Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 1967

Vol. 63 No. 7

Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1967: Second Stage.

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

The object of this Bill is to provide for the continuation of the discretionary powers of county councils in relation to the appointment of members of county committees of agriculture.

The existence of a committee of agriculture in every county first became mandatory under the Agriculture Act, 1931. That Act, which makes it a statutory function of the county councils to appoint these committees, prescribed also that every committee of agriculture should be composed, at the discretion of the relevant council, either wholly of persons who are members of the council or partly of persons who are, and partly of persons who are not, members of the council. Provision for the curtailment of this discretion was made in the Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1964, to the extent of requiring that at least 50 per cent of the members of county committees of agriculture shall be non-councillors. However, this provision has not yet had effect, because there have been no local elections since the 1964 Act was passed. The present Bill proposes, however, to rescind the 1964 provision, and so to enable the discretionary powers conferred on the county councils by the 1931 Act to continue unchanged.

The General Council of Committees of Agriculture, the body representing all the committees of agriculture, the County Councils' General Council and a number of individual county committees of agriculture and county councils have all made representations against the amending provision in the 1964 Act. I have carefully reconsidered the whole matter in the light of these representations and I have come to the conclusion that the system which has worked satisfactorily over the past 35 years should not be jettisoned now.

In this important matter of the appointment of members of committees of agriculture, I am satisfied that the county councillors, who are the elected local representatives of the people and are themselves for the most part farmers or of farming stock, are quite competent to decide who are the persons in each county best suited to serve the interests of the farming community in that county. I do not believe that the freedom of choice of the local county councils should be inhibited by making it obligatory on them to bring in a fixed proportion of outsiders. There are no real grounds for assuming that the county councils abuse their discretionary powers, or that they are in general opposed to the appointment of outsiders. Indeed, on the present voluntary basis, some committees of agriculture have 50 per cent or more outsiders and more than half of them have over 25 per cent outsiders.

I feel that there need be no fears that persons who would have an outstanding contribution to make on committees of agriculture, although they are not councillors, will at all be debarred by this Bill from being appointed committee members. On the other hand, if all the county councils are compelled to fit into a rigid pattern of choosing 50 per cent of the committee members from outside their own ranks, as envisaged in the 1964 amending Act, it could well happen that in some counties able men and women who have gone through the stress and test of the local elections and have satisfied their electors of their capacity, would be deprived of the opportunity of serving on committees of agriculture.

It is perhaps well also to remember that the councillor members of committees of agriculture, because of their rate fixing functions, are likely to have a very keen sense of their responsibility in ensuring that the funds of committees of agriculture, derived in part from the rates, are spent to best advantage.

All things considered, therefore, I feel that we should preserve the long tried and democratic procedure which leaves discretion in this matter to each county council. The Bill provides for just this and I commend it to the House.

This is probably the smallest Bill to come before this House, certainly since I became a Member of it but what it lacks in size it more than makes up for in importance. At a time when agriculture is being geared or should be geared for participation in the EEC we will, to my mind, take a backward step if this Bill goes through the House.

The main function of the committees of agriculture would seem to be the spreading of information gained through the knowledge and experience of the agricultural advisers. We all know that for very many years the agricultural adviser was frowned upon by the farmer. He looked on him as an interfering person rather than as somebody who was being helpful and it has taken quite a considerable time to accustom the agricultural community to the idea that the advisory service is there to help rather than to hinder. From that has sprung quite a number of organisations dealing primarily with education in agriculture. From that, again, has sprung a very great improvement in agricultural standards throughout the country.

It is to my mind a tremendous pity that if this Bill passes through the House those organisations can be prevented from having representatives on committees of agriculture. They have quite a lot to offer from their experience. They can recommend changes, desirable changes, I am quite sure, and in the long run the country would benefit from their experience and recommendations because agriculture at one time was looked upon as a way of life but it is now very much an industry, as distinct from a way of life and the consequences of having a completely councillor-composed agricultural committee will tend to make the farmers lose faith in it rather than be helpful.

When the Bill which this Bill proposes to amend was going through both Houses before, the then Minister, Deputy Smith, was very loud in his praise of the organisations to which I have referred. He was determined they would have a say and a voice in the running of the agricultural affairs in their counties. I fail to understand what has happened in the meantime to cause the Government to change the Bill and revert back to the existing position. I know there is nothing wrong whatsoever with having all councillors on committees of agriculture. By and large—outside of the larger cities—whether a councillor is elected in a town or in a country area, his roots are in agriculture and he understands the agricultural problems, even though he may not be actually farming himself.

The point I want to get across is that we have at present very many more specialists in branches of agriculture. They can make a tremendous contribution and they should definitely be given the opportunity of letting the country at large benefit from their experience. In Kildare we have a 50/50 representation—50 per cent members of the county council and 50 per cent non-members. As a matter of fact, the present chairman is not a member of the county council. Without fear of contradiction or without speaking in any boasting spirit, I think Kildare county committee of agriculture is one of the most progressive in the country. They have advanced a number of schemes. They have given a lead to other counties in a great many respects in research and in adopting schemes which have not been introduced in the country before. They have even given, I think, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries food for thought on many of the projects they have introduced very successfully in the county. To my mind, that is the kernel of the case for outside representation. I am referring here to non-members of the county councils.

It is a tremendous pity, at a time when there is not the unity in agriculture everybody would wish, that this Bill should be brought in to cause further disunity among the farming community. They will look upon it as a threat to make sure that certain organisations will not be represented on committees of agriculture. People outside the committees of agriculture who are not candidates in the local elections may feel they have not the flair for the political activities involved in the county councils and yet may be quite willing to participate and act for the benefit of the people on these committees. They should be given the opportunity; they should be invited to do so and, if they were invited, I am sure they would be only too willing to act.

Therefore, I appeal to the Minister, even at this last stage, to withdraw the Bill and give the original arrangement a chance of operating. It has not been afforded an opportunity of doing so up to now. We cannot condemn it from the point of view of experience but let us give it a chance and, if it does not work in five years time, we can go back to what the Minister is trying to do now. I certainly must oppose the measure.

As one who opposed the 1964 Act when it was introduced here, I am at a loss to know what has brought about this change of heart and what is the motive behind this because it appears to me obvious that this will again be construed as an attempt to deprive certain rural organisations of membership of committees of agriculture. I should like the Minister to clarify the reasons because I am not satisfied that in his introductory speech he has given any cogent reason as to why we should have this Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1967. The Minister in his introductory speech makes exactly the same case for amending the 1964 Act that I made when the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, was in the same position that Deputy Blaney occupies today.

In no section of the 1964 Act was it made clear how any rural organisation would get representation on a committee of agriculture when the new county councils would meet to select their committees of agriculture or any of their other committees. I instanced the example of the County Meath where 29 county councillors would be elected. A committee of agriculture composed of 20 members would be appointed at their first meeting and the 1964 Act deprived two-thirds of the elected members of that county council from being members of a committee of agriculture. I pointed out that it was wrong that two-thirds of the elected representatives would be statute barred from sitting on a committee of agriculture. At the same time, there was no section in the Act which made it clear who would fill the other ten positions on the committee of agriculture. I also gave an example as to how they would be filled. For example, the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party on a county council would divide up the number of seats available. After selecting the members of the council and appointing them to the committee of agriculture in my own county there would be ten left and they would be divided up again between the principal Parties and Party supporters, whether they were members of rural organisations or not, would be appointed to fill the other ten seats that remained. Therefore, you have your committee of 20 composing your committee of agriculture but there was no provision in the Act to ensure that any of the rural organisations, the NFA, Muintir na Tíre, Macra na Feirme——

(Longford): The ICMSA, the Leinster Milk Suppliers.

——the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, would get on the committees of agriculture. This Act was introduced in 1964 with a view to coming into operation during the 1965 Local Government elections which were then due to be held. The elections were not held in 1965; they were not held in 1966 and now, on the eve of the local elections in 1967, we have this "about-face".

I am amazed that the Minister for Agriculture who was then a member of the Government allowed the 1964 Act to be brought before either the Dáil or the Seanad. If it is stupid to introduce such legislation in 1967 it was equally stupid to introduce such an Act in 1964. I am at a loss to know why we have this. I hope that the Minister in his reply will clarify the position and give a more cogent reason for this change of heart than has occurred now because the very case that I made, and I am sure the records of the debate will prove that, is that now advanced by the Minister for this change.

There was one aspect of the 1964 Act in particular that I was not very fond of. I saw that possibly there might be a dispute between those who were county councillors and those who were non-county councillors, those who were responsible for the rates and those who were not, and it could happen that if one member of the county council on that committee was for some reason absent or perhaps had passed away, at crucial meetings the majority, who were not elected representatives, would be the people who would perhaps make the decision on some very costly scheme. Otherwise I should have liked to see it working for a short time but even then I am not sure that we would have a first-class committee of agriculture. I feel that the only way we will have a first-class committee—and I have never served on one, perhaps they are better looked at from inside than outside— is to have it elected as the county council is elected. A time will come in the country districts when the committee of agriculture will be as important a body as a county council. They should in some way be elected— this is a little bit outside the scope of the Bill—at the same time as the county council is elected as a completely separate body who would deal with purely agricultural matters responsible either to the county council in the matter of rates or limited by the Government as to what they could spend. However, as I say, that is outside the scope of the Bill. In regard to the 1964 Act I was always somewhat worried as to how those outsiders would be elected.

It contained nothing guaranteeing representation to any farming organisation. If farming organisations want that, then this Act was no good to them because the majority of the county council were the people who would elect the remainder. For that reason it would not be a great improvement on what we have at present in many counties. We heard that in Kildare it would not make any difference to the present composition of the committee of agriculture and, quite frankly, I am not satisfied with the present composition. I should like to have seen this getting one session of the county council in practice to see whether it would work. I am afraid we would have defeated members of the county council or ex-members of the county council elected by their comrades for reasons of loyalty to the committee of agriculture. This happened in my county on one occasion, perhaps more. To my mind neither solution is nearly perfect or nearly as good as we should be able to get it. I should like to have seen one balanced against the other—to have seen this getting a trial for five years.

I intervene only to comment on the speech made by Senator Fitzgerald who seemed to be at a loss as to the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. He must not have listened very attentively to the Minister who gave the reasons very clearly in his opening statement. The Minister said that the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture and the General Council of County Councils, a number of individual county committees of agriculture and a number of county councils, had made representations in this direction.

We have heard from time to time quite a lot of sneers and jeers at the supposed absence of democracy. We have heard quite a lot of jeering and sneering in certain quarters about the failure of Ministers to listen to representations made by the people. We have heard quite a lot in the Seanad and outside it to the effect that Ministers are a law unto themselves, that they do not listen to representative bodies who make cases. Here is a classical example of a Minister, in response to a demand from elected representatives, setting out in the best interests of those people who ought to know to introduce a Bill to amend the Act passed in 1964.

The position is quite clear and there should be no reason why Senator Fitzgerald or any other Senator should have any doubts about it. I take it they do not dispute that the General Council of County Councils and the General Council of Committees of Agriculture represent the farming community throughout the country. They have called on the Minister to continue the procedure which has worked effectively during the past 35 years and in responding to that request and introducting the Bill the Minister has been carrying out the wishes of the people.

On a point of explanation, I should like to inquire when those representations were made. Representations were made before the 1964 Bill was passed and I should like to know when the last representations were made. I am a member of the General Council and I am not aware of any such representations having been made.

I should like to take the opportunity, which does not occur so very often, of agreeing with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and even partly agreeing with the Leader of the House. I disagree with the Leader of the House when he implies that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is always amenable to public demand—that if public representation is made to him he is always prepared to listen to it.

He is a most reasonable gentleman.

We have not found him all that quick to come and listen to us here in the Seanad. Eventually he did come and he listened with a degree of equanimity.

On this occasion, however, it seems to me that he is perfectly right. The former situation, as described by him accurately, was that every committee of agriculture was composed at the discretion of county councils, either wholly of persons who were members of councils or partly of persons who were members of councils and partly of persons who were not members of councils. This seems to me to have been a good practice. The 1964 Act tried to lay down that half of the membership of county committees of agriculture should by statute be non-councillors. As the Minister has said, this is really a restriction on the nominating rights of county councils.

It appears to me that county councils are in a strong position to make a reasonable choice and, as between the two situations—the one under the 1964 Act which laid it down that 50 per cent of those committees must be non-councillors, and the present situation, or the one to which this Bill reverts, in which the council has a clear power to decide what proportion of county committees shall be non-councillors— it would seem to me that the second situation—the one being reverted to by this Bill—is the better, the more democratic. Though it does not guarantee perfect committees, it would appear to me to be more soundly based and, therefore, whatever the background and whatever the reasons which make it necessary in 1967 to alter the intentions of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in 1964, I think the Minister is right. Because this kind of opportunity may not occur very often, I take advantage of this occasion to say this.

The Minister has to leave for the Dáil and the Parliamentary Secretary will take his place for the time being. The Minister will return in due course.

(Longford): I did not speak when the 1964 Bill was before the House because I was not too happy about the principle involved, but I was prepared to accept the opinion of my betters and of others who spoke in favour of the Bill. Still, I did not feel sufficiently convinced to speak in favour of it. Subsequently, I met members of county committees of agriculture and some CAOs who were directly involved and they convinced me that the change made by the 1964 Act was not for the best.

I have a clear recollection of meeting a CAO—not from the area where I live and not from the surrounding counties—a man well known to me and one I regard as being among the best in the country. I learned he was part of the deputation to the Department and the Minister for Agriculture objecting to the principles of the 1964 Act. I discussed it with him in an hotel and I remember distinctly putting this vital question to him: "What is your experience as a CAO of members of county committees of agriculture— are councillor members better administrators?" He is a man whose opinion I regard highly, a man of competence above ordinary. The reply I got from him was that in 99 cases out of 100 he found that members of county committees who were also members of county councils were the better administrators.

That convinced me. That man was objective and I knew it. I know also that the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture made representations on this matter just as CAOs did. I expect they are also in an organisation but I am not quite sure. Neither do I know if the chief agricultural organisations, as organisations, have made representations recently or over the past couple of years in this matter. I fancy they have because it appeared to me that the chief agricultural officers, as a body, seem to think, from any conversations I had, that the principles laid down in the 1964 Act were not for the better. It is because I am convinced of that that I am speaking in favour of this measure, something I did not do when the 1964 Bill was before this House. I think Senator Fitzgerald really made a case for this measure when he said that the Minister has now used the exact arguments he used in 1964.

That is right. They are all here.

(Longford): I accept that. I have a recollection that Senator Fitzgerald spoke on the 1964 measure and was not too happy about it. I agree that, in theory, a case could be made for both arguments, the principle involved in the 1964 Act and the principle involved in this measure. In practice, what happens in the long run is that we are dealing with men and women, the pride and prejudices of men and women and the collisions which take place, something like those which take place on the football field. We must be practical about this. In the long run I think that a better committee will emerge by leaving it to the council of county councils, particularly in view of the fact that a person who is competent to judge has informed me that in 99 cases out of 100 the elected member of the council is the best member of any county committee of agriculture. That man had no party political opinion, Labour, Fianna Fáil or otherwise. That was the view of a person who I consider to be very competent. That was a couple of years ago. I suppose that view still holds.

We were very grateful to the rural organisations in 1964.

(Longford): There is this fact. A council of a county can still bring in people and appoint them to the committee of agriculture under this measure if they think they are people who may make a useful and worthwhile contribution. In practice when a council or other such body have that provision it happens that it is not the individuals who may make a useful contribution who canvass for positions and appointments. Those who are elected members of the county council make the best organisation men. I am inclined to use the term “organisation man” because I think in our society at present we have the sort of person who in a large number of organisations will always want to act as spokesman.

You will have a good committee of agriculture if the council of a county have the full responsibility of appointing that committee of agriculture and if they are satisfied that they are people who will make a useful contribution as individuals but if a council of a county were faced with a situation in which rival organisations were jockeying for position on a committee of agriculture you would not have a good committee. The sort of situation I have in mind is that in which you could have the Leinster Milk Suppliers Association and the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association jockeying for position on the county committee of agriculture in County Meath. That could happen. In fact, it happens at the moment.

I know, and most Members of this House know, that you had that sort of situation in regard to the election of An Bord Bainne some time ago. You had different organisations campaigning against one another for election to An Bord Bainne. I have some experience of Seanad elections, the same as most Members of this House, and my information was that the Seanad election had nothing on the collisions and events that happened in the election of An Bord Bainne between rival organisations, particularly in the South of Ireland. This happened in other places as well. If the county council were faced with that sort of thing in Meath, Longford or Leitrim you would not have a good committee. While, as I say, I am speaking for this measure on this occasion, which I did not do in 1964, I still think there is enough freedom in the Bill to elect a council of a county in Meath, Longford, Leitrim or Galway to appoint people to the committee of agriculture who would not be members of the council. I think this measure is an improvement on the 1964 Act.

Since this debate opened here this afternoon I took the opportunity of consulting the Agricultural (Amendment) Act, 1964, and I think I can say with a certain amount of justification that the fears which have been expressed here, particularly in relation to the purpose of this Bill, on the supposed provisions of this Bill, are hardly justifiable. Before I deal with that I should like to say that it is a pleasure to find myself in agreement with Senator Sheehy Skeffington particularly when Senator Sheehy Skeffington happens to agree with the Minister. He did, to me, take the obviously correct line in this, the line one would expect any public representative to take and it is this. The responsibility for policy and for advisory services should be and is properly placed on the elected representatives either of those Houses or of the local councils because, after all, their responsibility to the people who elected them is a very chastening check on the members of any association, council or committee.

There was a suggestion that the reason for dealing with this at all was because of recent events, because of recent difficulties with a certain agricultural association and that this Bill is meant in some way to limit the power of a certain association. I can see no justifiable foundation for that. Some of the things said were suspicions rather than facts. The choice still rests with the council under the Agricultural (Amendment) Act, 1964, and under this Bill, which we are introducing here today. The members of a committee of agriculture who are not members of a county council will be selected under both those Acts by the county council.

Further, and I think that this is more important, there is no regulation or principle which says that the council must select people from certain organisations, nor was there any such regulation in the 1964 Act. There was no specification in that Act that certain agricultural organisations of any nature or of any particular type had to be represented on these committees of agriculture, and to suggest now that this was so is making a rather unreasonable and unfair case against this particular piece of legislation. The only requirement in relation to the quality of type of membership of the committees of agriculture inserted in the 1964 Act was that:

Every person, other than a member of the council, appointed to be a member of a Committee of Agriculture shall be chosen by the Council for such appointment either by reason of his attainments in the practice of farming or 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.

Those are the conditions that suited the previous Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

I do not think that we should at any particular time say that any special organisation should have a statutory right to representation on a body of this sort, because times and trends change; other vocational organisations will develop or be initiated, and to confine the membership of a committee of agriculture to particular associations in being at a particular time would be entirely unreasonable and restrict the basis of the activities of the committee. It is, therefore, a pity that here in this House when this issue does not arise it is suggested that it does.

Surely at a time when the local elections are almost imminent we should be unanimous on this point at least, that it is important to confer on members offering themselves for election, and particularly on those who are elected, a responsibility and a status which, unfortunately, apparently, they may not have always enjoyed in the eyes of the public. To suggest that, because they are not being obliged to select at least half of the members of these committees of agriculture from representatives other than council representatives, this is in some way a political move is entirely irresponsible.

If Senator O'Quigley or Senator Malone can tell me how any particular association is prejudiced by the change made or how any particular association had a right under the old piece of legislation, then all this easy talk will be justified. If they cannot it might be reasonable to forget the suspicions and it might be even honourable to withdraw the suggestions. What we have here is surely a piece of legislation conferring on local representatives, or leaving on them, a responsibility which is entirely theirs. This type of legislation is very welcome at a time when elected representatives at every level do not appear to enjoy before the public the respect which they might. Part of the reason for this, I suspect, may be the type of comment heard from some of the Opposition speakers here today.

Despite all that Senator O'Kennedy has just said, I still believe that this is a most inopportune time to introduce this piece of amending legislation in view of the unsatisfactory relations between the Government, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and his Department on the one hand and all the rural organisations on the other. In view of this country's probable entry into the more competitive European market it is necessary to encourage as many as possible of our more successful farmers to lend their talents, experience and expertise to the committees of agriculture throughout the country. We need more and more experts, and the term "master farmers" which would be possibly found a few years ago in the Agricultural Apprenticeship Act will more and more come into its own. Surely in the interests of efficiency and economy representation on these county committees of agriculture should be more or less on a vocational basis.

I certainly have nothing to say against the county committees of agriculture. They do quite a good job, but nobody can deny that they should keep abreast of modern trends, and the only way to do that is to have progressive and energetic members on those committees. The members of the county councils who to a great degree are members of the committees of agriculture, do excellent work and certainly give of their time very freely in the public interest. I would like to commend them for the work they do in every county throughout the country.

In each of the 27 county committees of agriculture we have had great strides in recent years in the staffing and organisation of the county committees of agriculture. We have the numbers of personnel and instructors of these committees being increased and there is indeed a reasonably satisfactory service, but that is no reason why we should endeavour at this time to introduce legislation that may be repugnant to any section of the farming community. For these reasons I regret that the Minister saw fit to introduce amending legislation with the least taste of hostility towards any section of organised farmers.

I am at a loss to understand the arguments put forward by the Opposition. To take the last speaker, he has paid a tribute to the agricultural committees and the manner in which they have been elected and the manner in which they have been carrying out their duties and functions. In general, he has paid a tribute to the excellent results arising out of their intense interest and activities on behalf of the agricultural community. Exactly the same method of selection which was in operation and under which the present committees of agriculture were selected is intended to be continued in this measure. If any regrets were to be expressed in this House I might have expressed my own regret at the fact that the 1964 measure was ever introduced.

I am not personally working in the agricultural field, but over many years I was intimately associated with the county councils. As an official of a county council, I had an opportunity of seeing the working of the council in its various committees and I had actually as a senior official intense interest in the method of selection of the various committees. I had an opportunity of studying the effects of the work of the various committees in my own department and in other departments. I can say with full justice that the method of selection by the county council is always fair and reasonable. It was suggested by Senator Cole that a better committee might be achieved by having an election. I do not think that that would be so. I think that the committee of agriculture, the vocational education committee and the other committees which are really selected by the county council were in themselves better administrators and better in their composition than was the county council which was an elected body.

Mayo County Committee of Agriculture were not quite happy about the measure which was then introduced. They were criticised by Mayo County Council and at that time they should not have said that it was introduced under any political cloud. It was criticised on its merits but now a measure which reflects the thinking of the agricultural committees and the thinking of the agricultural community is under a cloud because of recent unfortunate happenings among the agricultural organisations.

There is nothing in this measure, or in the 1964 measure, which makes it mandatory on any county council to give representation on a vocational basis to any organisation otherwise than by a selection of the county council in the manner in which they decide best helps out their own interests in the county council.

I take my own county council again. The Mayo County Council is made up of three main Parties, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Clann na Talmhan. It is an extraordinary thing that although they differ, and will differ, and are differing at present on the hustings, they want to consider the various bodies in the county and they have always been able to agree. That is really a justification of the political set-up in this country.

Or of Mayo people.

There is everywhere the interests of the country at heart and wherever the elected representatives are concerned to look after the interests of the people they are able to sink their political differences, except on the occasion of an election.

That is a tribute I should like to pay to the members of all Parties as I knew them on my own county council. It is a tribute I should like to pay to all Parties in every county. The interests of the farming community will be safely guarded and are safe in the hands of the elected representatives. The members go before the public and they are open to all the criticism within their own Party. Mind you, very many more critics will be found within a political Party criticising their own members. These members are criticised by the opposing political Party and criticised by people in all walks of life but they suffer that and they give their time free in the interests of the public. In the end, would we be justified in trying their hands in this matter of electing an agricultural committee or in any other way for all that by imposing on them conditions which would make it mandatory on them to select their committees from a particular limited representation?

It is a fact that county committees of agriculture will select people from some of their own rural organisations. It is also a fact that they may not select any from another rural organisation. Everybody here who has any association at all with rural organisations will agree that they are of different degrees of magnitude and importance. No county council would really be justified in saying: "We will pick one from this organisation and one from another organisation" because these organisations are not of equal importance and have not an equal impact on the work of agriculture in the community.

Any regrets that might be expressed in connection with this Bill arise from the fact that it is necessary at all. The real trouble arose before the measure was introduced in 1964. The Minister then introduced it in good faith and defended it in this House. I, like Senator O'Reilly, did not feel happy about it. I was convinced by feelings in my own county that it was not a wise measure, that it was not in the best interests of the community and that it cast a reflection on the county councils at the time. It cast a certain reflection on the then committees of agriculture because it was sought to change the voting under which they were selected before that. At that time, and since, the committee of agriculture has given excellent service on the Mayo County Council, so much so that recently when the chairman of the committee of agriculture declined to go forward for election to the county council the members of the various Parties requested him to stand again for the county council. He is a man who does not belong to any major political Party but every political Party asked him to stand and it was only under pressure that he stood again. This is testimony of the desire of the various organisations in the county to hold on to a good man when they have got him. There is also the guarantee that in the future you can reply on the county councils to select people from their various committees in the interests of the people and the country. I am very happy to be able to support this measure which will eliminate the other measure about which I was not very happy.

This Bill proposes that the 1964 Bill should be amended and that at least 50 per cent of the members of the committees of agriculture should be county councillors, regardless of their knowledge of agriculture in general. It does not matter what a member's occupation is. The political Parties will be required to put one-half of the members at least, on to the committee of agriculture and they have power then to co-opt the remainder of the committee members from political Parties, political supporters, political organisations and various other organisations which are associated with agriculture, such as the NFA, the ICA, the ICMSA, Muintir na Tíre and other very useful rural bodies.

This Bill could lead to a situation in which none of these bodies will be represented on the committees of agriculture because the various political Parties in their own interests may select people who are actively associated with agriculture and who are more closely associated with the political activities of the Party. This is a regrettable step. The previous Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, who brought in the 1954 Bill has, in the meantime, been sacked by his own Party. This would seem to be a fair Bill in giving representation to the rural community on committees of agriculture.

On a point of correction, I think the Senator is completely wrong, whether deliberately or innocently, in saying that the Minister for Agriculture to whom he referred was sacked. He was not sacked.

He was not sacked.

He was frozen out.

He was not frozen out.

We well know the circumstances which caused him to resign at the time.

The Senator knows the facts to be contrary.

I am just pointing out that the previous Minister brought this in and he is not here now to support what he did at that time. Obviously, the Minister is not justified. He has not made a case in favour of having this change, a case that would be convincing; whereas, the previous Minister for Agriculture made a very good case in favour of opening up the committees of agriculture to the various rural organisations who had the interests of agriculture at heart. When we examine it, we see there are other committees — vocational education committees, library committees, scholarship committees and so forth — on which nonmembers of the county councils are co-opted.

The previous Bill permitted what I considered to be a very desirable situation — an independent committee of agriculture, outside politics, operating the various schemes within the framework of county councils. These committees of agriculture render very valuable assistance to the rural community, particularly in agriculture and horticulture. I know Dublin County Committee of Agriculture made the first move towards the establishment of a very useful growers' co-operative society which has helped the growers to find markets for their produce, organise the marketing, sell their produce and present it properly to the various supermarkets and shops. That was a very useful contribution that committee of agriculture made and the non-council members on that committee certainly made very valuable suggestions in relation to the ultimate organisation and setting up of that society. I am talking only about Dublin County Committee of Agriculture but I am quite sure that throughout the country the various county committees of agriculture have done a very good service for the people associated with agriculture.

Now we are going to move backwards instead of forwards. At the moment we are looking forward to going into the EEC and getting a market for the various types of produce and livestock from our land. Therefore, it is all the more important that people who are actively associated with agriculture and making a living from the land should be on these committees because these are the people whose experience and suggestions will be most valuable in achieving whatever benefits the Common Market will have for this country. It is proposed now, through this Bill, to dispense with the 1964 Bill which had all this in view and the case was made in favour of having this kind of vocational body established as a committee of agriculture in the various counties with those purposes in view. Now we have a situation in which it will be political prestige which will count on the committees of agriculture—not representation of agriculture and horticulture. Let us face it. Those of us on the county councils know that when the committees of agriculture are being filled up—after the county council members have been elected to it—the co-options are then made. Of course, I cannot imagine any Fianna Fáil member of the newly appointed committee of agriculture proposing that a person who is known to be a Fine Gael supporter should go on that committee and give the committee the benefit of his advice and guidance. I am quite sure that the Fianna Fáil Party will not consider that but will consider the political credentials of the person they propose to put on that committee. That is why it will not be as good a committee as we could have if we just recognised experts in the various fields of agriculture and horticulture as representatives of the various associations I mentioned. I would go so far as to suggest that this is actually a spiteful move on the part of the Government because, if the 1964 Bill were let stand, and had we had the 1965 county council elections we should have had at that time, we would now have a vocational body operating as a committee of agriculture in the various county councils instead of a body dominated by at least 50 per cent of the county councillors, probably in the majority of county councils.

Could the Senator say how he will get that ideal body when the selectors remain the same?

You could adopt some such system as was going to be adopted in 1964. A very good case was made at that time by the previous Minister for Agriculture in favour of the amendment which he brought in and in favour of the results which would follow.

We have in recent years, in the past 15 or 20 years, people associated with agriculture who realise the importance of science and techniques in connection with agriculture. They have imparted this knowledge to the ordinary people earning a living from the land. These people on the land regard them now as their leaders. These organisations and associations have very good voluntary committees and do a great amount of voluntary work. They do it on an objective basis. They have nothing in view except the achievement of something better for the agricultural and horticultural industry with which they are associated.

For that reason we will have to oppose this Bill. I feel it is most unfair to the rural organisations. The ICA, for instance, have done a wonderful job for the community at large, particularly in relation to handcrafts, cooking and various other domestic economies and sciences. Again, they will be deprived now of having members on the various committees of agriculture unless they have a political tab. We must be clear about that. If a member of the NFA, ICA, Muintir na Tíre or the ICMSA does not wear a political tab of which the majority of members on the council portion of the committee of agriculture are in favour, he will not get on to it. If you like, they will be tied hand and foot by the political outlook of those who proposed and co-opted them to the various committees. In other words, you will now have committees of agriculture which are purely and simply political organisations instead of voluntary organisations which are genuinely and sincerely interested in the employment of new methods and new techniques. That is a very great mistake and even at this stage I would suggest to the Minister when it goes through the next Stages that he might even consider reducing the number of councillors. Even if he were to reduce the number of councillors by less than 50 per cent you would not then have a situation in which the members of the various associations would have to wear a political tab before they had any hope of getting past the various political Parties. Therefore, if he reduces by less than 50 per cent county council representation there will be some chance of turning it into a vocational body.

The circumstances surrounding the introduction of this Bill bring to my mind the kind of thing that goes on in Soviet Russia when one of the great dictators, as we have seen from time to time, has been either pushed or fallen. Then all his works and pomps are denounced. The 1964 Act which we are now amending was the work of a Minister for Agriculture who has been dethroned, replaced or has resigned but, at any rate, who is no longer Minister for Agriculture. It seems to be necessary, therefore, to complete the killing off of this man by introducing a Bill even before it has got off the ground, before it has been experimented with, repealing what he did in the 1964 Act.

Of course, this is not by any means confined to what goes on in the Politburo. This is not the first Bill that the Fianna Fáil Government have introduced and changed their minds when it suited their political fortunes.

It is a good man who changes his mind.

It is, indeed. We are constantly trying to get you to change your mind.

We have completely failed with you.

We have got a few amendments through the House in my name and it shows that the Leader of the House is not unreasonable.

It shows that the Ministers are not unreasonable.

Senators will address the Chair.

Of course, the great innovator and bringer about of change is the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. When he was Minister for Local Government he introduced a Bill postponing the local elections and then he introduced another Bill to postpone the local elections. I do not know whether he has introduced a third Bill. I am not quite sure.

These Bills were introduced after the Oireachtas had decided that elections should be held quinquennially, at the beginning and middle of every decade. That is only one instance of the kind of inability to make up their minds or refusal to face the political consequences of following out an Act of the Oireachtas.

We had the same thing in relation to the control of the buying and selling of agricultural land. The Fine Gael Party in the Dáil introduced a Private Bill. It was rejected by the Dáil as being unnecessary. On the Committee Stage of the Land Bill of 1965, an amendment was introduced to prevent speculative buying of agricultural land. The whole principle of it was rejected by the Minister for Lands but before the Land Bill of 1965 had passed all Stages an extensive amendment in the form of section 64 was introduced by the Minister for Lands, who refused to accept in principle the amendment put down a few months earlier on Committee Stage.

Can we now come to the Bill?

I wanted to direct the mind of the House to the motives behind this Bill and to point out that the advice tendered by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and by the Government with whom he shares collective responsibility is not to be trusted. I want to point out that there was another Bill, the Succession Bill, which prevented a farmer in this country from leaving the whole of his miserable holding to his wife. That was introduced by a Fianna Fáil Minister in 1964 and that Bill was wiped out.

It is now time that the Senator came to the Agriculture (Amendment) Bill.

In the light of the sorry experience of the inability of the Government to make up their minds on what is right, I must view this Bill with a considerable amount of suspicion and I do view it with a considerable amount of suspicion. For that reason I propose to vote against this Bill.

We are living at a time in this country when there is a great deal of talk about taking agriculture out of politics, when everybody says that agriculture should not be made the plaything of politicians. If a political Party exercises discretion and restraint in a row between one section of the agricultural community and the Government they do not sometimes get the credit that they ought to get because they have exercised that restraint. It is a good thing and right and proper in the interests of the nation that restraint should be exercised. I want to suggest to this House that the 1964 Bill which provided that 50 per cent of the members of committees of agriculture need not be drawn from politicians went a good distance towards putting on committees of agriculture persons with no identifiable political affiliation. I think that it would have been a good thing to people every county committee of agriculture with persons with no declared political affiliation in a local election. In so far as this Bill rejects that principle I think that the House ought to reject the Bill. I think it was a good thing to get away from peopling committees of agriculture with persons of political Parties purely in the interests of agriculture, that here we are dealing with a dying section of our community, with an industry that is on its last legs. One of the things we ought to try to do is to unite all sections of the community in an effort to save rural Ireland and to save agriculture from the fate to which it seems to be destined as long as the Government continue their present policy.

God protect us from the saviours.

Let there be no doubt about it, it was under Fine Gael Ministers for Agriculture that the agricultural population of this country prospered and they will not prosper again until there is a return to a Fine Gael Government and a Fine Gael Minister for Agriculture. Nobody can say that the former Minister for Agriculture was a dashing success. When I heard Senator O'Kennedy read out the requirements for a committee of agriculture of 20 or 25 and contrasted these requirements with the knowledge of agriculture of Deputy Haughey I was vastly amused.

It is easy to amuse you.

There is a good deal to be said for insisting on a minimum number of persons not to be drawn from the elected representatives of the people on committees of agriculture, the minimum number may be 33? per cent, 50 per cent or 25 per cent. There is no doubt that there is quite a number of people in this country whose disposition does not fit for the ardours and the disagreeable work involved in seeking election to local authorities. Some people may say that if they are not prepared to do that they should not be put on committees of agriculture. That might be one view but if committees of agriculture or any other committee can benefit from the advice and help and work of these people then, in the interests of agriculture and of the local agricultural population, they should be put on the committees.

If they do not happen to like the rigours of the battle for political honours on local authorities that is not any good reason for depriving the rural community of their services if they are prepared to give them. In my experience, what is happening in this country is that the people in political life have too much to do and cannot do all the things they have to do as they wish to do them and are capable of doing them. If people are on committees of agriculture, health committees, vocational education committees, mental hospital committees, harbour boards and so on the same people are all the time being called on to do this, that and the other job and their help and the services that they can give are being impaired.

Therefore, I think it is a very good idea that people who are not prepared for the arduous life of politics are the people with more time at their disposal for work on county committees of agriculture. I would have thought that in modern times the trend should be towards unifying both town and country. We are getting to be a smaller community all the time and there are many people in the business world— managers of co-operatives, managers of creameries, people in business who have business acumen—who should be asked to serve on county committees of agriculture because very often they know the markets, they know all about prices of fertilisers and things of that kind. Their knowledge should be made available for county committees of agriculture.

I am well aware that the Minister will say there is nothing to prevent, under the 1931 Act which was introduced by a Fine Gael Minister for Agriculture, councils putting up to 50 per cent of non-council members on committees of agriculture if they want to but the introduction of this legislation seems to me to be against the trend we should all like to see developing. Apart altogether from these observations, which would be more apposite in support of the 1964 Bill if it were before us, the Minister in his pithy statement to the House recommending the passing of the Bill has not given to my mind any cogent reasons for the repeal beyond saying that he received representations from committees of agriculture and county councils.

He has not told us from which committees of agriculture or which councils or when last they were received. That is information the House would have found valuable. Is there a majority of committees of agriculture, a majority of county councils that have done this and what was the nature of their representations and when were they last received? If the Minister really wanted to persuade the House that account should be taken of these representations he might have given the House the benefit of this information when introducing the Bill. This Bill has been introduced solely because of the existing political situation between the Minister and a large section of the farming community in this country and because it is introduced in that spirit I will not be a party to being vindictive against the rural community and I propose to vote against the Bill.

I may be accused of not making a very good case for this Bill but I assert that I made a much better one for it than has been made against it and, indeed, a much more logical one. I might add a little to what I have already said, and if Senator O'Quigley were serious in the case he made against the Bill he can find the information in the Official Dáil Report where he will find the names of the committees in question. The first bodies to make representations, he will find, were the General Council of Committees of Agriculture—that was subsequent to the amendment being passed —and the General Council of County Councils which embrace all county councils as do the General Council of Committees of Agriculture embrace all county committees of agriculture. There were also the county committees of agriculture for Carlow, Clare, Laois, Tipperary, Waterford and Westmeath, all very much in favour of the 1964 amendment being rescinded. These were all subsequent to the passing of the 1964 Act. The last of these I am aware of was in the month of June or July, 1965, approximately a year after the amending legislation was enacted. We also had representations from the county councils of Roscommon and Tipperary North Riding. They are the overall names of the bodies in question, one of them representing all the county councils in the country and the other all the committees of agriculture in the country, plus a number of individual county councils and county committees of agriculture.

A minority of the county committees of agriculture and of the county councils.

I said the General Council of County Councils and the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture.

I know, but how many were present and voted?

Because these representations were made subsequent to the 1964 amending Act being passed, it is unlikely that any of these bodies were supporters of the Fianna Fáil Government and Minister for Agriculture who introduced that amending Act. If the Senator wishes to go back and see who was really against it at that time he will find that the majority of county councils, the majority of committees of agriculture were supporters of his own Party who spoke against the 1964 amendment.

I had the unique experience of being in the Dáil a week or two ago when a colleague of Senator O'Quigley, Deputy L'Estrange, waxed eloquent on the topic and he challenged me to name even one committee which passed a resolution condemning the 1964 Act. Of course, his own county committee of agriculture were among them but the laugh was that it was he who proposed it and he challenged me to name one committee.

He wanted to see if you knew what you were talking about—if you were drawing the long bow.

Neither Deputy L'Estrange nor I makes his money in that way. We do not do much in that way. The Senator may know more about it. All these bodies are on record as having passed resolutions subsequent to the enactment of the 1964 amendment and the question may well be asked when and why did I change around to the present amendment or rescinding motion. It is because I, my Party and the Government have changed our minds and we are not afraid to say so. As distinct from some other Members who were against the 1964 amendment and who are now against the deletion of the 1964 amendment, I am saying we have changed our minds and are rescinding the 1964 provision before it becomes effective because we believe it is not in the best interests of the agricultural community.

There was then the imminence, as we thought, of the 1965 local elections. We have had time since to look to see whether there was substance in the resolutions passed by these bodies. We were satisfied that there was substance in them and we decided to introduce this rescinding Bill.

Senator Fitzgerald and I usually agree on many local government matters and I hate to think we reached a point of disagreement on this occasion. He told us that the arguments I used in my introductory speech today were the same arguments he used against the 1964 amending Bill and yet he said my arguments were not sufficient to justify the passing of the Bill today before the House. Now, if I read the Senator aright, it is quite obvious he made a poor case of his story in 1964. If my story is inadequate today, and it is similar to his in 1964, both of us at two different times thinking alike, and he was right in his arguments, then I am right in mine now. If his argument was worthwhile then, mine is worthwhile now.

We are in good company.

There is a lot of waffle going on here about voluntary bodies and about how we are taking something from them. The fact of the matter is that in the 1964 Bill the voluntary bodies were never given anything.

That is correct.

The fact of the matter is that there were no amendments proposed by the Opposition Parties at the time of the passage of the 1964 Act to give any real recognition to those voluntary bodies. Now, the same people who had that opportunity at that time to propose amendments to give these voluntary bodies direct representations, the people who slipped up then, or did not think then as they appear to think now, come along today shedding crocodile tears about our taking from the voluntary bodies something which they had not or never had. As the Leader of the Seanad on the Government side said in an intervention earlier, if you do not change the selectors, much difference will it be in any amending Bill going through this House or the other House.

The county council have been, and will continue to be, the selectors of the committee of agriculture. At the moment they have complete discretion, and they will continue to have this discretion, to appoint all the members to the county committee of agriculture, except one member who must be a councillor, as outsiders, if there is available to them, and to their knowledge, people who are worth putting on and who would join with the other members of their own council. There is scarcely a county in the country which has not outsiders. Many of those outsiders have not adherence to any political Party. If one Party, say, the Fianna Fáil Party, were pigheaded enough to put something through for Party political purposes, surely the Fine Gael Party or any other Party would not be pigheaded at the same time and ignore good people, and not only good but better than some of the elected members who are available and who are prepared to act on the councils? If one Party errs, surely it is most unlikely if Fianna Fáil were to err, that Fine Gael would slip up and follow their bad example. Surely the Labour Party people who are also on those councils in different parts of the country would not follow their example.

It will be different when we have Fine Gael on the council after the next election.

Even if all those people who represent the three main Parties slipped up, surely there would be the odd upright, self-righteous, outspoken public representative, the Independent, of no Party who would get up and wipe us all out by putting us to shame and saying: "You left so and so out while you put on this mug here". Surely Fine Gael are not trying to tell us that this system would be such that all Parties would be wrong all the time and put on no good people while they had any political hacks to put on. This is the impression to be got from what has been said here.

I have said this before but it is no harm to repeat it. I consider it a reflection at this particular time, a very outstanding reflection, and one which I hope will be taken note of, that for purely political expediency purposes, the main Opposition Party, both in this House and in the other House are opposing this Bill now and in so doing, the arguments they use are a reflection not only on Fianna Fáil councillors but on their own Fine Gael councillors, and prospective potential councillors and it is also a reflection on the calibre of their own candidates who are going forward in the coming elections.

As I appealed in the Dáil even at this late stage would they not retract and give some credit to those from their own party who are going forward? They are casting a slur on those people in what they are saying here. They are talking in denigrating terms and relegating them to second-class people who are not capable or fit to select the committees of agriculture in their own councils.

The Minister is now taking leave of his senses.

The Minister is not taking leave of his senses but he wants to get this thing clear. The county committees of agriculture, as selected in the past, and, according to those same speakers who say that they wish to have a change, give good service. Senator Rooney and some other Senators paid tribute, in my own hearing, to the worth of those county committees of agriculture in the past. How then, if they are aware of the worth of those people, do they seek to have a change and to prevent the passage of this Bill which will enable the committees of agriculture in the future to be selected in exactly the same manner as they have been selected in the past.

You cannot have it both ways. That is all I can say to the Senators who talk in glowing terms of the service rendered by those people and in reverse terms of what it will be in the future if we do not change the selection of the committees, assuming we have the 1964 Act in operation. How can anybody assert that there will be a possibility or a probability, not to talk of a certainty, that outstanding people will not be available if we still had the 1964 Act? That being the case why all the talk about it now? Why not revert to what we know? Why not leave it as it has been, as it has worked up to the moment?

May I also add that my own opinion is that I would rather leave to the full discretion of the council the selection of outsiders to the degree they think is good and proper for the carrying on of their agricultural committee bodies than to oblige them to select 50 per cent from outside when in fact 50 per cent good and bright people might not be available? You could have the crazy situation where there would be 50 per cent outside membership available and willing to serve, with the requisite knowledge, with the specialist value we hear about, and 50 per cent members from outside who were not better than those within the council itself. Would it not be a ludicrous situation? This could well happen.

The Minister is exaggerating as he did in the Roscommon by-election.

There has been no exaggeration in any by-election.

What about the thousand letters in Roscommon?

One letter.

A thousand letters, the Minister said.

I am surprised at the Senator raising this matter. The Senator knows the facts because he was busy trying to square things so that the man in question would not be prosecuted. Is that not correct?

Absolutely no: I had absolutely nothing to do with it.

If the Senator asserts it here, he must have an interest in it; otherwise he would not do so.

Is it in order for a Minister to accuse a Member of the House of attempting to square a prosecution?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think the Senator is asking whether a disorderly remark arising out of another one was further out of order. If the Minister were to continue on the Bill——

Very good. We have had a number of suggestions that people of no declared politics would get on these committees if we did not have the change made in this Bill. When somebody tells you that there seems to be some special virtue in people who have no declared politics, I think it is about time we considered this matter. We are all in politics, and it is time we dropped this approach, this talk of the cynics outside, who are already too many, or those who have declared politics as if they have some sort of plague to be kept away from. What virtue have those people? What special virtue is there in having no declared politics?

I never said anything about that either.

The words were that we would get people of no declared politics on all these committees as a result of the 1964 Act.

Read the script.

I wrote it down, if the Senator wants to get out of it. What was meant was that we will have no people of no declared politics even under the 1964 Act. There is no virtue in people of no declared politics.

I quite agree. It is a negative virtue.

There is some virtue, surely, when they are civil servants?

That is a statistic, I presume.

It is surprising to hear this coming from the Senator.

The Minister was stumped so he is becoming abusive.

Is there any virtue in a vocational Seanad?

The House and the Senator know that I have views about that, and I have not changed my views in relation to this House. It is true that we have changed our minds, and the reason we are now taking this course urgently is the fact that there will be local elections on 28th June and thereafter on 12th July or some other such date, the first meetings of the new councils take place, and at those meetings the election of this and every other sort of committee takes place. Therefore, if we are to have it changed within the next five years, we must change it now or not at all. This is the urgency of the matter at this particular time. This is why it is being brought forward now, and not for the other reasons that are being alleged here.

There is not only a suggestion that we are taking from the voluntary organisations but there is the innuendo, on some occasions openly expressed, that we are keeping the NFA off these committees. The NFA will get on them or not get on them depending on the wishes of the councillors elected on June 28th. This was the case; this will be the case whether or not this Bill is passed, so that there is no point in trying to make out that this Bill is there not only to prevent all voluntary organisations getting on but particularly to block the NFA from getting on. They can either get on if this is passed or they cannot. The passage of it will neither help them or hinder them. If the majority of each council wish that certain people should be members of the committee, then I hope that they will be chosen not simply as members of any organisation but because they are the best. I hope they will be chosen because they are worth it for the contribution they can make, and not for the organisation they represent. This is the essence of the selection I would like to see, and nothing that we do in this Bill is going to interfere with that spirit which I hope will be carried out on 12th July. It is a rather significant date and I hope will be a big day when these committees return after the election on June 28th.

It is really true that one can be led away from relevant debate by what has already been said. If one does not make some reference to it, he is accused of running away from it; if he does, it merely adds to the general irrelevancy already talked. The Bill is straightforward. We propose to wipe out by section 1 the 1964 amendment which obliged councils as and from the next following election, which is June 28th, to select absolutely 50 per cent outsiders for the committees of agriculture. We are changing that and restoring the 1939 Act provision which is that all the members, bar one, need not be councillors. This is what we are asking to have changed. I believe it is right that we should change and that we were wrong in proposing the 1964 measure and therefore should retrace our steps. Instead of being criticised for that rather should we be praised, and likewise in regard to the Land Bill mentioned here. Criticism is being levelled at us because we have refused to accept a principle we adopted earlier, and finally on full consideration have replaced it. This surely is good, wise, prudent, reasonable, well considered government rather than that we should not be willing to make a change on which we are convinced, lest we be criticised for changing. We and the Government will change our minds when we are convinced that it is in the best interests of the country to do so, even though our political opponents will try to make an embarrasing situation out of that change.

I believe that this is a worthwhile principle that should commend itself to the House, and I hope it will be accepted and that we will get it through and ensure that what we have known and thought will be made clear to the public, to show the people approaching June the 28th as electors that we as Members of the Oireachtas have confidence in those who will be elected, and that we fully agree that they are the people who should be free to select these committees of agriculture throughout the country.

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá 29 9; Níl 9.

  • Ahern, Liam.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brennan, John J.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Crowley, Patrick.
  • Davidson, Mary F.
  • Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Fitzgerald, John.
  • Fitzsimons, Patrick.
  • Flanagan, Thomas P.
  • Honan, Dermot P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Martin, James J.
  • Nash, John Joseph.
  • Ó Conalláin, Dónall.
  • Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
  • Stanford, William B.
  • Teehan, Patrick J.
  • Yeats, Michael.

Níl

  • Cole, John C.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
  • McDonald, Charles.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Mannion, John.
  • O'Quigley, John B.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Cavan).
  • Rooney, Éamon.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Browne and Farrell: Níl, Senators Malone and Rooney.
Question declared carried.

I think we should take the remaining Stages now, if there is no objection, in view of the fact that the Bill must be law before the 12th July.

We will be sitting on the 4th July.

Is there any objection to taking them now?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is a matter for the House to decide.

An chéad lá eile; give all Stages the next day.

What is the point in putting it off until the 4th of July? If there was anything serious going to be done about it, I would see the sense.

I wonder would it be possible to appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to take the other Stages today, in view of the fact that no amendment has been put down or suggested and there has been a fairly strong vote in the House in favour of the Bill?

I think it is reasonable to ask for the remaining Stages now.

We have time and time again had to protest against the failure of the Government so to organise their business that we should not have to rush through Bills in this House. According to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries here this afternoon they knew in July, 1965, that this Bill would be amended and they did nothing about it until they introduced it on the 24th May. I do not propose to encourage that kind of approach to the business of this House and I will not agree.

Has the Senator any significant amendment in mind?

The amendment I have in mind is of the Government's way of conducting the business of this House.

That is a lost cause.

The fact that the Second Stage was passed by 29 to nine would seem to be a reasonable indication of the wishes of the majority that all Stages be taken today but that would not seem to commend itself to the Leader of the Fine Gael Party. Another thing, I resent very strongly the insinuation he made that Government business is badly organised. The point at issue is whether Senator O'Quigley and his Party will try to ensure that when their speakers get an opportunity of contributing on Bills they will realise there are 59 other Members of this House who might like to speak and not monopolise the time by hour-long speeches on everything; then there would be no delays.

What I am protesting about is the continued failure of the Government to bring Bills into this House in time so that we will not all the time be asked to push Bills through. I will not consent to that.

I would be inclined to agree with Senator O'Quigley if he picked some other time which had any sense in relation to the argument, but he has picked a very bad occasion.

Is it understood that if the Bill is taken in Committee on the 4th July, the remaining Stages will be given also on that day?

I have already indicated that because I am not unreasonable, I hope.

Well, since the Senator does not recognise majority rule, we will have to be satisfied. We could insist on doing it now and we believe in the power of majorities but we are very considerate of the rights of minorities.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Committee Stage ordered for next sitting day.

Top
Share