial or otherwise, contained in the report. I accept that it may well be the Minister's intention to respond rapidly to any proposals which may be made.
What we are talking about here is giving approval for a programme for the following year in advance. That is what I am proposing to do. I do not want to get tied down to too many dates and if I were to agree to change that, I would be changing the accountancy procedures of Government when I would have inquiries from my own Department and other Departments. I ask the Deputy to leave it on that basis.
I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Can we now get agreement on amendent No. 44? The amendment now reads "within two months of the receipt of such report" rather than "within one month of the receipt of such report". Is that agreed? Agreed.
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 45 to 47, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 13, subsection (4) (a), line 38, to delete "subsection (1)" and substitute "subsection (3)".
This is a technical amendment which has been advised by the Attorney General to correct a drafting error in relation to subsection (3) dealing with the submission of the annual programme of activities.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 13, subsection (4), line 43, after "Finance" to insert "except in those cases where Teagasc considers it to be of an urgent nature and where the Minister gives such approval."
What I seek to achieve with this amendment is that in cases of urgency, for example, a radioactive outbreak, Teagasc would be able to get involved in testing. There is a fail safe mechanism built into this amendment to ensure that there would be proper ministerial control without undue administrative control through the administrative approval system. The Minister can rest assured that there is no attempt being made to take away from the Minister his authority. What this amendment seeks to achieve is to allow Teagasc to get involved in testing should any emergency arise. I think the Minister referred to this also earlier.
So many amendments have come in late that the numbers of the amendments on the list which I have do not tally with the numbers of the amendments on the actual final sheet.
For the information of the Minister I will read amendment No. 49 which states:
In page 13, subsection 4, line 43, after "Finance" to insert "except in those cases where Teagasc considers it to be of an urgent nature and where the Minister gives such approval".
In the circumstances this amendment is not necessary because there is provision in the subsection for Teagasc to depart from the approved programme of activities with prior ministerial approval. The amendment states "except in those cases where Teagasc considers it to be of an urgent nature and where the Minister gives such approval", and I accept that. Provision is already contained in the subsection for Teagasc to depart from the approved programme with prior ministerial approval. I hope that was implied from what I said in response to points made on earlier amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 14, lines 1 to 4 to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"(1) A person shall not disclose information in relation to the performance of (or as a result of having performed) duties as a member, or member of the staff of, or an adviser or consultant to, ACOTT or a subsidiary if he is expressly instructed not to disclose such information by ACOTT or a subsidiary.".
The staff have claimed that they would be put on the line because of the absolute requirement that there would be no disclosure without prior approval. This is odd particularly in respect of a body part of whose function is to disseminate information. On the other hand, I do accept that there is a need for guidelines and a statutory requirement in regard to confidentiality. My proposal would reverse the process. It would retain the provision in regard to the disclosure of information but this would be done in a different way. In other words, Teagasc would have to draw up guidelines as to what could and could not be disclosed. There would be an absolute requirement not to breach these guidelines. I suggest this is a reasonable compromise.
I do not accept the suggestion which has been made by the Fine Gael spokesman. I am opposed to this section because I do not think it is necessary. No reason has been given to show why it is necessary and there is no such provision in the 1978 ACOT Act. In any event the contracts which might be a source of concern would legally be subject to requirements. I do not see why staff should be put on suspicion, as it were, by such strong statutory regulations being inserted concerning their activities. They are the same staff as we had previously. We are aware of the very high standard of their work and no incident has ever come to light in which information that should not have been was divulged. I contend that this provision would create an atmosphere in which staff would be afraid to establish contact and to furnish information, which is their job. Possibly the Minister is talking about contractual circumstances. I would say that they are covered in the contracts, simply that information cleared is for the client and it is the client who pays for it.
And always has been——
I would be very anxious that the Minister would respond positively. Otherwise, we shall be voting against the section.
We, in The Workers' Party, are concerned about the implications of section 14. We would prefer to see the section deleted or at least substantially changed. Everybody accepts the need for confidentiality in the work of the new body. Confidentiality is a normal requirement of employees of any public body or indeed of a private employer. Breaches of the requirement of confidentiality would be dealt with as a normal disciplinary matter and processed through the usual industrial relations procedures, not, as is proposed in the Bill, through the courts having the possibility of imposing a fine up to £800. I know that the research staff are very concerned about ethical issues that might arise which could place them in a very difficult position if the provisions of this section remain. For example, suppose research staff discovered information in the course of their work on a particular matter — it might relate to the use of hormones and the contamination of meat or other products by radioactivity, or simply that farm incomes were better or worse than had been thought — the board of Teagasc might come under pressure from interest groups represented on their board not to disclose such information publicly. Suppose they surrendered to that pressure on the part of a particular lobby group, would such research staff not have a right and duty to make that information public? Yet, if they did so, acting out of a sense of public spirit and duty, they would end up before the courts. I contend the provisions of this section would create an unnecessary repressive attitude and an atmosphere within the new body which would not help in the creation of good staff/management relations. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this aspect.
In the first instance, I should say that this is not a statutory bar. The law is not saying that they shall not disclose information under any circumstances because, if that were the case, it would be entirely unreasonable. What I am saying is that the members of the board and staff of Teagasc, or its subsidiaries, shall not disclose any information obtained by them in the performance of their duties without the consent of Teagasc. I stress that it is information obtained in the performance of their duties only, which is a reasonable requirement. One can always anticipate extreme cases or circumstances.
It is in the interest of the Authority and of commercial bodies, who are very jealous of information they receive vis-àvis their competitors, not vis-à-vis Teagasc. I know, from having had direct consultation with some of our key commercial bodies, that if a major processor, co-operative or whoever engage the services of Teagasc, which I hope will be a feature of the implementation of this legislation, the one thing about which they will seek absolute reassurance is that no other competitor here or elsewhere will have access to that information. It is in the interests of the body itself that the people who will use the service — and remember they are very jealous and aggressively competitive, which is probably what makes them successful business people — are not prepared to risk having certain information disclosed. That is not to imply that they do not have trust——
They have always had trust.
All I am saying is that Teagasc itself, in which they do repose trust, will be the body responsible.
I do not want to argue a particular instance through to the general. However, there have been incidents I should like to think were isolated and do not represent the generally high standards of the personnel concerned; they do that. But we cannot risk that eventually, that is all. I contend that the provision is in everybody's best interests. If we adopted this amendment it would put the onus on Teagasc in every single case and, presumably, in relation to every single detail of what each individual in the organisation should or should not disclose concerning information obtained by them in the course of their work. I do not think that is what Deputy O'Keeffe wants. That would be totally unworkable.
Perhaps the Deputy could rely on the fact that it will not be the Minister who will impose the provision, rather will it be Teagasc, and we are talking about the independence and status of that body.
As the time has almost expired, I would ask Deputy O'Keeffe to indicate what he intends doing.
Seeing that we are running up to the time limit — on the basis that I will not be pressing this amendment — may I ask the Minister in relation to my proposal, which is also included in this section, whether there will be a local advisory forum in each county? Can the Minister say whether he can accept that proposal or whether he can give some kind of direction which would enable that trust to be implemented?
There is provision in the Bill, as part of a composite group, for committees. Certainly, I will convey to the Authority, as they begin their operations, that the universal expectation is that when they have settled down — because they cannot do it immediately — they would propose to establish, at whatever local or district level they deem appropriate, a consultative group. I consider that to be essential and I will convey that aspiration to them. I do not want to tie their hands in advance. I do not want to say to them: you are now obliged to be involved with the structures——
As long as the Minister is agreeable that there will be local advisory consultants, that is all right.
Yes, I feel very strongly about that. That is the reason the provision is included in the Bill.
As it is now 4.45 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of this day: "That sections 14 to 18, inclusive, are hereby agreed to". Agreed?
No.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 19.
We now proceed to section 19, amendment No. 58 in the name of Deputy O'Keeffe. I observe that amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 61 are related. With the agreement of the House, we shall discuss those four amendments together. Agreed.
Mr. O'Keeffe
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 14, subsection (1) (a), to delete lines 43 and 44.
We are talking here about the entitlement of the Minister to give directions to Teagasc. My amendment provides that lines 43 and 44 be deleted from subsection (1) (a). Whatever about the appropriateness of the Minister being entitled to give directions — and I do not totally reject the concept — it appears to me that it is not appropriate that the Minister should issue a direction to Teagasc to refrain from providing certain services or from carrying on certain activities. Remember, there are all the other restrictions already in place. For example, they must produce their report at the end of the year, before the beginning of the financial year they must produce their programme of activities and an outline of their expenditure for that year and so on. It does seem to me to be very heavy-handed that in the middle of the year the Minister should then be prepared to send a summons, as it were, to the headquarters of Teagasc saying "stop".
Let me be clear and say I am not pointing the finger at the present incumbent of the office, but there is a danger of ministerial abuse of power in those circumstances. There have been some suggestions that something of a similar kind occurred in relation to the Nuclear Energy Board in the not too distant past; I will not go into the merits or demerits of that. It seems inappropriate to provide a vehicle which is capable of ministerial abuse. It is entirely unnecessary in the context of the already tight controls that are there.
Amendment No. 59 falls into the same category. The Minister is entitled to issue a directive to refrain from incurring expenditure on certain services. Again, this is all in the context that Teagasc, before the start of the financial year, will have to produce their programme of activities and give a detailed account of expenditures. It is ludicrous that the Minister should have the power, during the course of the year, to upset the entire apple cart and interfere with expenditure proposed which has already been approved by himself and by the Minister for Finance. Here I can sense the unseen hand of the Department of Finance gleefully thinking that, on a daily basis, they will be able to call for a direction to be issued to chop the expenditures already approved for Teagasc. Not satisfied with the damage that may already have been inflicted as happened this year in their overall expenditure, not satisfied with the fact that the absolute details of expenditure have to be approved in advance, they still want to retain this power during the course of the year. It is altogether inappropriate.
We are establishing a body that needs to have some degree of autonomy, that is spancelled hand and foot already in relation to the legislation. There are already 45 instances of ministerial control over Teagasc providing no opportunity whatever for them to stray from the straight and narrow. I suggest to the Minister that it is entirely appropriate that these two provisions in relation to ministerial directives should be deleted at this stage to allow Teagasc some degree of freedom in relation to their day-to-day activities.
I rise to speak on amendment No. 60. Section 19 gives the Minister what really amounts to dictatorial powers over the new body. Under this section the Minister will be able to order Teagasc to provide specific services or to refrain from providing specific services, to incur expenditure or to refrain from incurring expenditure, or to reduce expenditure, to refrain from making changes for specified services or to make variations in the charges for specified services. In other words, he will be able to direct almost every possible area of activity of Teagasc.
We do not believe the Minister should be given these powers without being subject to some sort of restraint or power of recall being given to the Dáil. Otherwise, there is little point in setting up an independent body with an independent board. We might just as well make the Minister the official chief executive of Teagasc. The enormous powers the Minister is being given which, in effect, amount to the ability to change the terms of the Bill, should be the subject of ultimate approval by the Dáil and this could be done by requiring a positive vote of approval for each direction as required in our amendment or giving the Dáil and the Seanad the power to annual any direction as provided in the amendments.
I am very strongly of the opinion that democracy is about the best system that has been devised to date for ruling one another and it is absolutely essential, with that system, that Parliament is primary, that it has the absolute authority. Next to that are the Ministers appointed by Parliament. It is right that the Minister should have authority, in our name, with all areas where public funding is involved. I would say that aspects outside of that should be involved as well but many people would not agree with me on that. The State should be involved in areas other than those where public money is involved, but certainly where public money is involved——
Take your hand out of our pocket.
Where public money is involved, as in this case, it is absolutely correct that the Minister should have authority, but I would temper that always by saying he should inform the House that gave him that authority of how and when he has made decisions. That is all my amendment is suggesting, that he simply places before the House for its information any instructions given under this section so that we will be aware of what is being done on our behalf and when. I certainly would not attempt to curb the Minister any further than that.
Deputies could be understandably apprehensive in a certain scenario but I can assure them that this does not exist in this case. What we have passed already provides for the approval of programmes by the Minister. That, by definition, means the Minister can approve or not approve of a programme. As is written in the Bill, it is the balance of one with the other, to provide services or to refrain from providing services etc. If there is any limitation it is imposed on the Minister, and properly so, because he must do that in writing and I would imagine, though it does not specifically say so, that he must give reasons in writing.
The next section deals with incurring expenditure or refraining from incurring expenditure. That is what is involved. The House has already given the Minister authority to do this. If anything, what is here is a constraint in that the Minister must do it in writing. I believe that is proper because the Authority are entitled to have a formal statement of a Minister's decision to reject as distinct from approving a programme.
The Deputies can read all kinds of other things into it — and I am not trying to say that anybody is trying to dream up things. I understand Deputy Stagg's point that when legislation is being framed people have the right to be reassured about their legitimate concerns and apprehensions. That is our function here. I do not belong to the school that says if the Minister says it is the case it becomes automatically the case because the law is there and must be interpreted. Any judicial interpretation of this will see it as a legal formality whereby the Minister conveys his disapproval of programmes in writing and it is an essential part of what we have already passed.
I would not want it to be any more than that. If I thought these powers were going to be used in a whimsical way by a Minister because there was a mood in the Department to show people who was boss, I certainly would not want to be part of it. A research and advisory body should not be subject to that kind of whim.
If I were to withdraw this I would have to go back and change all the other sections. This is a safeguard. The power to approve involves the right to disapprove.
Would the Minister not accept he is confusing the powers which are being conferred on him under the Bill? The Minister rejects these amendments on the basis that it would upset the other powers. The case for these amendments is made by the very existence of the other powers. Under section 13, Teagasc is in a position where at the beginning of any financial year it may not carry on any activity or incur any expenditure unless the report previously submitted has been approved, not just by the Minister but by the Minister for Finance. At the beginning of the financial year, because of the powers conferred on the Minister under section 13, Teagasc cannot lift a finger without having had their programme of activities and revenue estimates fully approved. Why then is there a need for the additional power, which is totally separate from section 13, under section 19 whereby a Minister — we are enacting legislation not just for the Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy; I am not sure how long or how short will be his tenure of office — can, in addition to the powers contained in section 13, at any stage during the year demand that legitimate activities, already approved by Teagasc, be discontinued? That seems to me to be gilding the lily from the point of the view of departmental control over the new body.
It would be inherently repugnant to what is contained in the section to refuse to sanction additional activities which were already approved. The Minister cannot have it both ways; if he has approved it, he has approved it. This could not be used to say that what I have already approved I am now going to disapprove. I cannot envisage all the occasions on which this arose. I indicated in the course of other sections that you have a programme of approval by the end of the year for the following year. By definition that allows the Minister to say: "I am approving this much of it, but this I am not approving". If that is to be done, it should be indicated in writing. If they want to incur expenditure on certain programmes we can say "yes" to 90 per cent or "no" to 10 per cent, and that should be indicated in writing. The other point is that from time to time approval may be given outside of the annual programme for incurring certain expenditure. That is a flexible provision, and that is what is envisaged here. They can get approval and a direction in writing to provide specified services or, alternatively, to refrain from that. That is not the annual programme, but it could well be in line with the annual programme.
Sections 4 and 5 empower Teagasc to incur expenditure of specified amounts or to increase by specified amounts their expenditure on specified services or specified activities or, as the case may be, to carry on certain activities. As a natural consequence of that, if you have the authority to tell them to go ahead and incur that expenditure we must have, by definition, otherwise it is not a ministerial function or discretion, the authority to say: "No, you do not" and that is how you tell them to refrain from incurring expenditure. One follows by definition the other. There is balance and counter-balance. If you have one, the other follows automatically; otherwise the primary authority is meaningless, because you do not have any discretion and you cannot say "No". I do not think that is what the House wants me to lay down for all Ministers: that they cannot say "No" and that they cannot give reasons in writing as to why they will not say "No."
Does the Minister see a difficulty about placing before the House, as is indicated by my amendment, any such instruction which he might give under this section? Is there some reason the Minister does not say "yes"? I do not see any difficulty about it; it gets over all the fears which I have heard expressed. I hope the Minister can simply say "Yes" and that he would be prepared to lay before the House, or to publish in the House, any such instructions which might issue under the section.
It would be illogical to say to the Minister that you have the right to approve, but that does not involve the right to disapprove; you have the right to sanction expenditure, but that does not involve the right to refuse to sanction expenditure. I cannot see how one should not be an immediate and obvious corollary of the other. What must be done in relation to the case where the Minister would refuse to sanction — I do not envisage that happening — is that he must give it in writing. I do not think there is any other issue involved here. There does not seem to be any problem in relation to the decisions which we have already taken, the range of actions which are envisaged and the ministerial authority. It is quite likely, and I am not in the business of speculation, that, with the changing demands in what is a revolutionary and dramatic period of change in agriculture research, the question might arise as to whether they would or would not engage in some new type of research in relation to enhancement of milk yields — this is already going on and there are major arguments about it — the use of certain injections into cattle which would enhance yields to the point that people are apprehensive about the actual balance of hormones in animals. It might well be that the Minister would say: "No, we are not getting into that business. There are good health reasons why we should not". They would seek from the Minister advice and direction at that time and he would advise them not to engage in that research. If the Minister is required to give approval to incur expenditure, surely by definition that means that the Minister must equally be required to express disapproval on certain heads of expenditure.
Is there a danger that, from the point of view of curtailment of funds, the Minister might at any given time decide that an operation was too expensive?
I suppose that danger is always there. The Deputy is right in mentioning that point. But that danger would be there in any event and it would have to be addressed at the beginning of the year when they present their annual programme.
But as things move on during the year——
Like every group involved either in management or enterprise — this applies to the semi-State as well as to the private sector — ideally they would plan their programmes at least on a year to year basis, if not on a multi-annual basis. Things can happen during the year which would not have been envisaged at the beginning of the year and they might want to make a new proposal.
Or the proposal might turn out to be more expensive.
If that happens in the course of the year, as I have already indicated, that is covered in the legislation. They can actually come back and seek approval for an enhancement of the fund. By and large, it is at the beginning of the year or, rather at the end of the previous year, that the approval or the disapproval will be conveyed. If in the course of the year they decide to seek more funds, the Minister must be in a position either to sanction it or, on the other hand, to withhold his sanction.
The Minister has not addressed himself to the question which I raised. Do I take it that that is a refusal to address the matter contained in amendment No. 61? Having done what the Minister has the power to do under this section, I would ask that the matter be placed before the House.
I did not deliberately avoid that question. That would actually be making a meal of it. I appreciate that the Deputies spent a full day on the Committee Stage, but let us acknowledge that, even then, the constraints on our time and on our level of knowledge are very real. If we have to ask the elected representatives to address themselves on a day to day basis about why a Minister for technical or other reasons refused to convey approval to the authority, Teagasc, we will be bogged down beyond all reason. If the Dáil, as the assembly of the elected representatives of the people, is going to take on itself an intervening role between a Minister and semi-State bodies, it is going to take on a great deal more than we will be capable of discharging. Already we are overloaded. We have not the facilities to do the job in the way Deputy Stagg would want us to do it. We cannot have each such approval put in the formality of an approving order in the House; that would not be feasible.
I am not suggesting an order for approval in the House. It is simply an order effectively for publication, or for making it available for the information of Members of the House, to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas——
No.
——to allow this House to disagree with the Minister occasionally. I envisage that very seldom will this section be required by the Minister. It will be a very occasional occurrence. It is not a matter of a paper mountain arising from my amendment.
I am totally in support of what Deputy Stagg says in relation to the role of this House. Often when someone is sitting in a ministerial bench he changes his views suddenly. Fortunately, I have been sitting on both sides of this House for quite a while. However, looking through the terms of the amendment Deputy Stagg will see that he is introducing a standard provision. I see nothing wrong with the standard provision, but the amendment provides that: "Any such directions in writing by the Minister arising out of subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas"— that is the standard formula of words —"as soon as may be possible after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the direction is passed by either such House"— there it is really inviting the standard approach most before the House: a debate here on an issue as to whether a Minister and a semi-State body have communicated properly —"within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the direction is laid before it, the direction shall be annualled accordingly..."
I am sorry from the point of view of the notetaker that I am not reading this carefully and deliberately. I am suggesting that Deputy Stagg's amendment is quite clear. I am just rushing through it, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
That is the standard classical formula, and I think it is inviting the elected representatives to involve themselves in an area in which they have never previously been involved.
I want to continue the point, but I will not labour it further. The intent is to ensure that when the Minister makes decisions under the powers he will — and should — have as Minister, the Dáil would know about it. Does the Minister see any other way under the legislation that the Dáil will know when he makes a decision? The mechanisms are already in place if any Members of the Dáil want to bring matters to the attention of the House. There are various formulae for that and, if they do it the wrong way, the Ceann Comhairle will correct them.
I mentioned on Second Stage and I am glad to say again — and it applies to other things as well as the TB scheme — that in delegating this responsibility to the Teagasc board so that they can discharge their function without having to look over the Minister's shoulder, I am not suggesting that the Minister is entitled suddenly to wash his hands to the point that he is not answerable. I will give two assurances: (1) in so far as a Minister is mentioned in legislation, he is answerable by definition and by obligation to this House, and must be so, and can be questioned in this House and must be liable and amenable to answer that question. There is no law — and I would not want to introduce one — whereby a Minister has power under Statute and then does not have to answer to the elected representatives. (2) I want to place formally on the record that there will be the annual report and that that report will have to be laid before the House — that is standard practice — or, if not, it may be raised at Question Time or wherever else.
I have two things to say. First, we are under time constraint and a number of us are very interested in the Schedule in particular and matters in relation to the board that we want to discuss. We are under the time limit, we have half an hour or so, and if we do not get through the sections we will not reach the Schedule.
Secondly, I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurances in relation to his accountability to the House. He reminds us that the report has to be circulated and made available to the Oireachtas. On that basis I am prepared to withdraw amendments Nos. 58 and 59.
A list under the provisions of this section of the Bill will be a very short part of the Teagasc annual report. If the Minister will assure me that will be contained in it, I will happily withdraw my amendment.
I am not in the best position to say "No". On the other hand, I will fail in my obligation if I say here that I can envisage every occasion where it can be acted upon, but I am not in that position. I assume the annual report will cover these matters but I cannot specify that it will. Let me indicate to Deputies that this is already happening in respect of programmes for ACOT. Ministerial control involves ministerial refusal and that happens all the time.
I have no difficulty about that.
I hope the Deputy will understand I cannot give him a formal guarantee only because it would be wrong of me to do so if I cannot envisage every possibility.
The Minister can give a direction.
With regard to amendment No. 60, having listened to questions and replies given, I am not happy about the matter. Consequently, I am not in agreement with that section because I do not understand why when you set up a board the Minister will still retain the power he has under section 19 of the Bill without being liable to be questioned about it by the Dáil.
Let me sum up. Amendments Nos. 58 and 59, in the name of Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, are withdrawn. Amendment No. 61, in the name of Deputy Stagg, is withdrawn.
It is not withdrawn.
Amendment No. 60 is not withdrawn.
I have one point to make to Deputy Stagg, which may or may not influence his opinion on it. Regarding the report, it will be a matter for the board of Teagasc to decide what they will put in the report. It will not be the Minister who decides that.
You can cover it.
That is fair enough.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 59 not moved.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 15, subsection (2), line 20, after "section 13 (5).", to insert the following:
"Where it is proposed to make a direction under this section, a draft of the direction shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and the direction shall not be made until a resolution approving of the direction has been passed by each such House.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 15, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) Any such directions in writing by the Minister arising out of subsection, (1) and (2) of this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be possible after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the direction is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the direction is laid before it, the direction shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.".
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 84.
Tá
- Bell, Michael.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- McCartan, Pat.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn
Níl
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- McCoy, John S.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Swift, Brian.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Howlin and Bell; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Amendment No. 62 not moved.
Section 20 agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Amendments Nos. 63 to 66, inclusive, not moved.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Amendments No. 69 and 70 not moved.
Section 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Amendment No. 71 not moved.
Section 26 agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Amendment No. 72 not moved.
Section 28 agreed to.
Section 29 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
On the First Schedule there is an amendment, No. 73, in the names of Deputies De Rossa, Mac Giolla, Sherlock and McCartan and amendments Nos. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80 and 81 are related.
I move amendment `1arNo. 73:
In page 18, lines 36 and 37, to delete paragraph 2 and substitute the following:
"2. Teagasc shall consist of a Chairman who shall be appointed by the Minister, and 10 ordinary members, 6 of whom shall be appointed by the Minister in accordance with paragraph 7 of this Schedule and 4 of whom shall be elected by members of the staff of Teagasc."
The purpose of this amendment is to retain the objective of industrial democracy and worker participation in State boards. It is extraordinary when we have been endeavouring to extend the scope of worker participation in a number of companies and State bodies that we should now form a new State company without making any provisions for worker participation on the board. It is particularly strange when this Bill is merging two bodies, one of which already has two worker representatives on its board. Surely the principle should be retained in establishing this new board.
There is widespread support for the right of the staff to elect representatives to the board. It is my understanding that the IFA have expressed their support for the principle of worker participation on this board. I can see no opposition except from the Minister. Everybody else seems to be in agreement. Other State boards have introduced some limited form of industrial democracy by electing representatives to their boards. This has been recognised as well worth while and a good development in industrial relations leading to the more efficient working of the board. It has also given workers a greater sense of involvement and a greater appreciation of difficulties which may arise.
The advisory committee on workers participation, which included representatives of the trade unions, the semi-State sector and the private sector, state in their report that all members of the committee share the conviction that increased employee participation is desirable, both for the personal development of the workers and for the benefit of the enterprise. Other companies have found it to be an excellent development for all concerned.
The Bill provides for a board of 11 people. Our amendment simply provides that four of these should be elected by the workers in the company. The most important resource will be the human resource, the people concerned in the development of the company. It is not unreasonable to request that these people be represented on the board.
I take it we are discussing the various amendments in relation to the board. I was not happy with the manner in which the board is to be selected, as I indicated in my speech on Second Stage. My amendment caters for the position of organisations such as the IFA, ICMSA, Macra na Feirme, ICOS and the ICA so that they would have an input to the establishment of the board, not merely at the behest of the Minister of the day. The Minister has largely met the point in relation to those organisations in the amendment he has proposed.
My amendment also covers the staff. While I would not go as far as my colleague, Deputy Mac Giolla, it is important that the staff should be represented on the board. It would be useful if the Minister could give an indication about the appointments he proposes to make under section 7 (a).
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy. The information he is seeking may be provided later. It is now 5.45 p.m. and I am required to put the question.
Could the Minister indicate that the staff situation will be taken into account?
I take the points made by the Deputies. I will elaborate later.
On that basis I am prepared to accept the ministerial amendment.
On a point of order, my amendment has been reached, although I have not had an opportunity to move it.
I am prepared to accept Deputy Stagg's amendment to substitute "shall" for "may" in paragraph 10(1) of the First Schedule, as suggested in his amendment.
The question is: "That the amendment set down by the Minister for Agriculture and Food to the First Schedule is hereby made to the Bill and that the Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee and is reported to the House."
Question put and agreed to
I have no amendments on Report Stage, therefore we will proceed to Fifth Stage.
By common consent this Bill should be dealt with as quickly as possible but there are a few points outstanding which we should like to clarify.
I indicated at the end of Committee Stage that I was disposed to accept an amendment from Deputy Stagg. That would allow us to discuss the issues involved on Report Stage. It is a minor amendment which deals with terminology.
We are talking about two different amendments.
I am talking about amendment No. 81.
I am referring to amendment No. 74.
On a point of order, in view of the agreement on a number of amendments, is it possible for the House to recess for a brief period to enable the Minister to bring forward drafting amendments to meet the points he has conceded?
I have accepted them. They are incorporated.
To assist Members, we cannot of course go through the Bill section by section on this, the Fifth Stage, but it is permissible to discuss briefly the amendments in connection with the First Schedule about which some of you are concerned and to which the Minister has adverted.
I did not have the opportunity — I think it is a matter that the House would want me to refer to — of dealing with amendment No. 77 which has now been incorporated in the omnibus resolution passed at the end of Committee Stage. There are elements in that which have been addressed by colleagues in the House. I would like to use this occasion to indicate the purpose of amendment No. 77, which was adopted and colleagues may wish to pursue this by making points.
Obviously, considerable discussion has taken place in relation to the constitution of the board and how the board would be nominated, delegated or selected as the case might be. I have listened to arguments on all sides and I have decided I must maintain a balance. On the one hand, the most forthright and, I would have to say, persuasive statement against a delegate representative on the board was made by my predecessor in this office, the former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Deasy. In a very persuasive way he demonstrated from his personal and political experience and conviction that he would be totally opposed to the notion that this board would be a delegate board, that anyone would be there in a delegate capacity. That was the position I introduced initially. I am obliged to Deputy Deasy for the very cogent manner in which he demonstrated the reasons which are on the record of the House.
I recognise, as I hope others will, that what we want to do here is to embrace as effectively as possible the totality of interests that are obviously involved in this very important area. I acknowledge that the farm organisations, Macra na Feirme, ICOS and so on, have a very specific role to play but I do not want to name them in the Bill because in the future changes could be made. There could be another organisation actively engaged in rural development that I do not know about at this point and, therefore, I do not want to name them in the Bill. I have not so done and I hope the House will understand that. What I have done — I hope it will commend itself to the House and to all interested organisations — is introduced an amendment which has now been adopted. I would like, for the purpose of facilitating debate on the Final Stage, to say that my purpose in introducing that amendment is that the five persons to be nominated for appointment as members of Teagasc will be nominated by such organisations as the Minister may determine that are representative of persons engaged in agriculture or the promotion or development of the agricultural industry. The Minister of the day would determine that these organisations are the ones that are representative of agriculture or the promotion or development of agriculture as defined in the Bill. That extends to the agri-food sector.
The Minister may appoint as a member of Teagasc one or more persons nominated under this paragraph by such an organisation, in other words, IFA, ICMSA, Macra na Feirme or whatever. They would then nominate one or more persons, depending on what the ministerial power would be, or they could be nominated by a group, which would be designated by the Minister, of such organisations aforesaid. The purpose of the last part of that sentence is that I cannot anticipate now what may happen ten years down the road. There could be a co-ordinated group of organisations involved in rural development or agricultural activity or research. I thought it would be appropriate to cover that possibility. This is meant to achieve the accommodation between the one view, if I may call it that for the purpose of presentation, the view that each organisation shall be entitled to nominate the person they want on that board and the other view that they have no such right. I am saying the Minister will nominate organisations and that they can nominate people. The Minister can then decide whether he accepts the people. That is the right balance. By and large he or she will not want to go into confrontation but will accept the nominations from the organisations.
To come back to what Deputy Stagg said, this House only has an authority deriving from the parliamentary representatives and the Minister derives authority from them. I do not think any Minister should ever concede that authority to any group. Therefore, I hope it is an accommodation of legitimate interests of each sectoral group but the amendment has been tabled in consequence of ministerial responsibility.
In regard to what Deputy Mac Giolla has said, I do not want this board, which will have a major function in the future development of agriculture and the agrifood industry, to be constituted on the basis that a different group will represent staff, the farmers, ICOS and the Minister. I do not want that kind of board and I do not want to see staff representatives as such. I know some people will agree with this and some will disagree but I am giving my own personal and official position and I want to be honest and open about it. I disagree with it and I reflect, in my presentation, the Government position. Let me reassure Deputy Mac Giolla that I would regard it as almost bizarre if the appointments to the board did not reflect the professional capacity and qualification of the people we want to draw on. I would find that an 11-person board would be almost unthinkable or bizarre if there was not on that board a person who would otherwise be qualified to represent staff.
That is weak.
It is not weak. If I am picking 11 people for the board of ACOT I would think it very strange if I did not find one person from the professional people who are best qualified to be represented on that board. If the Deputy finds that weak I do not find it so.
It is very weak in comparison to what the Minister is doing away with.
We are dealing with a different basis. I want to see the people appointed on the basis of professional competence and not on their staff associations.
It is an indication of the way officials work in regard to worker participation.
This is not about worker participation. Worker participation is on the basis of elections; this does not deal with elections.
We are asking that those people be elected.
I wish to make one final point and it is not to be regarded as a sop to Deputy Stagg in the circumstances. I am disposed to accept that part of Deputy Stagg's amendment No. 80, which would substitute the word "shall" for "may" and to that extent only. That, in itself, is acknowledging what he is suggesting.
I am using this procedure to enable the House to comment on the final elements of this Bill and I am obliged to the Chair for allowing me to do so. This is the balance not just between my opinion and the Government's opinion but between the opinions expressed in this House. There is an obligation on me to find that balance and I think I have done so in this amendment.
I want clarification on what the House has agreed. We are on Report Stage and we are going to treat amendments which were down for Committee Stage as amendments on Report Stage. This means that Deputies are accepting the rules which apply to Report Stage, that is a Member, other than the Member who moves the amendment, may speak only once. The Minister has made an opening address. Can I take it that Members will make their contributions and we will then ask the Minister to reply. Is that agreed? Agreed. I am calling Deputy Stagg to set the exemplary headline.
In line with the guidelines you have just laid down, and which I accept wholeheartedly, I want to refer to Committee Stage amendment No. 74 and the Minister's Committee Stage amendment No. 77 which has been incorporated in the Bill.
I am very disappointed that from what the Minister has said it appears the policy of worker participation in State and semi-State bodies is no longer Government policy. My amendment proposes a continuation, not an improvement, of the status quo in relation to workers' representation on the board. At present the ACOT workers elect worker directors to their board and they have given an assurance in this Bill that they will have no less favourable conditions than they enjoy at present. If they cannot elect people who represent them to the board of their employing body, then they will have less favourable conditions of employment.
I want to strongly put the case in favour of my amendment and of the proposition that when workers have representatives on the board it is a positive thing for the enterprise. When people are involved in making decisions that affect them, I believe they carry out those decisions more effectively. That is basically the concept behind the extension of democracy which is worker participation.
I am seriously concerned that the Minister is heading for a situation where various interest groups, specifically interest groups of consumers of the service to be provided by Teagasc, will have representation on the board. If the Minister is agreeable to the workers having their views reflected on the board, the best way to do that is to allow the workers to elect their representatives and to inform the Minister of the names and let him appoint that person or persons. My proposal is not an advance on the policy of worker democracy, it is simply a continuation of the status quo as laid down in the ACOT 1977 legislation.
I ask the Minister to look at this matter again. I feel so strongly about the right of workers being taken away that I will oppose the Bill on Final Stage if this or something along these lines is not conceded.
I want to comment on the remarks made by the Minister and I would like clarification from him. I accept that what he says is correct as far as he is concerned and that he would act in such a manner, but I want to be clear about what a Minister for Agriculture and Food, not this Minister, would be directed to do under Committee Stage amendment No. 77 which says:
(b) 5 shall be persons nominated for appointment as members of Teagasc by such organisations as the Minister may determine—
The Minister will determine the organisations and the organisations will nominate the five members. In determining the organisation the Minister must see that they are "representative of persons engaged in agriculture"— I presume the Minister is aware that agricultural workers as well as farmers come under this heading —"or the promotion or development of the agricultural industry;". This is a huge industry and in the food policy set out in the Programme for National Recovery it is the intention of this Government to make it even bigger because the food processing industry and the industry based on agriculture is to be the major job creation effort in this Government programme. The Minister will agree that among the organisations engaged in the agricultural industry would be trade unions which probably represent the majority of people engaged in the promotion or development of the agricultural industry.
When referring to organisations the Minister mentioned the IFA, the ICMSA and such. That worried me. Was his thinking simply on the basis of the IFA, the ICMSA and such like? It is not clear what organisations the Minister is being instructed to decide on when making these appointments. The Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy, said it would be bizarre if a Minister did not see the professionalism of people engaged in the industry and ensure that they would be represented, but he was thinking of professions. That also worries me.
The Minister is against the election of worker representatives to the board — and says the Government are opposed to the election of workers to boards of companies. That is an extraordinary statement, as Deputy Stagg said, in view of the fact that the Worker Participation Act was passed by this House to ensure that workers are elected——
I did not say that.
It is my recollection, and it was Deputy Stagg's recollection too, that the Minister is against worker representatives being elected to boards. Looking at the amendment before us, I am asking the Minister to tell us if this means a Minister for Agriculture and Food will have to take into account trade unions or representatives of workers' organisations either directly in the agricultural industry — farm workers — or in the agricultural processing area. Will Committee Stage amendment No. 77 ensure that Ministers for Agriculture and Food will take those organisations into account as well as purely farmer organisations?
It appears that the Minister has taken into account the views expressed, not just by the farming bodies but by ourselves in Opposition on Second Stage. He has produced this amendment which I have not discussed with any of the farm bodies but which I believe, subject to discussion, may largely meet the concerns that they express. There are, however, some points that need to be teased out in connection with it. Would the Minister when replying indicate whether he would propose, in dealing with the five people to be nominated under this provision, to designate just five organisations and would he ask those five organisations to nominate one person? On the other hand, would he designate perhaps more than that number and ask such organisations to nominate more than one person so that there would be an overall pool from which he would then select? I am not quite clear as to how he proposes to implement the powers, as it were, that he now takes under this amendment. To some degree it models an amendment put down myself in which I specify five farm organisations — the IFA, the ICMSA, Macra na Feirme, ICOS and the Irish Countrywomen's Association. I do not know if the Minister has in mind taking on board the spirit of my amendment and designating those five organisations. Could he clarify his intentions? That would clear the air quite a bit.
In relation to staff, again I would like the Minister to be a little more specific. The Bill as originally framed made no reference to staff at all. The amendment which I proposed provided for consultation with representatives of the staff. I believe — and I am told — that the experience of having members of the staff on the board, particularly with regard to AFT, has worked very well. I am told that a very good contribution has been made by those members of the staff in board discussions. From that point of view it seems sensible that that good relationship which has been developed should be continued. As regards whether it should be done as proposed by Deputies Stagg and Mac Giolla through a system of election or otherwise, at this stage we may not have much option.
I want at this stage a clear commitment from the Minister that when these 11 people are nominated there will be one member of the staff, at least, among them. That would set a lot of minds at ease although it may not totally satisfy those who feel that there must be written into legislation a process of election and so on. To me, it is the end result that counts. I genuinely believe that there should be on that board at least one, if not more, persons who are members of the staff. It would set my mind considerably at ease. Could the Minister give me a solid undertaking and assurance that that will be the situation?
I can readily appreciate the Minister's attempt to accommodate in so far as is possible, the various requirements in the appointment of members of the board. He mentions such organisations as the Minister may determine and that a representative be a person engaged in agriculture, etc. That is very laudable. The structure and membership of the board will have a major bearing on the success of Teagasc. I would sincerely hope that the Minister will carry through exactly what he has indicated here in the House and will not deviate from that, other than to improve it, if anything. In that connection, I might suggest, following on what my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, has just said, that there are two or three ways in which members can be nominated by various voluntary bodies. The bodies concerned in this case would have five nominees. Each body could be requested to nominate a person, or each body could be requested to nominate two, three or more persons from whom the Minister could pick the membership of the board. The latter option is what applies in the case of appointments to hospital management and development committees and hospital boards as far as the health boards are concerned — by way of passing reference. It has been suggested in the past that that system is somewhat open to abuse.
In the spirit in which the Minister has just spoken and again taking the spirit of the amendment in his own name, No. 77, in order to progress that amendment to its natural and logical conclusion, the reasonable thing to do would be — having first agreed on the broadest possible number of nominees representative of the various voluntary bodies, and that should also have provision for representation from Teagasc in this case — that the Minister would then accept the nominee of the individual nominating body rather than have a multiplicity of nominees from whom he will then select. In order that the Minister — any Minister at any time — would have the confidence of the organisations who are likely to nominate, it is essential that the nominee or the chosen person of that nominating body would be acceptable to the Minister, rather than have the Minister deciding for the organisation that he would accept A and B but would not accept C.
It would be in the interest of the success of Teagasc that the Minister would do his utmost to ensure that he could go as far as possible towards accepting the word of the nominating bodies, in that the names that they would submit in their opinion would be the best possible people to serve in their interest on the board. As I have said, that would also extend to the possibility of accommodating the staff of the new body, on the basis that there could be a useful two-way process of communication within the board, and staff representation in this sense would be there for a constructive purpose, that of relaying to the board the conditions, as they see them, of staff and the circumstances in which they operate on the ground. The board of Teagasc would then have first-hand information, and the Minister ultimately, as to how the whole process was operated. That would be far better than to exclude staff representation from the board, as a result of which perhaps a chasm could develop between the board and the staff, which could lead to a less successful operation than we would desire in these circumstances.
Let me just make a brief point in relation to the original paragraph 7 (b) and the amendment No. 77 which the Minister has just teased out. The original formulation in the Bill refers to the Minister's consultation with such persons as he considers appropriate and the amendment has gone a considerable distance towards meeting the case of those organisations as consumers' services who wish to be involved.
With regard to amendment No. 77, it is important that it be worded in such a way as not to preclude trade union industrial democratic-type representation. For example, let us suppose it is to be interpreted as organisational from the consumer side. Then the provisions in section 7 (b) are eroded because the Minister in consulting with organisations which might not include the staff, professional or worker representation, would be consulting in a more explicit sense a lesser part of the universe of people who are involved.
I listened to the Minister's rationale for amendment No. 77 with some interest. Let us say that the first problem is whether amendment No. 77 explicitly includes the staff associations and unions by way of organisation. Let us suppose the Minister said yes to that, how then would he find a person or persons? There would be two ways in which he could do this, first, he could identify the people himself and I have no doubt that he would find suitable criteria by which to nominate them. He said this procedure would be preferable to workers electing representatives. In his view they would be seen as representing the interests of the staff rather than the corporate interests of the new entity.
There is a far greater danger attached to this because those nominated outside of an elective process would be perceived as being the nominees of the Minister of the day in the organisation. It may be wrongly construed that they were on an inner track to the Minister's thinking. On the other hand, if they were to come through an elective process there is no doubt, given the history of industrial democracy and the kind of worker directors who have been elected, that they would meet the requirement of being workers involved in the new circumstance, for example, of defending research within a new board. Also, they would have been elected and, therefore, would be seen to be representative and they would still be professional. Not only is there a good principle involved in an organisational sense, there is also a good principle involved in the sense of the Minister being able to stand over the people who will eventually find their way on to the board.
My final point is that if the Minister decided to go down that road he would be seen to be continuing the accepted principle contained in the Acts setting up the two bodies who are now being merged. I urge the Minister to consider changing amendment No. 77 to allow for explicit worker representation and a very strong case could be made for this representative to be elected through an elective process rather than being nominated. All the professional people who will work in the new agency will be involved in discussing the research functions of the new agency. Many worker directors have been accused of being so absorbed by the direction which the company should take in the future that workers tell them they are not representing the workers' view. On balance a very strong case could be made for continuity, organisational effectiveness and for retaining the principle of industrial democracy by making an explicit reference to worker representation and using the mechanism of election, with the Minister being able to nominate the people who come through the elective process.
Not surprisingly a number of very important issues have been raised on this Final Stage. First of all, I would like to thank the Members of the House, subject to the constraints under which we operated, for the very constructive debate which we have had this afternoon. I hope my responses to the various points which were raised indicated that I have an open mind on what are going to be the needs of a very important Authority in the promotion of agriculture in the future. All of the points which have been made were made from experience and with conviction and I can appreciate the weight which is attached to them. Because of that I intend to address each of the points in reasonable detail and because I am conscious that nobody at this stage has the right to reply I do not think I should take any liberties in making my final contribution.
The first point I would like to deal with relates to the worker participation issue. I do not know whether Members of the House are aware that as far as the AFT are concerned the unions have no representatives on the board. Therefore, I am not restricting the matter further than is the case in respect of the research element of the two existing organisations. The House will not see any conspiratorial precedent on my part or on the part of the Government but I ask the House to consider the difference between a promotional body engaged in very sophisticated research and advice and a State or semi-State commercial body. I think there is a very definite difference and Deputies should not draw too many conclusions from the fact that the board as constituted is sui generis and that other boards in the commercial sphere such as CIE, the Sugar Company and Aer Lingus are going to follow suit. I do not think that will be the case and in any event it would be a matter for another Minister. I am not making that case but I am saying, having regard to the fact that one of the existing organisations has no union representation and that these are not commercial enterprises where one thinks in terms of the understandable interests of the workers, the Minister of the day should take due account of the interests of the employees and the interests of the professional employees. The two are inextricably linked in my view and that is what I propose to do.
To give a precise response to the precise question which was put to me by Deputy Higgins I would like to say that amendment No. 77 is not intended to cover worker representatives but, that having been said, the residual power of the Minister should take account of the role and functions of the staff and my view is that this should reflect that in the board. Equally, I can state categorically I see no reason why amendment No. 77 by definition excludes trade union representation but it will not be my intention to use it for that purpose. However, another Minister at another time could use it in that way.
In that connection let me address a question which was asked by Deputy O'Keeffe as to what unions or organisations one nominates. I want to leave it open to other Ministers to include or consult whoever they want — this may meet Deputy Higgins's point half way — and I do not want to nominate even those whom I intend to consider at this point. The point has been made fairly persuasively that it is not always a question of a one-on-one position, with one organisation nominating one person. It can arise — and I am conscious of this — that there could be a combination of two or three recommending two or three. I do not want to dismiss that possibility. For that reason it is possible that a number of organisations might suggest to me or to any other Minister that, together, they would nominate two or three, as distinct from each of them recommending one. I should like to leave that possibility open if I am to reflect the views of the House.
Deputy Stagg talked about conditions of employment. I am very conscious of the conditions of employment of any employee and the security of employment that is an essential feature of a contract of employment. I would not want to do anything by way of the provisions of this Bill to cut across those conditions or security of employment. I cannot say I have ever heard the point proposed, that a condition of employment carries or constitutes the right to be represented on a board. I have never heard that point advanced. I do not think it is a point that would withstand scrutiny, it is not a condition of employment; what ever else it is it is not a condition of employment. I can understand the reason for Deputy Stagg advancing the case but I do not think the two are mutually characteristic. Deputy Stagg made this a condition of his rejection of the Bill, as it stands. I want to say to him quite clearly: I do not see that as a condition of employment and do not propose to include it in the provisions of this Bill.
As the Minister knows, I cannot elaborate on it now.
I know that. I could interpret what is there now, putting a nice, loose, easy interpretation on it that might satisfy Deputy Stagg at this point. I do not think that would be right or that I should do so. Therefore, Deputy Stagg is entitled to reserve his position on it.
As far as precedent is concerned I should say that whatever is done in a particular case for a particular purpose is not a precedent for or against what might be done in any other case. Surely the Minister, and more importantly this House, reserves the right not to be bound by precedent? I have never contended that any of these things represented precedents. The House should acknowledge, at the end of this day, that if there were precedents before me, I departed from them considerably in the course of the final stage of this debate. Therefore, I do not see why any Minister or Member of this House should be bound by precedent. We are not in a court of law. This is not the Supreme Court, where decisions of one Supreme Court are binding on the next, not at all. I do not see that there is any question of precedent here. It may be a guide as to the political priority or conviction of the Government; that is a fact, it is, but it is not a binding precedent in terms of law.
I think I have covered the points raised. I may not have covered them to the satisfaction or in the manner in which each and every Member wished but, at the end of the day, we have had a very useful discussion. I have incorporated many suggestions.
If Deputy Stagg wants to indicate to me that he is not prepared to present the amendment I have indicated, I am now formally saying to him, in respect of his amendment No. 80, that I was accepting that part of it. I had already indicated my intention of so doing. I presume he is not going to repudiate it because that was done on Committee Stage, that part of it which substituted the word "shall" for the word "may".
With the permission of the House, we will deal with the amendment there, amendment No. 73. Is it the intention of Deputy MacGiolla to press amendment No. 73?
That was dealt with on Committee Stage.
My information was that it was not but if the Deputy says it was, then it was.
They are gone.
Amendment No. 74 in the name of Deputy Stagg.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 19, lines 5 to 17, to delete paragraph 7 and substitute the following:
"7.—Of the ordinary members of Teagasc—
(a) 7 shall be persons engaged in, or having knowledge or experience (being knowledge or experience that the Minister considers appropriate for membership of Teagasc of or in relation to, agriculture, agricultural research, agricultural advice and extension, education (including higher education), food processing, the food processing industry or the management of commercial enterprise, or persons chosen by the Minister after consultation with such persons as he considers appropriate who are engaged in, or are representatives of those engaged in, agriculture or the promotion or development of the agricultural industry, and
(b) 3 shall be persons who are representatives of the staff of Teagasc and they shall be selected in accordance with the provisions of an order made for that purpose by the Minister and any such order shall indicate the procedure for filling casual vacancies.".
I intend pressing this amendment.
Accordingly, I shall put the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Swift, Brian.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Bell, Michael.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Bell.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Resulting from the loss of amendment No. 74, amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 78 cannot now be moved.
Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 not moved.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 19, paragraph 7, lines 13 to 17, to delete subparagraph (b), and substitute the following:
"(b) 5 shall be persons nominated for appointment as members of Teagasc by such organisations as the Minister may determine that are representative of persons engaged in agriculture or the promotion or development of the agricultural industry; and the Minister may appoint as members of Teagasc one or more persons nominated under this subparagraph by such an organisation as aforesaid or one or more persons nominated by a group, designated by the Minister, of such organisations as aforesaid.".
Amendment No. 78 not moved.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 19, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following new paragraph:
"8.—An ordinary member of the Board who has—
(a) any material or financial interest in any body corporate with which Teagasc proposes to make any contract, or
(b) any material or financial interest in any contract which Teagasc proposes to make,
shall disclose to Teagasc the fact of the interest and the nature thereof, and shall take no part in any deliberation or decision of Teagasc to the contract, and the disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of Teagasc.".
I understood that the debate concluded on the Bill and on the vote which we took a few moments ago and that the Minister had concluded his speech on Report Stage. I am not sure if I am correct.
Are you not pressing the amendment then?
I would be very happy to press the amendment if I am in order to do so but the Minister has replied to the full debate.
I am still not obliged to put the question until 7 o'clock in accordance with an Order of this House.
We did understand from the Chair that we had actually concluded on Report Stage.
Is the Deputy proceeding with amendment No. 79?
The Minister dealt with part of that amendment in his speech and I accepted his position on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 80, in the name of the same Deputy was dealt with along with amendment No. 73 as was amendment No. 81.
Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.
Amendment No. 82 was disposed of with amendment No. 7.
Amendment No. 82 not moved.
A good day's work has been done and the Minister has accepted five of our amendments and met our concerns on two other issues. There is one other concern on which I would like to get a response from the Minister. The Minister is entitled under section 2 to appoint a date for the establishment of the Act. Bearing in mind the progress made here today and without over anticipating what may happen in the other House can the Minister, at this stage, give an indication as to the likely establishment date in the context of what remains to be done to complete the legislative process? It would be useful for everybody to have, at least, an approximate date as to when Teagasc will be up and running.
As soon as possible after it is enacted in both Houses and adopted into law under the Presidential seal of the Oireachtas. I have no reason to expect any delay after that, whether that is days or short weeks I cannot say at this time.
Would we be talking about the end of June?
That is my intention.
Bill reported with amendments.
Question: "That the Bill do now pass" put and declared carried.
We are a few minutes short of the appropriate time to commence Private Members' Business. It is hardly worth dealing with the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill 1987 as there are only two and a half minutes remaining before we proceed to Private Members' Business. We shall take Private Members' Business at 7 o'clock. Deputy Batt O'Keeffe was in possession and he has some 24 minutes left of the time allotted to him. I propose, with your permission, to wait until 7 o'clock arrives, and I do not propose to suspend the sitting. Agreed.