Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1964

Vol. 57 No. 16

Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1964: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

This Bill has two aims: (1) to increase the maximum permissible financial contribution by county councils to committees of agriculture and (2) to provide for the recruitment of at least 50 per cent of the members of committees of agriculture from outside the membership of county councils.

Section 1 of the Bill deals with the first of these objectives. It provides, with effect as from the financial year commencing 1st April, 1965, for an increase in the maximum local contribution from its present level of 15 times the produce of a rate of one penny in the area consisting of the county, exclusive of urban districts, to 21 times the produce of such rate.

As the House is, no doubt, aware committees of agriculture derive the money for the service of their agricultural schemes both from county council contributions and from grants from my Department related to the local contributions. At present the local contribution in each county may not be less than twice nor more than 15 times the produce of a penny rate. Before last October the total grants from my Department to the committees amounted to approximately the total contributions from the councils. Acting on the recommendation of the inter-departmental Committee on the Problems of Small Western Farms, I decided to improve the basis of grants to 12 committees of agriculture with a view to bringing about a speedy and substantial strengthening of the advisory services in the western areas. The result of the improved grant is that since October last my Department is contributing 75 per cent of the salaries of the advisory officers in these areas instead of 50 per cent as formerly. In respect of the other areas my Department continues to contribute to the committees an amount approximating in the aggregate to the total amount contributed by county councils.

The present maximum of 15 times the produce of a penny rate was laid down in the Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1958. Before that the maximum was the produce of a tenpenny rate. Since the enactment of the 1958 Act, 15 committees have availed of its provisions by obtaining an amount higher than the former maximum. One of these committees is now in receipt of the present maximum contribution and four more are very near the limit. The increased expenditure by committees in recent years arises mainly from the very welcome expansion in their advisory services. The number of all categories of advisers employed by the committees in 1963/64 was 402 compared with 313 in 1957/58, i.e., an increase of approximately 30 per cent. The expenditure of committees increased in the same period from £559,428 to £828,017. In the next few years it is expected that there will be a further substantial increase in the number of advisers, both to implement the expansion scheme already initiated for the western areas, to which I have already referred, and in other areas also, to meet the growing demand from farmers for technical advice to assist them in the economical running of their farms and the efficient production of high quality goods to enable them to meet the very keen competition in modern markets.

Apart from the increase in the number of advisers, the periodic upward trends in the salaries of the committees' staffs and increasing costs generally have to be taken into account. For example, many committees have increased the number of scholarships awarded by them to young men and young women tenable at agricultural schools and schools of rural domestic economy — a most desirable development. It is evident that due to these various demands, committees now at or near the maximum local contribution of fifteen times the produce of a penny rate will be unable to carry out their agricultural programmes unless they are enabled by legislation to increase their income in the future. That is the purpose of section 1 of this Bill. County councils will not of course be obliged to increase their contributions. They are merely being enabled to do so, where they consider such an increase is needed.

Section 2 of the Bill deals with the second aim to which I referred earlier, that is the recruitment of at least 50 per cent of the members of committees of agriculture from outside the membership of the county councils. At present the legal position, dating from 1931, is that committees of agriculture may be compased either entirely of county councillors, or partly of councillors and partly of non-councillors. In practice, the proportion of non-councillors on committees of agriculture varies considerably from one county to another; some county councils tend to confine membership to councillors while others have shown a more liberal outlook towards the appointment of non-councillors.

I feel that with the great changes which have taken place in rural circumstances since this provision was originally framed over 30 years ago, a change in the requirements for membership of committees is now called for. I have particularly in mind the emergence of voluntary rural organisations, the extension of the co-operative movement, the growth of the educational and advisory services and the development of new farming techniques generally. It goes without saying that committees of agriculture would derive considerable advantage from the inclusion in their membership of suitable persons from the voluntary rural organisations and the co-operative movement, and also local individuals prominent in the practice of farming or development of agriculture. There are undoubtedly progressive persons in every county who could make a worthwhile contribution to the work of committees of agriculture but who, for one reason or another, are unwilling to stand for election to the county council. I consider it desirable that such persons should have a greater opportunity to become members of committees of agriculture. With this objective in view, section 2 (1) (a) of this Bill provides that where a committee of agriculture consists of an even number of members the number of councillors shall not exceed the number of non-councillors, and, where the committee consists of an odd number, the numbebr of councillors shall not exceed the number of non-councillors by more than one.

In order to ensure that this widening of the scope of membership will have the desired effect, section 2 (1) (c) of the Bill provides that each non-councillor member shall be chosen by reason of his attainments in the practice of farming or in the development of agriculture and rural living in the particular locality in which he resides, or by reason of his attainments in the promotion of agricultural or rural home education and advisory work. County councils in making appointments under the section are expected to select men or women of attainments, that is, who are progressive farmers or who have taken a leading part in one or more of the activities I have mentioned. I believe that this change will increase the effectiveness of committees, especially in the educational and advisory aspects of their functions, which I consider to be predominantly the most important.

While I am suggesting the rural organisations and the co-operative movement as a likely source of suitable members for committees of agriculture, I have not found it practicable to provide in this Bill for giving them direct representation, although I have given a great deal of thought to the matter. In view of the large number of rural organisations in the country, the varying strength of these organisations from one county to another and the varying number of members on individual committees, I do not think that a statutory formula could be worked out which could be applied equitably to all counties. I hope, however, that county councils will keep the rural organisations and the co-operative movement in mind when choosing members for committees and that this broadening of membership will lead to a more general acceptance of the agricultural advisory services throughout the country.

I believe that our system of advisory services is fundamentally sound and my aim, therefore, is to improve the system rather than to replace it or to alter it radically. I am indeed very confident that more broadly based committees of agriculture working with the Department of Agriculture as a team, and backed by the research work of An Foras Talúntais and the Universities, will in the years ahead provide us with the advisory services needed to develop our agricultural resources on sound lines in the light of changing conditions and designed to bring about a worthwhile improvement in the lot of our rural population.

I trust that the House will see fit to approve of this Bill.

Mr. McDonald

We on this side of the House accept this Bill as a very small step forward. We welcome the extra expenditure from fifteen pence in the £ to twenty-one pence in the £ which will now mean that the counties in the west of Ireland will be able to meet the recommendation of the interDepartmental Committee on the problems of Small Western Farms for the provision of extra instructors to look after this section of our country. It seems that committees of agriculture will be able to increase their drawings from the county councils. We know, of course, some of the committees, even at present, are already drawing the maximum from the county councils. Consequently, we find this Bill is bringing the position up to date and putting the county committees of agriculture in a more normal position.

There are a few sections of the Bill with which we are not totally in agreement. Firstly, the figure of 50 per cent of the members being non-members of the county council is perhaps rather harsh. I feel it is rather unfair to appoint people to these committees, which perform a very important function, without imposing any responsibility on them for the raising of the finance necessary for the running of the committees and the giving of service. From that point of view I feel, had the Minister not put that in but had made it mandatory that members of the committee must not be members of the county council, it would have been much better.

I believe the more work the members of our county councils do and the more committees they serve on, the more effective they become. It is perhaps difficult for a lot of people living a long distance away, especially in remote parts, to have opportunities of serving people. They do not have access to the offices. If these people are to come in about their business only once a month, they will not have the same efficiency in handling the problems of the people they represent. Therefore, I feel the more committees these men are allowed to serve on, the better it will be.

The Minister should, perhaps, not have insisted on the clause whereby 50 per cent of the members are to be non-county councillors. It will be rather difficult to work out a solution whereby there are five or six permanent voluntary agricultural organisations in a county. How will we allocate the places on the committee? Will we find in succeeding years that one organisation seems to thrive and another organisation perhaps declining a little? The situation could well be that, after a few years, an organisation would be almost extinct in the county but it will have as good a representation on the committee of agriculture as the big representative organisations. That may arise and it would be much better had the Minister left the appointment solely at the discretion of the county council.

After all, each council and committee is properly constituted. In the case of many of them, up to 50 per cent of the members are non-councillors. It is rather an imposition on the council committees to lay down a rigid rule. They do excellent work voluntarily and the less they are dictated to by Government Departments, the easier their lot will be.

I should like to see this figure of 50 per cent increased at least to 75 per cent because in the case of the majority of committees, the county council members are from the district. A farmer who is a member of the county council will surely be as good a committee man as the farmer who is not. He will not be afraid to stand up in a local election in the county for the interests of his locality. He will be a man with a certain amount of public spirit and a man who is not afraid to declare his allegiance or to defend his principles.

It is the men who are not afraid to come forward and express their views who are the type of people to serve on these committees and not the fellows who will perhaps do as good a job but are not perhaps prepared to fight for it. The farmers' representatives may be a little lax, in that they are not aggressive enough in insisting on their rights. The county committees of agriculture are the premier committees in any county dealing with agricultural matters. If the farming community is to survive and thrive, these people will have to become more aggressive and more insistent on their rights and the rights of the agricultural community to a decent standard of living related to the 1964 cost of production.

Therefore, while I welcome this Bill as a small step in the right direction, I feel that the general overall grant could perhaps be increased. It is difficult to know now where the poor areas of our country are. While the Minister has increased grants west of the Shannon, I believe practically every county has bad sections of land. The demand for advisory services is enormous indeed, and in many of the counties we have increased the advisory services by almost one-quarter in the past few years. The demand is there for them but it is perhaps unfair to increase the rates in order to provide for the payment of extra officers. The demand is definitely there for them and I feel it is something to which the Minister should devote special attention, and not merely in the western regions.

Mr. Hogan

I welcome this Bill. It is a short Bill which has two main functions. The first is to increase the amount that county committees of agriculture can get from county councils in order to run their various services. Most county committees have by now reached the maximum contribution they can get and the Minister, in this Bill, is providing that the figure can be increased. For that reason alone, the Bill is an important one.

The second main provision of the Bill relates to the number of county council members who may be appointed to these committees. While I have no objection to people who are not county council members being members of committees of agriculture — in my county several of the members of the committee are not county council members — I feel it would be unwise of the Minister to set the ratio at 50-50. It may work out well, but it may not. In fairness to members of county councils, who are, after all, elected by the people and who have the main responsibility for striking rates, they should have a slight majority on committees of agriculture. I am not asking for a big majority.

County committees of agriculture do not strike a rate. However, they set out their demand to the county council each year and, to my mind, that is equivalent to the function of striking a rate. I should like elected representatives in the future to have a sufficient majority to strike that rate, as it were, if necessary. I realise that the Minister may not be able to accede to that. Apart from those points, I think the Bill is an excellent one.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I welcome section 1 of the Bill which provides for increased allocations from county councils to county committees. I agree that in many counties the committees have reached the maximum of the 15 pence in the £ they have been allowed up to now to finance their advisory services so necessary if we are to increase agricultural production. The increase permitted in this Bill will not affect my county. It is rather wealthy, as the Minister is aware, and a penny in the £ yields £2,400. Therefore, we have not nearly reached the present maximum of 15 pence in the £. Against that, there are counties in which a penny in the £ would yield less than 25 per cent of the yield in County Meath. For that reason, I am glad to note that in 12 of the less well-off counties, the Minister has decided to increase the allocation to the advisory services from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. I welcome that section particularly.

I do not share the Minister's enthusiasm for section 2 of the Bill. My main reason for opposing that section is that it will deprive so many elected representatives of the right to sit on county committees of agriculture. If Senators will pardon me, I shall again cite my county. I have been a member of the county committee of agriculture there during the past 22 years. In June, 1965, 29 county councillors will be elected and of those, almost two-thirds will be deprived of the right to sit on the most important body the council will be called on to appoint at their annual meeting.

The county council will be able to appoint only ten of the 29 elected representatives if this Bill is passed in its present form. That deprives too many good public representatives of the right to sit on that important committee. I therefore appeal to the Minister to have another look at that section. I agree with Senator Hogan, and particularly with Senator McDonald, that the 50 per cent proportion should be increased to 75 per cent. By depriving 50 per cent of the elected representatives of the right to sit on those committees, we may appear to be doing an injustice. The suggestion that the ratio be increased to 66 per cent is weighted altogether too heavily against the elected representatives.

Perhaps, as an elected representative, I am jealous of the rights of elected representatives and find it hard, possibly, to agree with the idea that people who do not even bother to go forward in local elections and who are frequently critical of everything elected representatives do, can now be co-opted to these committees. The Minister may have his reasons. In some counties, the county councils may not have brought in any extern members to serve on county committees of agriculture, no matter how qualified or worthy they were. The Minister may say there has been nothing in previous legislation to compel county councils to appoint outsiders to county committees of agriculture.

My county council, at their annual meeting, appoint a county committee of 20 members. Of those, five have been extern members. During at least 12 years of my term on that council, the chairman of the committee of agriculture was an extern member— the late Deputy O'Reilly. I repeat that this section is loaded too heavily against the elected representatives. Those public-spirited enough to contest an election, whether as political Party members or Independents, have the right to sit on those committees and they should not be deprived of such membership in the way this Bill proposes.

Out of 29 members of the Meath County Council, almost two-thirds will be deprived of the right to sit on the county committee. I submit that will create a big problem. In Meath, the Minister's Party have been the dominant political Party in local politics during all the years I have been a member of the committee, but I should pay them the compliment and tribute that they have always been very fair to the other Parties—they have given us equitable representation on committees.

Now, whichever political Party happen to dominate local politics, we shall find that instead of having 20 seats to hand out, they will have only ten. In such circumstances, it will be impossible for them to be fair. The Minister may say we have 20 members on the county committee of agriculture, that the dominating Party can take 12, give five to Fine Gael and three to Labour and say: "You may bring in anyone you like." Let us take it that the Minister's own Party have 15 which gives them a majority of one and there are at least 10 of those 15 who are admirable farmers and would be most suitable for the agricultural committee. How many of that 15 can they put on it out of 10? It means that they are eliminating five of their own and there will be a problem created within their own Party as there would be among any Party. I would appeal to the Minister to have another look at this and increase the figure from 50 per cent to at least 75 per cent because if it is obligatory on a committee to appoint at least 25 per cent extern members there is nothing in it to prevent the committee increasing that to 50 per cent if they want to. To debar at one fell swoop two-thirds of the elected representatives of the right to sit on a committee of agriculture is going altogether too far.

Mr. McAuliffe

I agree with quite a lot of what Senator Fitzgerald said in connection with section 1 of the Bill. We all know that costs are going up and the committees of agriculture require more money. If the Minister had left the Bill with section 1 the debate would last about five minutes and he would have gone away about his business long ago, but when he introduced section 2, which affects all the county councils, in other words the local representatives, who are on committees I for one with Senator Fitzgerald will have to oppose it. The fact is that people from three Parties have spoken here today. Senator Hogan opposed the Minister on this matter though perhaps when it comes to a vote he will not. Senator McDonald has been pulling his punches a bit and has been opposing a certain section but it is not hard to know why he is inclined to pull his punches in connection with this section. People who represent the NFA know right well what is at the back of the Minister's head when he introduces this section.

I come from a county where we always give fair representation to good farmers, leading farmers as the Minister calls them, and we have a fair number of them on the committee. Not only that but one of the people co-opted by the county council is the chairman, which I think could not happen any more under the conditions laid down in this Bill because the chairman is a very important person and where you would only have a majority of one a person may die and the council may decide not to fill the seat. If the man dies in the first year they may not fill the seat for four years and, having someone in the chair who will be favourable towards the Party ruling the council, they would leave it vacant and let that Party decide the policy of the committee of agriculture. For that reason I think you should put it down and not confine it to 50 per cent or in the case of a committee where there is an odd number give them one over.

Our own committee consists of 16 members so on the 50 per cent basis the question of the chairman of that committee is very important. The NFA organisation is claiming all along that it does not want to go into politics. The Minister does not want that organisation to come into politics either, but he wants to give it scope through the committees of agriculture to put its case before him. He does not want the Bridge of Athlone again, nor does he want to give way to the NFA on its claims for decreased rates. It did very well last year when it got 80 per cent of the first £20——

An Cathaoirleach

The matter is hardly relevant to the debate.

Mr. McAuliffe

I am sorry, and I will not dwell on that. If we are looking for the leading farmers, as the Minister said in his opening statement, if you come down into the midlands the leading farmers today are the foreigners. Those are the people who are coming in on the heifer scheme, the people who will get the most out of the scheme. It will not be the small farmers from the west of Ireland but those who have come along here, bought large farms and got into the heifer business. They stay in it for one year and collect the maximum. I recall people who are making the most use of the grants and subsidies that are going. They are the people who would be described as the leading farmers in Ireland today.

Furthermore, I hold that in a committee of agriculture it is just as important that people who represent labour will have their say there as people who represent the farmers. It is very important for the officials who are working for the committees of agriculture that there should be people there interested in conditions of employment and pay. There was quite an amount of trouble during the last few years to get proper conditions of employment and pay for officials of the committees of agriculture. I consider it is important, too, that people who represent the workers, that is, people who are elected on the Labour ticket, should be represented as they would have a grave interest in seeing how the committee of agriculture would affect their cost of living.

A majority may be got at any time when the committee are elected by the death of a member because there is no obligation on the council to fill the vacancy. The people who would strike the rate for that committee if they were not the elected representatives of the people, would not have to answer any question about why such a rate was struck. It takes a man with an amount of courage to go forward, and during the next year every Party in the House will be looking for suitable candidates to go forward in the local elections. The people who have to put up the money, that is the county council, are the people who are put on the spot. We are the people who have to face the NFA and different farmers' organisations on the day we strike the rate. We should have a say as to how the rate would be struck in the committee of agriculture and also in the vocational committee. If the rate comes in from the committee of agriculture we have no say whatsoever and no choice but to give that amount on that day. The very same thing arises regarding the vocational committee. We must pay up no matter what rate they struck. If the committee of agriculture and the vocational committee have a majority of councillors then if a rate comes in we can blame the councillors who are on that committee. If, however, there are people who would refuse to go forward for election then those people should not be in a position to come in and to dictate to us that we should put 3d, 4d or anything they wish extra on the rates. It is our job to collect the rates and it is our job to decide how the rates should be spent. But if this Bill is passed today we shall have no say whatsoever in the amount that the committee of agriculture will decide on and we must pay up.

We cannot interfere with the amount they claim. We must give it to them whether we like it or not. It is for that reason I would ask the Minister to modify section 2 of the Bill and, as Senator Fitzgerald has done before me, ask that at least 75 per cent of an agricultural committee be members of the council. I was a member of two councils and the councils were always delighted to bring in a fair number. In Westmeath we bring in almost one half of them. There must have been abuses in some counties, where they did not put anyone on except county councillors. I am sorry if this is the case. I see grave danger in asking us to support a Bill which provides for a 50 per cent membership in respect of people who are prepared to sit on the fence during a local election and who would refuse to contest the election in case they might be defeated. It is for that reason I support Senator Fitzgerald.

Professor Quinlan

I support this Bill as a step in the right direction. I am glad to say we had similar ideas about eight years ago in the independent commission set up by Macra na Feirme and the National Farmers Association. At that time they reported on somewhat the same lines as the proposals the Minister is now introducing. I take it this is a recognition by the Minister, his Department and the Government in general that our agricultural organisations have developed and come of age and that they are capable of taking greater responsibilities than in the past—responsibilities which similar organisations accept readily in other countries.

I hope that any leading officers in the main farmers' organisations in the counties, especially the National Farmers Organisation, will be among the first to be considered for selection. It will do them good to be brought into contact with a body such as the county committee of agriculture. That would be no harm, now that the organisations have developed to the stage where they recognise that a member of the organisation can express his political beliefs openly and still render a good service to the organisation. Perhaps the introduction of such members into county committees of agriculture in this way would at a later stage encourage them to go forward for actual service in the county committee itself, and probably ultimately in higher offices of public life. If this is the case, as I hope it is, it would again be a step in the right direction in broadening the field of selection for public offices in the country. Consequently, I have pleasure in recommending this Bill.

I agree there might be doubts about the percentages involved, and so on, but I take it that this measure, being in the nature of an experiment, will be under close scrutiny for the first years of its operation, and the percentage can be readily changed afterwards. I would have thought of starting perhaps from a small percentage and working up. This might commend itself to some, but still I think we should accept the Bill as it is and I, for one, have great pleasure in welcoming it.

Professor Jessop

I also should like to welcome this Bill but the debate looks like becoming almost a Committee Stage debate. Only one section seems to give rise to any comment, apart from the question of general approval. There is a lot to be said for leaving some elasticity in the proportion of people who are not members of the county council and who can be elected on any sub-committee, in this case, the committee of agriculture.

I am a member of a statutory hospital committee, a large one, in which the membership of subcommittees is more or less specified. It cannot be more than 25 per cent on any sub-committee, that is, of persons who are not members of the main hospital committee. Sometimes this gives rise to trouble because a number of members with a particular interest may be wanted on a sub-committee, and to include them all we must multiply that number by three from the council itself and that gives a large sub-committee. That is the reason for having rather more than 25 per cent even up to 50 per cent, of people on a sub-committee who are not members of the main body. On the other hand, I can see it would interest the main body represented on the sub-committee to want it the other way round. Since, I am sure, in the various county councils throughout the country there are different interests represented, and even in one county different interests from time to time on successive county councils, there should be some elasticity so that a county council could decide what proportion of outsiders it wanted on the agricultural committee, say, not less than 25 per cent and not more than 50 per cent. That is my experience of this sort of thing and I think if the Minister could meet the wishes expressed it would get over the difficulties. It is a good Bill and I am happy to support it.

Mr. Costelloe

I should like to say a few words on this Bill. It is very important that the committee of agriculture should provide advisory services. In Kerry we have made good progress and I am thankful for that. As far as the committee of agriculture are concerned, Kerry has always appointed a large number of non-councillors. I have 25 years' experience on committees. During that time, I always appointed a good percentage. At the present time it works out on a 50-50 basis, and it is very satisfactory. However, I notice that in most counties they have more councillors on these committees. It is very hard for county councillors to appoint all the members of the committee of agriculture from the county councils. I believe councillors should have some majority in the workings of committees. I believe that is essential.

Mr. Smith

I think I can say to the Seanad that I did not look at this matter with any hostility towards elected representatives or members of Parties in local bodies. I did have in mind one thing, and I believe many people have it in mind in common with me. County committees of agriculture, in the main, did not seem to be serving the purpose they were intended to serve as well as one would like them to. They did not appear to have the confidence of the people, the degree of confidence they would require to be successful in their work. I am not saying all this lack of confidence was justified, but it is true to say that it existed.

As I explained briefly in my opening remarks, a number of farming organisations have been growing up in recent times. Any time I meet them at close quarters I complain of their lack of effort to make use to the fullest extent of the advisory services available to them, and to all farmers. I have always sensed that their case was this: county committees of agriculture are appointed by county councils and, in many cases, predominantly controlled by members of county councils. Again, whether there is justification for it or not, they always advance the argument that members of these rural organisations and good farmers of one kind or another who were never in public life have no chance of being called upon to serve. That, briefly, is the background to my thoughts and conclusions as to what we should do when we were framing this Bill.

I very carefully examined this whole matter of percentage or percentages. I have one major reason in my mind for not wishing to make it less than 50. If you made it less than 50 you almost suggested to those who were critical in the past that you would not trust people outside those bodies to go half and half with the elected people. Some Senators said this could have been taken in stages. I do not entirely disagree with that line of reasoning. I can see it is a line of reasoning that could be followed. I did think of it, and I did not accept it because of what I have said.

Not only did I think of all this, but I and my officials had discussions with the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture. As one would expect, the representatives of the Council took the very same view as some Senators from both sides of the House have expressed. I did not expect it to be otherwise. The possibility is that if I were one of the representatives on the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture I would probably take up the cudgels for the same case. I know what can be said as to the merits of the man, or the men, or the persons, who seek election, meet the public and are chosen by the public. In fact, I have very often defended members of a county council on that very basis from critics who might be very excellent people, but many of whom I not only suspected but knew would be unsuccessful if they sought election.

I have a full appreciation of that angle, and it was not absent from my mind when I was proposing this percentage. The General Council of County Committees of Agriculture suggested 25 per cent, so there was not very much in it, but I decided I would come to the Dáil with the provisions in this Bill, which would make it half and half with the exception of a committee on which there was an odd number, and in that case the odd number was in favour of the elected people. I should not like to give the impression to members of the Seanad and especially to members who have a keen interest in this matter, that I want to be rigid, but I believe that since I and my officials have had all these discussions and contacts, and knowing that we were in the right frame of mind, this 50-50 arrangement is the better one.

The proper organisation of our advisory people is one of the most intricate things I know of. It looks to be a very simple matter: appoint officers; select the districts in which they will operate; one of them will make his headquarters in some part of that district; and his job is to make all possible contacts with farmers. It is not difficult to make contacts with 15, 20 or 25 per cent of farmers, but it is tremendously difficult to make the type of contact that these men would require in their own and the farmers' interests with the balance of that section of our community. I want to bring these committees—I mean in their composition—to the condition that is proposed here of a 50-50 basis so that these representatives of rural organisations that are now critical will be robbed of any opportunity of claiming that they have not a voice in the determination of matters that come up there and affect their lives.

I find that one of the great weaknesses of rural organisations is that they all seem to want to do things themselves. They all seem to want to be in a position to get all the glamour and all the sensation that is associated with being in at the top. People are always wanting to be in at the top.

I believe we would not have half the number of rural organisations if it were not for the fact that we have so many people who want to lead some group, whether it be small or large or important. I have a list of these organisations in case anybody should ask me why we could not arrange some method by which this 50 per cent representation could be given to them on some representative basis. I am not saying that on the list I have they are all very important but there are 105 on it. That is a large number. One could not do much in the way of formulating some proposal that would enable one to get fair representation for all these by a provision in this Bill.

Some Senators have mentioned difficulties which really are not legitimate difficulties. The county council themselves, ultimately strike the rate. County councils have been known to refuse a demand. County councils have been known to reduce a demand. County councils have been known to reduce a rate previously in operation. The county councils have the ultimate say in how, when and where the rate, and the amount of it, will be struck.

I should genuinely like to see these committees more active. When men offer themselves for election to county councils they are interested in rates, housing, land, and in half a dozen very important matters. However, you will find the man who just does not want to go before the public, who does not take much of an interest in these wider fields of local or national administration but who would have something to contribute if he were brought on to a committee where the subject, and the only one to be discussed, affected his own business and way of life and all his interests. To those who have appealed to me, I would say that we gave very careful examination to this whole matter. I know that the General Council of Committees of Agriculture will perhaps be disappointed that I did not accept their recommendation. It is unfortunate that when people come to a Minister to discuss some important matter they go away aggrieved or afterwards feel aggrieved if the Minister does not see his way to concede the point they may have very strenuously made to him. I do not think we could possibly do our business on that basis.

I must admit that they were reasonable up to the point that they would go as far as 25 per cent. I feel that is important from the point of view of creating the proper spirit and ensuring that in the future nobody will be able to say, in effect: "These committees are just committees of men elected on one political ticket or another. While they may know farming, and so on, they have not some separate interest which other farmers may have and therefore we have not very much dependence on the work which these bodies do."

I think it is not too ambitious to hope that the committees, when making selections, will try to get the type of individual who in their judgment will make the best contribution possible to the work which we hope they will do. It is a fact that some few counties have already been generous in this regard. Four of them have 50 per cent councillors or less. However it is also a fact that five counties had 100 per cent councillors and there were others with 87, 86, 75 per cent and so on.

I have to contact, off and on, rural organisations. I try to get them to play their part. Sometimes, when they accuse me of maybe not playing mine as well as they think I should, I, with a good deal of justification, turn to them and say: "Well, why do you not play yours? I do not mind you people in rural organisations being critical of me but why do you, back in the country as you are, not see to it that the advisory services, that are being increased at the expense of the ratepayer and of the taxpayer, are availed of to as great an extent as possible for the common benefit?" When public officials representing my Department, the Department of Local Government, and all the other Departments are out loose in the country, except in the case of very conscientious individuals, you will not get the same volume or quality of work from them all. If it were not for the fact that somebody was trying to watch them and check up their mistakes and the output of that work we would not do even as well in many of these Departments, which are affected in that way.

I should like our rural organisations to take an interest in the work of our county committees so that in all districts the members of the farmers organisations would keep a reasonably watchful eye on these important activities and say "Well, we had not an instructor here for such and such a time". They should keep on pressing so as to ensure that the greatest good will be secured by the farming community from the services of these technicians, who are employed, and of whom more will be employed in the years ahead.

I would ask the Senators, therefore, to withdraw the objection they have to this. I have seen their point of view and, very deliberately, but not without understanding that point of view fully, I decided to keep this position in the Bill of making appointments to the committees in the future on a fifty-fifty basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.