Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jul 1968

Vol. 65 No. 11

Wool Marketing Bill, 1968: Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.

The Chair suggests that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 be taken together. Separate decisions may be had if necessary.

I move amendment No. 1 in the name of Senator McDonald:

In paragraph (b), line 12, before "place" to insert "principal".

This amendment is to ensure that the licence would be for the principal place of business rather than any and every place.

The amendment would negative the purpose of registration since it would allow a registered buyer to carry on business in an unregistered place to do business other than its principal business. For that reason I cannot feel that this would be an amendment that should be accepted. Of course, as amendment No. 2 is also allied to amendment No. 1, the same remarks would apply.

In view of what the Minister has said, I shall not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Section agreed to.
Section 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill".

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the terms of one of the clauses of this section. That is the one which relates to the laying before both Houses of the Oireachtas the matter of the revocation of a licence. This clause first appeared in the Marts Bill last year and on that occasion I congratulated the Minister on this beneficial section which had not appeared in any previous Bill and I expressed the hope that this would be an example for the future and that the practice would be continued. I see that the clause appears in this Bill and I congratulate the Minister on it.

On Second Stage I raised a question under subsection (1) paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 9 which states:

The Minister shall (a) cancel the registration of any person in the register, (b) revoke a licence granted to a person under this Act, upon the application of the person or, in the case of a deceased person, his personal representative, or in the case of a body corporate, the liquidator.

Has the Minister no power to cancel the registration unless asked to do so by the personal representative of the deceased person?

There is also the following subsection which gives power to the Minister if he so thinks fit to cancel or suspend a licence.

Does that cover a deceased as well as a living person?

I do not think that meets the case covered by subsection (1) but on reading further in subsection (2), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) we find it gives reasons why the Minister might think fit to cancel.

If a licensed person has died the licence will cease to exist. The entire livelihood of that person's family and his employees may be depending on the business built up by him and I want to ask the Minister should the licence go to some other person in the firm and if the Minister considered there was no suitable person in the firm would the livelihood of all those engaged in the business be at stake?

Do you mean in the event of cancellation or revocation?

If the licence was cancelled or revoked, whether this was brought about by the action of the Minister or at the request of the personal representative, undoubtedly in each case there is likely to be some other person, whether an employee or a member of the family, who would be suitable to continue the business. It would be difficult to envisage the circumstances in which this would not be so and it would also be true to say that in the case of a revocation taking place as a result of the passing of the actual business holder. That would probably be dealt with subsequently by a new application from somebody allied to the firm or business, or family, or, indeed, in their employment who would be regarded as a suitable person to hold a licence and who would have a knowledge of the trade. I do not think it could happen even where a licence was taken away by the Minister because of various malpractices mentioned under subsection (a). It could be that a licence in respect of the business that had been carried on might well be granted on application to some new licence-holder. Again, it could be somebody from the particular business concerned. It could be somebody in the family concerned or somebody in the employment of the firm before the actual revocation of the licence because in that sort of case a great deal would depend on the circumstances that surround the taking away of licences and whether or not the person engaged in the businesses were, in fact, above board and above suspicion and that you were not taking back a licence because of some sort of malpractice which would continue.

It would depend on the merits of the case if and when that would arise. This would be capable of being done and it would be fair to say that in any of these cases where revocation had ill effects for persons in employment that anything that could would be done. The new licence being issued would cater for them and secure them against total loss of employment. This undoubtedly would be the wish of the Minister of the day and I have no hesitation in saying that at this stage.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."

I am at a loss to know why the Minister wants this particular section. It would appear that it is giving extraordinary powers to the Minister. We all feel that there is necessity for legislation to help improve the market position of the wool and help the farmers who are engaged in this branch of agricultural husbandry. I feel that the Minister under section 10 is taking extraordinary powers in so far as if he so thinks fit that by regulation he can grant an exemption to a person or individual, complete exemption, under this particular Bill if it becomes an Act. I should like the Minister to tell us why he needs this power and the particular circumstances he would avail of under section 10 of the Act.

The situation in regard to this Bill is that as it stands under section 10 the Minister would have no power to make regulations exempting from the Act businesses of a particular class. On this point there is no power to exempt individuals. Businesses of particular classes may be exempted. There is just one instance and it is the only concrete one I have. My present intention, under the terms of this Bill if it is passed and becomes law, is to exempt buyers of skinned wool as a class from the exemption. It may be that there will be other things that will emerge where exemption of this nature would not be desirable but section 10 will not only enable the exemption of the class, particularly of skinned wool, but perhaps others of a like nature to this in time ahead. As of now, my intention, under this particular section, is to exempt buyers of skinned wool from the provisions of the Act.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

There is a reference here to prescribing fees. I asked a question on Second Stage on what section in the Bill does the Minister rely for his power to prescribe fees.

Section 8.

I just wondered whether that section, in fact, conferred power on the Minister or merely infers power he already has.

Section 8 says:

...such fee (if any) as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may fix...

Is this enough to give him the power?

Subsection (1) of section 8 says:

There shall be paid to the Minister...

That is the lead-in of that one. It is in the first line.

In regard to this section which relates to the grading of wool, perhaps the Minister could give us some information when he would propose to bring that into operation in view of the very large programme involved in training the necessary personnel for the purchase of wool on a graded basis? It is one of the most important aspects of the Bill that the wool producer will benefit in prices for his trouble in presenting fleeces in a clean and thorough manner but there is more to it than just that. The different grades of wool will emerge from the best types of sheep and the Minister might be able to tell us how far research has gone into the production of the best type of wool required on the market today.

We realise that there are many types of wool which will find a market eventually in, if you like, Australia and New Zealand. I do not propose that we embark on importing Merino sheep but they concentrate on the production of the best type of wool which they have there. I can see great problems arising in this country where we have so many different types of sheep and this will be a lengthy job. I cannot see it happening this year and I doubt if the personnel will be available next year to put this into effect. Perhaps the Minister could give more information on that.

The subject is wide. It would be more a matter to look up in the Library than for the Minister to try to answer that. The quality of our wool is dealt with by the Committee on Wool Improvements. They state in paragraph 115 of their report that the basic quality of Irish wool is of a reasonably good standard.

An Foras Talúntais are interesting themselves in this matter of quality, product and breeding but I have not got this information at the moment. In relation to the section, what the Senator started on was the question of when the grading and the paraphernalia attached to the Bill will be in operation. Straight off I should say that it is my hope that by this time next year there will be in operation a simplified form of grading, not necessarily the final system of grading but at any rate a simplified form, in time for next year's clip.

Will it be in relation to the entire flock of the country rather than a section of it?

Yes, and our treatment of the wool we have will form an early part of our effort. Of course, the greater part of our endeavour will be a development of that which we have got at the moment to see that not only is the wool clipped clean but that it is kept clean and in sound condition and not abused between the time of the clip and the time it is marketed. We have got a bit yet to do before we get down to the more important and more far-reaching questions of the breeding and the varieties of wool as well as inquiring into the intricacies that exist in that respect. I wish to state now that the basic quality of our wool is regarded as being reasonably sound but there is a good deal we can do about breeding and presentation. We hope to have this in operation and to do a better job next year.

Will the Minister be able to control the price of wool this year? Most of the wool has been disposed of and there is evidence of a couple of pence increase per pound. This is rather regrettable because the majority of farmers sold at a low price, yet the price appears to have been uniform in the case of all buyers. There is what would appear to be a ring in operation and the time has come when the Minister must announce minimum prices for produce of this kind. Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) is that to which I am referring and I should like to ask the Minister the specific circumstances he envisages here.

In regard to a number of these questions one would need notice in order to do justice to the replies. The short answer to the query is that the particulars will be as may be prescribed. I presume the Senator wishes to go further and that he wishes to know what are these particulars. Before mentioning anything in relation to that, I have referred to the other question in regard to the section.

What I am anxious about is whether the Minister will be able to control the price and announce a minimum price.

I do not think this is really on. The announcement of a minimum price would imply a responsibility to buy at that minimum price. A case has not been made for this merely because wool may be a couple of pence dearer than the price at which it was sold originally. If wool is kept for a few months after the clip it does not add to its weight if it is reasonably kept and the person who gets the penny or twopence more for it today is probably no better off than the person who sold it a little cheaper some months ago. Of course, there is a possibility that the fact that buyers offer in or around the same price can denote that there may be a ring, but, of course, the ring price need not necessarily react to the disadvantage of the sellers. It could be that these people's efforts to sell their wool and get around the same price for it would be indicative of reasonable handling but this need not necessarily mean that the price has been created to the disadvantage of the sellers though, as I have said, it is a possibility.

Very often when such things happen, the immediate indication is that this is a fix to the disadvantage of the farmers. On the other hand, one would be prompted to ask whether this is the case when there is a wide disparity between the price offered by one buyer and another. Therefore, the fact that wool is offered at the same price does not set up the case that this is a ring to the disadvantage of the farmers. Under the aegis of An Chomhairle and under their realistic appraisal of the various grades of wool, I hope prices will be about the same for comparable grades throughout the country. That is what we should aim at rather than condemning the fact that we have similar prices paid by all buyers. We should look further to find if there is a ring to the disadvantage of the farmers or if this is a true reflection of the economics of the market in which the wool was sold. We may be wronging people who are offering similar prices throughout the country.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."

This is the section which caused the greatest controversy in the other House. It is one about which I feel very strongly. In it, the Minister will have either a very useless body or a body with tremendous potential and it seems at this stage that the Comhairle will have neither power nor responsibility. During the debate in the other House on this section in Committee, Deputy Clinton asked the Minister whether An Chomhairle could inspect premises and the Minister replied that it would not be part of their function. I fail to see how any body can give advice to the Minister and yet not be able to acquire knowledge themselves from experience which they themselves have of visiting other people in the same or allied businesses.

The Senator may raise these matters on the next section to which a number of amendments have been tabled dealing with the same question.

I bow to your ruling.

I should like to impress on the Minister the necessity for ensuring that every type of sheep farmer will be well represented on the Comhairle.

Certain amendments have been tabled to the Schedule, which covers the matters the Senator is now seeking to raise. It would be more appropriate to raise them on the Schedule.

On section 12, which sets up the wool council, the council is totally ineffective for what is required as a board, because the council as set up under this section has not the powers to give worthwhile assistance to the wool trade by means of stabilising prices.

Section 13 deals with the functions of the council and the Chair feels that this question might be raised more appropriately on the following section.

I bow to your ruling, a Chathaoirleach.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill".

Could the Minister say, perhaps, if the council will be able to relieve the Irish wool producer of being completely dependent on the Bradford sales and that it would embark on a sales campaign for the Irish farmers alone rather than for the clip being exported on an artificial price created in another country? I can see the problems arising for the Comhairle as time goes on, but the only effective remedy to my mind is to give them more power and authority. I realise that it is the Minister who will be responsible for the Bill and, therefore, to set up a complete wool marketing board at this stage, as we pointed out on Second Reading, is probably not possible in view of the enormous difficulties involved. Nevertheless, I think the Minister should not tie the hands of the council too early, and should give them more scope for the functions which they can perform to the great benefit of the wool trade in this country, especially in the marketing line, if they are to be free to find new markets for wool and encourage its greater use in this country as well.

I feel that secondary to ensuring that the Irish farmers will be paid adequately for their produce, the most important work of the proposed council will be to promote the use of wool in this country. It would be no harm if the council adopted the wool mark, which I presume is international, ensuring that it is stamped on all articles of clothing. There must be many of the younger generation who have not or did not appreciate the quality of woollen garments because they may not have had them available to them on account of the fact that so many of the milliners and shopkeepers seemed to prefer to display for sale fabrics and clothing made from synthetic fibres. From that point of view I feel that we can use this council to put back on the market woollen material and woollen garments and ensure that the demand for wool will be maintained and increased. In this way I feel that it will have a very big direct effect on the demand for the wool of the Irish sheep.

As regards this section on the functions of the council, it was held by the National Farmers Association in their submission on the Report of the Committee on Wool Improvement that the only solution was the creation of a full wool marketing board like the British Wool Marketing Board. Unless there is some hope that the present council will go on in a very few years to pinpoint the need for such a wool marketing board requiring that the council be dissolved in favour of the creation of the necessary board on a semi-State or co-operative basis, there is very little use in the present legislation. What the wool trade has called for is stabilisation of prices and the power to cope with rings.

I cannot see why the Government have been so faint-hearted in their approach. After all, we have Bord Bainne doing its job on behalf of milk, we have stabilised prices for beet, wheat and some other crops, and wool, looked at in that context, is a very small item, indeed, on the national scale — with a total output of somewhere about £4 million to £5 million at most. The excellent headline given by the British Wool Marketing Board is not by any means a costly one. Over the past ten years it has cost about £3 million a year to the Exchequer for doing the job fully, including a very large research arm, for some 29,000,000 sheep as compared with our under 5,000,000. Therefore, taking it pro rata a proper marketing board would cost around half a million pounds a year. Surely that is not too much to stabilise such an important sector of our agricultural production, and a sector that is capable of very great improvement and development. I would ask that official thinking should be directed to regarding the present as a very interim arrangement, because it was on that basis that the representative of the National Farmers Association, Mr. John Callanan, signed this Report with the reservations that are stated quite clearly on page 36 of the Report “whereas I still believe that the only ultimate solution is a complete marketing board, I am prepared to sign this report as a stepping stone to such a board, subject to the following reservations”. I appeal to the Minister to get on with the complete job as soon as possible.

On the functions assigned to the present limited council as outlined under section 13, these are rather of an advisory nature and carry no real punch in them. They have not gone any way towards meeting what would be required under the submissions on pages 24, 25 and 26 of this Report by the National Farmers Association and by the IAOS, compared with the British board, where its principal concern is to promote the wool industry, particularly in regard to marketing and scientific and industrial research in relation to wool and sheep with a view to improvements in quality and quantity and discovering new and improved methods of wool utilisation — in other words, modernising a sector of the economy and engaging in the necessary research work. This research work here is undertaken at present by the Agricultural Institute. I do not see any mention of it here unless, perhaps, in the next section about the additional vague powers which could possibly be used to undertake or sponsor research.

The power asked could be used to assign some research responsibility to An Chomhairle but as constituted it is not capable of doing that. These have to be done. Research is properly the function of the Agricultural Institute and the utmost liaison and encouragement are necessary so that the Institute is enabled to get on with the job on the research level without being hampered by red tape or departmental pin-pricking as seems to be going on at present. I hope that does not continue to happen and that the Institute is left free to get on with the wonderful work it is doing. I shall leave my query to the next Session when I shall endeavour to find out how the Minister proposes to use the powers he is asking for in that section.

I did not think that anything just stated now requires any comment from me. Senator Quinlan obviously has his own ideas. The proposed legislation does not meet with his approval nor does it do the job he thinks it should do. I believe it will do the job which requires to be done. Whether it does or not only time will tell. I do not propose to comment on the conjecture he was drawing up here.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

Under section 14 (a) the Minister is given power to assign to An Chomhairle such additional functions relating to wool as he thinks fit. Does this involve something along the lines which I have quoted in connection with the British Wool Board? Will it involve research and could it be used to carry out under the Comhairle work that is at present being done by the Agricultural Institute or should be done by that Institute?

There is no limitation, as the Senator will readily appreciate, on the functions I may assign under this legislation to the Wool Board. That is to say, if it was thought fit to assign research functions I may do so. What I think the Senator is overlooking is that I may at the moment direct An Foras Talúntais to do any research in regard to agricultural matters that I choose. It is obvious that I can have research done through the Institute, or by An Chomhairle in conjunction with the Institute, or by An Chomhairle without the Institute, if I so think fit, so that there is a complete opportunity of coverage in that and in anything else which may occur. There is no limit to the matters that may be assigned to them at any time.

I agree that the Minister has that power. It was written into the Agricultural Institute Bill and I know there is grave concern at present that that power may be used to split our national agricultural effort. There is a tendency for the Minister's Department to do research work on its own that should more properly be done, and is being done, by the Agricultural Institute. I should hope in connection with sheep and wool that the present excellent work being done by the Agricultural Institute would be encouraged in every way possible and that the Minister would see to it that his Department does not try to engage in rival research.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 15 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."

While I do not disagree with the principle of a levy in order to help finance the proposed council, I should like to ask the Minister if he can give us some idea of whether the levy will apply directly on the producer's sale to the buyers, that is, on the first part of the transaction. There is a certain amount of disappointment at the present time with regard to the increase in the levy on milk which is certainly being introduced at a most inopportune time having regard to the costings. I feel that unless we clarify this matter now before this Bill becomes an Act we will have misunderstandings and, perhaps, dissension among the various farming groups if a similar situation arose in a few years hence regarding the proposed wool levy. I feel also with the price of wool at such a low figure and having regard to the fact that it is not even one half the price per pound that it was a few years ago it is wrong to take further from that price by imposing a levy, as it is proposed, on the producers.

I should like to ask a question in relation to subsection (3) which says: "The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, amend or revoke a levy order or an order under this subsection". The levy in itself is obviously necessary, as subsection (1) says, for the purpose of defraying expenses in relation to the performance by An Chomhairle of its functions under this Bill. All the details relating to the levy seem to me justified but I am puzzled to know why the Minister wants power to cancel this levy just by his own order. I feel if the Comhairle with the consent of the Minister for Finance thinks the levy order necessary it is strange to give the Minister power to cancel it.

I think that what we are inclined to get away from all the time here is that the Minister for Agriculture has certain responsibilities; this being one of them, he intends to hold on to it not because he wants to but because it is a responsibility which reposes in him. There would appear to be a belief that the Minister for Agriculture is responsible for nothing but for what goes wrong and, therefore, he should have no rights or responsibilities either for changing or revoking anything even if he were responsible for bringing about the situation. In this case a levy can and may be put on and unless we are satisfied that we will have it there forever, then obviously a method of amending or revoking it must be instituted. That is the power that is being taken here in subsection (3). Circumstances can change and I am sure the House will agree that where a levy, which was imposed this year, may turn out for various reasons to be quite inequitable in two or ten years from now we may wish to change it.

I am merely taking the power there to revoke a levy already imposed and in operation which may have served its purpose so widely in use that it is no longer necessary or maybe the levy is such that it is either too high or too low and the circumstances have been such that we want to amend it by applying a higher levy or a lower levy, a wider or narrower range, if we see that this is the right thing to do. So, the power to amend or revoke the levy is there for that reason. If the levy has served well for a time and the circumstances alter, then the power to amend or revoke it must also be given. This is only what is being sought in this particular subsection.

I think the Minister makes his case well. There is just a lingering doubt which remains for me. Has An Chomhairle any say in this matter? The Minister for Finance must be consulted. The Minister will go to the Comhairle. It is for the benefit of An Chomhairle in regard to the working of their duties but there is nothing in this section, as I read it, that gives them the power even to express an opinion as to whether the levy is right, whether it should be cancelled or amended. I wonder would the Minister consider at least giving them consultative status under this section in the same way as the Minister for Finance has been given that status.

There is a very great difference between the Minister for Finance and An Chomhairle. The purpose of the levies in whatever way they are applied is to defray the expenses of An Chomhairle. They will be spending the levy money to defray the expenses of carrying out their work. If their expenses were such that the levies do not meet the cost, or if there are no levies and still expenses, obviously the Minister for Finance is the only source from which the moneys can possibly come to defray those expenses. It is not a case that the Minister for Finance is being set apart in this sense.

He must be consulted. Should they not be consulted?

They will have, undoubtedly, to be consulted because the very existence of their operation will be in some way related to actual moneys made available for the operation of their functions and the levy subscription towards defraying their expenses. Costs will be very active in the minds of this Comhairle and their Minister, namely the Minister for Agriculture in this case. If the moneys received are not sufficient, they will have to go to the Minister for Finance. If An Chomhairle spend more money than they earn by way of levies the whole thing then devolves on the Minister for Finance and he is entitled to know whether we propose to alter the money basis on which our income may be coming in. If we alter it, it falls on the Minister for Finance and the Exchequer. This is basically why he must be here for this consultation and it is a very vital part of his responsibility in this regard, the same as it is in regard to any other Minister.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 20 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
SCHEDULE.

The Chair suggests that amendments Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

To delete article 3 and substitute the following:—

"3. The period of office of An Chomhairle shall be five years."

In moving these amendments we are concerned with the constitution of the council. Here we are told that the Bill merely takes the recommendations in the Report of the Committee on Wool Improvements whereas there is a most significant deviation from that in that the Report which on page 34, paragraph 137, said:

The Committee considers that the most equitable arrangement would be a Council consisting of a Chairman, three representatives of producers, three representatives of wooltraders, two representatives of the Department of Agriculture, one representative of An Foras Talúntais and one representative of the IOAS.

We find this self-same tendency, which is shown by the Minister in all his recent legislation, to say that he alone picks representatives: "persons whom the Minister considers representative". This is very new. It is something we should fight against because it means that organisations are not given their proper place in national affairs. If organisations are on it, all they are concerned with is whatever is being done and the best way to do it. Whether it is education, agriculture or industry the organisations concerned should be entitled to nominate their own representatives to such councils or boards.

It has not been done in the present case. I am proposing that the National Farmers Association nominate three members to represent the producers. There is no need to underline for Members of the Seanad the widespread support that the National Farmers Association has in this country. We had the most significant and most conclusive demonstration of that in the recent beetgrowers elections where they won 58 out of 60 seats.

On the straight vote.

They were scattered among 22,000 electors all over the country. An added significance of their success was that it was heaviest in the region of the small farmers around Tuam and was equally so in the dairying and other areas.

On the straight vote.

Let no one suggest that the National Farmers Association are not a fully representative organisation completely in tune with the needs of modern agriculture. Indeed, if we wish to see more of their work we can examine their work that led up to the present developments in wool. It began in 1953, 15 years ago, when Macra na Feirme set up its wool committee.

The evils that afflicted the wool trade were evident to those who led Macra na Feirme at that period. With their limited resources they did a remarkable job in making the wool producers conscious of the necessity for quality. They brought in payments on quality and their scheme was launched in 1954. On the inception of the National Farmers Association on that historic day, 6th January, 1955, the NFA took over responsibility for the wool scheme and since then they have conducted negotiations and sales with the Scottish Wool Buyers; they have kept the scheme going from strength to strength, and, in 1964, they formed the Irish Wool Producers Co-operative. All this has been excellent preparatory work on the problem of quality wool production.

Since 1955 they have been calling for the setting up of a wool board on which producers would have majority representation as the solution. That is a far cry from being given three out of eleven selected by the Minister from those he says are "representative of the industry". If it appears strange to us here, where we pride ourselves as being a democracy, that producers should have some rights, why not look at England where the British Wool Board of 15 members have 12 nominated by the producers and three by the government? The middlemen only come in as agents of that board, but here the middlemen are given very substantial representation. I am not quarrelling with giving the middlemen some representation but I hope now the important national position of the NFA will be recognised and that even at this late stage we may see a magnanimous gesture from the Minister and that he will follow the example of the man whom he has met so often in the last two years, Mr. Peart of England, and openly recognise the National Farmers Association and have them nominate their members to the wool council.

If the Minister is still worried as to whether the NFA represents the farmers, why not get agreement on having the wool producers registered like the beetgrowers and then in true democratic fashion through the ballot box, let them elect their representatives on the wool council. Let the wool producers elect their representatives on the council through the ballot box. That is the true democratic way, and there is no better testimony to the democratic structure of the NFA than the fact that they were able to say good-bye to a very distinguished person, a great leader, Mr. Deasy, when his term of office ended. They will likewise be able to relieve their present president, Mr. T.J. Maher, who is doing such tremendous unselfish and patriotic work, when his term of office ends in two years time.

These matters are hardly relevant to the amendments.

I am appealing that the representatives elected to this council should have the full confidence of the industry concerned and I am showing that the NFA, in the way in which it is organised and in the manner in which it elects its own committees, has the full confidence of the producers and should be invited to nominate three members to the council. If there is to be a full wool board the Minister must look for national elections. All concerned with progressive agriculture in this country would welcome national elections. They have every confidence in them and in their future.

The other organisation which I ask should be represented on the council is the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. There are a number of co-operatives linked with this including the Irish Wool Producers Co-operative formed by the NFA. The Minister may say that he will pick somebody from those co-operatives but that is not good enough. We believe that vocational groups should have representation in their own right. Whether in education, agriculture, industry or in labour relations we have to recognise the important and vital place of these vocational groups. The keystone of agricultural progress, the IAOS, should be given recognition here and they should be invited to nominate one member. We should rely on them to pick for the council a competent representative of the co-operative movement.

I have asked that the Agricultural Institute should nominate a member. The report recommends that this organisation should nominate a member, just as it recommends that the IAOS should nominate a member. The Agricultural Institute has done much research work on improving the quality and quantity of Irish wool and it is not necessary to argue the case for the representation of the Institute on the council. If this was done the Minister would at least have begun to reverse the trend of endeavouring to take everything in under his own Department and of taking to himself the right to say who represents any particular organisation. I appeal to the House to recognise the fact that agriculture has spoken in the last two weeks, that the recognition that has been won by the trade unions from successive governments down through the years must now be given to the agricultural organisation if we are to really develop in 20th century fashion. Likewise, the reports on the co-operative movement into which we are pouring good money and which are just gathering dust on the bookshelves at present should be acted upon without delay. I am asking for one very minor concession and that is that one IAOS representative be appointed on this council.

Finally, we in this House stand behind the Agricultural Institute and appreciate the great work they have done, the obstacles they have overcome, and we recognise that they have a major contribution to make to the output of the wool industry in this country.

The Chair has already indicated that amendments Nos. 4 to 7 are being taken together. I should also like to indicate that as amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are consequential a decision on amendment No. 4 will govern the fate of the other amendments.

My amendment No. 5 is to delete article 3 of the Schedule. This says that the Minister may at any time remove a member of An Chomhairle from office. At the present stage of farming and departmental relationships in agriculture, I feel this is a regrettable clause in the Schedule. It would appear to most people that this is a big stick the Minister has to wave over the members of the proposed Comhairle, who, perhaps, for one reason or another, refuse to act as, perhaps, the Minister and the Department wish a member to act. Even if it is only in the interest of harmony and co-operation, I cannot see the upset it will cause if the Minister accepts this amendment.

A person whom the Minister would deem to qualify to serve on the proposed council will be a man big enough to hold that office and to serve it well. The only reason I can envisage whereby a member should be removed from office is if his views are diametrically opposed to those of the Minister. This is regrettable and, even if it is only a suspicion, I feel that over the past few years events would give fair ground for any suspicion of this kind. I would appeal to the Minister to make every effort to restore co-operation and goodwill to the ranks of Irish farming and Irish agriculture.

We hear, and we anticipate that at some future date, perhaps sooner than we may realise, we may gain entry to the Common Market of Europe. If there is one thing Irish agriculture will need it is co-operation in every sense and if our Irish farmers are to have any chance the Minister must use every effort at his disposal to re-introduce and create harmony between the different agricultural organisations and his Department. I feel that this can best be done if the Minister brings together representatives of the various sectors of wool producers in the country. I think the Minister now has a great opportunity of ensuring that not only the hill farmers but the farmers in the plains and in the midlands with the Combined Mountain Sheep Farmers Association and the Wool Committee of the NFA should be asked to nominate people whom they consider to be eminently and suitably equipped with sufficient knowledge to serve on this council in the national interest to the best of their ability.

I should like to impress on the Minister and on the Department of Agriculture the serious situation wherein sheep farmers find themselves at this time when the price per pound of wool paid to them is only something in the region of 2/6, whereas five or six years ago it was 5/- and over per lb.

On top of this, in this Bill provision is made to impose a levy on the wool producer which will go even further to reduce the income of farmers from their wool crop. The Minister has a wonderful opportunity here now to demonstrate in a very practical way his desire for full co-operation in every sense of the word between the various interests concerned in the production of wool. I feel, and I believe, the Minister will be man enough to bury the axes that have been ground over the past months and try to unite the various groups to help in a truly national job and ensure the best possible advantage to the Irish farmers under the guidance of this proposed council.

I should like to support the amendments by Senators Quinlan and McDonald. I think a very strong case has been made by both Senators for An Chomhairle which will not only be representative of the producers and the wool trade but will be clearly and publicly seen to be representative. I mentioned on Second Stage already that I was dissatisfied with this sixth subsection of the Schedule. It reads as follows:

Of the ordinary members of An Chomhairle—

(a) not less than three shall be persons each of whom the Minister considers representative of wool producers, and

(b) not less than three shall be persons each of whom the Minister considers representative of the wool trade.

I do not feel that the Minister is doing himself justice in demanding that power should be given to him to be the sole decider as to the representative character of the members of An Chomhairle among the wool producers and the members of An Chomhairle among members of the wool trade. It is not fair to the Minister and it is not fair to the appointed representatives. I think we must assume that the Minister is not getting as his main aim here merely yes-men on the council.

To be fair to the Minister, I have envisaged his desiring people who will be prepared, if necessary, to say "No" to a ministerial proposal, who will be prepared to stand up to him and take an independent line. I take it he does not want people, as has been defined elsewhere, of tremendous personality who will do exactly what they are told. If I am right in assuming the Minister wants people of independent mind and truly representative people, then I think he must tell the House why it is he wants to reserve to himself the right to select them.

It would seem normal that one would ask the organisations, the associations, the co-operatives of wool producers to do their own selection of representatives, and it seems very odd to me to say that their representatives shall be merely people each of whom the Minister considers representative. "Considers representative" in a sense gives away the case. It is not demanded that they shall be representative but merely that the Minister shall so consider them. He weakens his own position, his own authority, by asking for excessive powers under the Schedule.

Attention has already been drawn by Senator Quinlan to the report of the Committee on Wool Improvements which was brought in in 1966, the actual date being 21st April, 1966. It is a very careful document and, as has been pointed out by Senator Quinlan, paragraph 137 reads:

The constitution of such a Wool Council—

being An Chomhairle Olla as under the Bill—

—presented some difficulty to produce and delayed members of the Committee. On the whole, however, the Committee considers that the most equitable arrangement would be a council consisting of a chairman, three representatives of the producers, three representatives of the wool traders—merchants, exporters, manufacturers—two representatives of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, one representative of An Foras Talúntais and one representative of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.

That is a pretty clear paragraph, a clear recommendation, and I think many Members of the House will feel that it would have been far better honoured and realised by the Minister if we had a section of the Schedule which he has put forward on the lines proposed by the amendment put forward by Senator Quinlan in which three members of the Comhairle would be appointed by the NFA, one by the IAOS, one by the Agricultural Institute and four by the Minister. There is no doubt in my mind that the council members, whether as individuals or organised in societies, will not be satisfied that the best person to decide who among their members is most fully representative of them is the Minister. I do not think that will be accepted and I do not think the Minister is doing himself justice in asking us to accept that.

Senator Quinlan referred to the reelection of the Beetgrowers Association and Senator Ó Maoláin, for reasons best known to himself, drew attention to the fact that this was held under the so-called straight vote system. That is true and in so far as it was under the so-called straight vote system it was manifestly unjust because I believe that people who had the support of about 30 per cent of the voters got only two seats out of 60. I do not know whether Senator Ó Maoláin was desirous of drawing attention to the basic injustice of the manner of voting when he interjected twice that the election was held under the so-called straight vote system. However we look at it, we must realise that the NFA and their candidates had a major victory.

This may be distasteful to the Minister. It may be distasteful to the Government, but I think enough of the Minister to credit him with not allowing personal animosity in any way to affect his outlook in looking at the result of that election. I credit him with the capacity to see that the NFA are a force in the land and on the land and that the Government must make up their minds to co-operate fully with them. Therefore, for that purpose, and not only in relation to the NFA but to the other organisations mentioned in Senator Quinlan's amendment, I urge very strongly on the Minister to accept the amendments or on the House to vote them in even if the Minister is not prepared to concede that they are as just as they seem to me to be.

I support the amendments in relation to the appointment of the Comhairle. The Minister, I am quite sure, is as anxious as everybody else to see that the Comhairle will get away to a good start and that it will represent all the sections of the farming industry, particularly the wool-producing industry. If the Minister had spelled out the membership of An Chomhairle in the Bill it could have been discussed freely here and in the Dáil and recommendations could have been made on it. Instead, we are told that not fewer than three shall be milk producers. Seeing that this is in the Bill and that in all probability it will remain in it, I request the Minister to give to the farming organisations the right to fill these three or more positions. It would create greater confidence in the Comhairle by the producers themselves and it would prevent what is bound to happen—that as soon as the Minister makes his appointments someone will say: "Jobs for the boys."

The members may be the best that the Minister knows of, the most suitable members, but the agricultural organisations, especially the NFA, who have a wool committee, a sheep committee, will understand the producers' problems better than anyone. If they are given the right to nominate to the producers' panel on this council, it will create greater confidence in the council which can then get on to a good start. If such a body are to start badly it will take a long time to pick up afterwards.

I should like to see the co-operatives represented. They play a very important part in the agricultural life of the country. Senators will have seen in the daily press the report that last week a Czech buyer came here looking for wool and that he was told there was not any to be got, or at least that he went away empty-handed, though there was one co-operative who could have supplied him with the amount and the type of wool he required. They are just my reflections on the amendments. If the Minister would, even at this late stage, be big enough to say: "Right, we will give those farming organisations the right to nominate to membership of the board," he would be creating greater confidence in the body which would then go from strength to strength.

Having listened to the Senators who contributed to each of these sections, I am not quite sure which of these amendments, or whether all four of them, have been moved, but apparently two of them have been moved.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

All four amendments are being discussed together.

I did not hear them moved but I heard them talked about. What I would like to say is that I and the Government are setting up this board to do what these voluntary organisations apparently have been trying to do for 15 years though, apparently, according to some other Senators, they have made a pretty poor fist of it if one is to judge by the results of wool marketing here.

Nobody made that charge here.

Senator McDonald made it clear that the price of wool is now about half what it was a year ago, and yet we are told that the only thing to do is to return to the same kind of marketing arrangements which were engaged upon 15 years ago by Macra na Feirme and then on the great historic date of the 6th January, 1955 taken over by the National Farmers Association. One would gather that this should have gone apace during the 13 years since then, but according to Senator McDonald and others who know something about wool and have practical sense they are realistic enough to come into the House and say that the price of wool is certainly not as good as last year and that it is not half what it was some years ago. We are bringing in this Comhairle under this Bill to try to do a job which, with all due respect to the organisations Senator Quinlan talked about, have not succeeded in doing despite the fact that they started 15 years ago, and conditions have got worse rather than better. With that as the background one does begin to wonder what all this talk is about having certain people or organisations given the right and democracy invoked as a cause that this should be bestowed on certain organisations. Do we want to aid these organisations or do we want to improve the prices for wool for those who produce it, or do they want the honour and glory of being represented on a board as of right whether, in fact, it will mean a better or a worse board? It is the result that matters, and this is the question that I have asked myself coming to this House and to the Dáil with this Bill—how to get the best machinery available to improve and increase production, to get better prices for the farmers for wool, and I am not one bit concerned who takes the credit or who does not. I could not care less so long as the producer gets the money.

Why not have a wool board?

Look, Senator, I am not really talking to Senator Quinlan any more at all because there is no use.

I am only talking about wool but you are woolly generally, that is all. Other Senators have made more pointed remarks here that one might take more seriously though I would say that they have been particularly misleading. The question of putting certain organisations in a position to nominate people does not make this board one bit better, and I thought that it was very significant that Senator Sheehy Skeffington wound up, whether unwittingly or otherwise, and said that the Government should endeavour to co-operate with the NFA. This seems to be the state and the stage we have reached apparently with people like Senator Sheehy Skeffington who are beginning to talk and, in fact, to think in this way at the moment—that the Government and other agencies should, in fact, co-operate, and that there is no question that the NFA and others like them should co-operate with the Government. This does not seem to enter the picture any more. It is an absolutely staggering situation, with this sort of attitude not only in the minds of people but expressed by them solemnly as it has been expressed here by Senator Sheehy Skeffington, wittingly or unwittingly, I hope unwittingly. He is not given to expressing opinions unwittingly, according to my knowledge and experience here in this House.

I was referring to the reluctance of the Minister and the Government to meet the public generally.

That does not answer the question. I take it that the Senator made the remark wittingly and that his appeal is that the Government should co-operate.

Iron out the difficulties and let us be done with it.

It is time that any Senator or any people who have got this sort of conviction—and how they got it I do not know—should be relieved of that conviction. The Government of the people of this country is elected by them to run their affairs on their behalf, and it is for these other organisations to co-operate with the Government in that exercise, not the reverse. The sooner that we get that into our heads the better it will be for all concerned and for the wool gatherers who are talking here in this House.

The Government refuse to accept that co-operation. Where do you go from there?

We refused to accept what co-operation?

They refused co-operation on foot and mouth.

They did indeed.

I said that I was not going to talk to Senator Quinlan however great provocation has been offered by him. If one were to follow his line of argument and to refute it as it can be refuted, it might only wreck the degree of co-operation we have, and I do not intend to wreck anything.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister should be allowed to speak without interruption.

He provokes interruption.

Let us get back to where we were. The point is that I do not intend on this amendment, which was not moved though it was discussed here, amendment No. 4—I want to say about amendment No. 4 that it is a completely unnecessary amendment, and as I do not believe in doing unnecessary things it would, therefore, be rather silly to accept it, and I am asking the House to reject it. As far as amendment No. 5 is concerned it was Senator McDonald who talked on this particular amendment and proposed that we should accept it. He seemed to think that there was merit in the suggestion that the Minister should not have the power to remove the chairman of An Chomhairle or any member from the date of appointment until the due date of their retirement. I feel on this particular matter that the power to put on people must automatically involve responsibility for having the power to take them off. This is a clear fact. If one accepts the responsibility for putting them on, surely if for any reason they are no longer performing the job they were put on to do there should be power to take them off.

(Interruptions.)

What I am attempting to do is to get an instrument whereby more wool can be produced, its presentation can be upgraded, its value can be enhanced and the markets extended, and I am sure that this House would assist me in doing this and setting up this organisation under this legislation. I do not think that anything can be more reasonable than that. Those who have criticised me on my approach to this should have the decency to recognise that this is the purpose of this measure, and that it is not, as one would gather from listening to some of those who have spoken against parts of this Bill, that the whole exercise here by this measure was to kill the wool trade, to put the sheep producers out of business and to put the farmers out of production. This is what one would gather was intended by this Bill. This is what it would appear to be from listening to the wanderings and the meanderings here upon sections of this measure. The fact is that, as I have said, this is for the benefit of the sheep and wool producers of this country and that it comes at a time when it is, indeed, regarded by some as being too long delayed, and it comes long years after all of these Messiahs have had their try for years, during which they have been trying to do a job that it is now admitted has not been well done.

That is most uncharitable.

Do not be talking about charity. There has not been any display of charity here this evening, has there? However unfair you may call it, I am saying, and I have very strong views on this, that the wool trade is not better as a result of those efforts over those years.

There is better quality and the wool is better graded.

I am delighted to hear from the Senators that the situation is better, that the situation in regard to wool is not half as bad as they said it was.

Given an opportunity, I would quote the Minister some of the prices——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister should be allowed to speak without interruption. If Senators wish to speak, they will have an opportunity of doing so.

Regarding these Czechs, they would have had all the co-operation they required available to them. If they went back empty-handed it was not for want of anybody to talk to them but for want of somebody to give them the right price for the wool.

Could the Minister quote figures?

I never do unless I am sure of them and I am not in this particular case. Dealing with wool, as the House is aware, is a dicey business.

In so far as amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are concerned, I do not agree with them. That is putting it shortly and briefly. To avoid any further complication or there being a misunderstanding I merely say I do not agree with them and I do not propose that it would be desirable that they be accepted.

From the reply given by the Minister I do not intend to join issue with him in relation to the amazing deduction he made. A case is not proved by indulging in extravagance. I was amazed to hear the Minister's reflections on voluntary effort in this country at a time when all reasonable thinking people realise that it is only by working together, both in voluntary organisations and with the Government, that we can really achieve our aims in the decade ahead, our aims of full employment and better educational facilities, aims which call for more and better production from our industries and especially from our major industry, agriculture.

Let us see how unfair the Minister has been in his reflection on voluntary effort. He could not for one moment claim that a voluntary committee could have the resources either in personnel or in finance to cope with the problem involved and, indeed, neither have they the statutory requirements to enforce the grading and the other licensing requirements. Like any other voluntary group setting out, they saw a problem and did the pioneering work, bringing it as far as they could bring it and they called for the necessary legislation and the necessary organisation to do the job. That is the democratic way. It is the way that is recognised in every country west and, indeed, east, of the Iron Curtain. I am sure they would recognise such voluntary efforts just as well. Here, however, such efforts are only derided and scorned with the idea that they failed to do the job, that they were responsible for the drop in prices. The Minister says he never heard such nonsense before. The fact is that prices are subject to international markets and international fluctuations. These are the greatest headaches in the marketing of all agricultural products.

To think that this voluntary committee of people giving of their time unpaid, often travelling at their own expense and spending many days at its wool collection centres to aid their fellow farmers are now accused of being responsible for decreasing the price of wool is shocking. If that is the mentality of the Minister I appeal to him, as I appealed to him the last day, to do his greatest service for Irish agriculture to leave this Ministry. There are half a dozen in the Fianna Fáil Party who could make a success of it, who have some idea of co-operation. Surely the purpose of the Government is to foster co-operation with groups and when this country was threatened with its most severe economic crisis of foot and mouth disease some nine months ago the NFA offered their resources on a voluntary basis to help in every way in preventing the disease coming in but they were just brushed aside.

It is amazing that the Minister can meet his counterparts from England and from the Common Market countries with such a record of bad relations with the farming organisations. Would he please do the service I have asked? There is a good pension scheme now for retired Ministers. The Minister for Finance pointed to its advantages. Would he please take this pension and let some co-operator come in?

On the point of co-operation, it is interesting to note that these voluntary bodies were brought together by Macra na Feirme in 1953. The conference held on 3rd May of that year in Ballinasloe was unanimous in proposing that a wool marketing organisation be set up. It was agreed that such an organisation should be controlled by a board consisting of Macra na Feirme, the IAOS, the Department of Agriculture and Córas Tráchtála. In other words, it was recognised that each of those had a role to play and there was full acceptance that voluntary organisations be represented on the council but when we put this up we are just simply derided. We are told that we just do not know what we are talking about.

The Senator has been here for 11 years and he did not mention this at any time until the Minister brought in the Bill. What was he doing during those 11 years?

At all times in this House I have championed two things—the necessity for the recognition of voluntary organisations and their place in our community and, secondly, to ensure that vocational groups are given responsibility at all stages of our work. As far as marketing boards go we have at all stages advocated——

You never brought this matter up once in 11 years.

Senator Ó Maoláin should realise that the results of the recent elections of the BGA have made his approach as outmoded as the type of organisation——

Does the Senator, therefore, accept the straight vote?

We shall look forward to the Senator voting for the Constitution amendments.

Looking at the recent elections of the BGA, they are just simply a vindication of the groups in this country who want to have a say in the work and development of their own vocation. That was what was asserted in this. They do not want this paternalistic approach of the Minister which says that all such representatives shall be such as the Minister considers representative of the wool producers. We know the word "consider" in a Bill like this means nothing. When it says that the Minister will consider it it just does not mean anything.

You know quite well that is not a fact.

It is only by having representatives of those various organisations on such a council that it will do its work properly. We do not look forward to anything form the Minister for Agriculture. We look forward to his replacement at the very earliest stage. Rural Ireland, agricultural Ireland and the spirits of Father Finlay and Horace Plunkett will certainly be playing an important role when that day comes.

Take your bag and go back to Cork.

I should like to take the Minister up on one point. He said I was not consistent when speaking on the price of wool and quality of wool. The work and the activity of Macra na Feirme, in particular, in organising sheep-shearing competitions which train farmers' sons and daughters in the correct method of shearing sheep, handling fleeces, and rolling them up, has improved the quality of wool in a very definite manner. I cannot see why he can blame that organisation and their activities on the desperately low and bad prices people have been getting in the past year for their wool. I cannot see the Minister's right or any Minister's right in appointing any board in keeping certain people out. Surely the Minister must accept if he appoints an individual on a board that that board will have the benefit of that individual's views and of his thoughts on any particular subject. If the Minister appoints a representative of a specialist body dealing in a specific commodity such a man will come in armed with much wider views, and the views of a body or an organisation who have applied their mind to the problems will affect the particular business of the proposed board.

Surely you have in this country sufficient specialised vocational bodies. When people who are interested in improving the standing, the activities and the livelihood of their fellow members give their time voluntarily, surely the Minister could come along and pick even one of his own supporters—surely there must be at least one Fianna Fáil man to whom the Minister can say: "Here, will you act on that board?" At least, no matter what Party that man represents or supports, you will be putting him in there knowing he has at his command and his disposal the views of a number of other people who are specifically interested in the production of wool.

I cannot understand why the Minister should continue bickering with these organisations. It is true that the NFA is a large representative organisation and if the President of the NFA recommended one of his 100,000 members as being a suitably-equipped man to serve on this board, one would imagine that any fair-minded Minister would accept a man from such a well-organised body who have an excellent secretariat and who would be able to assemble the views from the various parts of the country. All we are asking in those amendments is that the Minister should avail, through the co-operation of the many voluntary agencies which exist, of the people who have been trying for years, voluntarily, and certainly not as successfully as we would wish, to improve the position and lot of Irish farmers, the only section of the community who year in, year out are forced to accept a lower standard of living. They have this year received a record low price for wool, taking the last ten years. Despite this the Minister introduces a levy on the price of wool which will bring it down still further.

It is poor compensation for those people to know that the Minister wants for some particular reason or other to engage in this battle of wits where people are either expected to opt for one organisation or another. After all, the Minister must accept that a person who has at his disposal the views of the majority of people actively engaged in this particular line of agricultural production would be of some benefit to the proposed council. Then, again, the Minister has at his disposal 27 sheep-dipping committees. Their function is small but I venture to say that out of the 27 committees the Minister could get 27 men to pick from who have flocks of sheep from a half dozen up to several hundred or more who have in the past reared sheep and their generations before them have done the same. Here again, the Minister has an opportunity of selecting people with expert knowledge. Yet, he will give no indication, good, bad or indifferent of the type of people he wishes to put on this board. I feel the Minister should avail of this opportunity to reintroduce into Irish agriculture, even in this small way, and dealing with this small commodity, the important principle of co-operation.

Surely the Minister should endeavour to help Irish farmers to improve their lot. I would not blame the Minister for everything because in every row you must have two sides, and I do not wish to get involved. But unless the Minister recognises the facts and avails of the enormous amount of talent we have and is big enough to pick people who are best suited for the purpose of this board, it will not succeed. Perhaps the Minister would give the matter a second thought.

I had rather hoped that when the Minister came into this House to deal with this Bill he would have benefited from his experience in the Department of Agriculture, that his bitterness against voluntary rural organisations had died and that he would have at long last shown that proper co-operation will get you much further than the iron heel and the mailed fist which will not get him anywhere.

It appears to me that that attitude still prevails in the Minister's mind. It is a sorry day for Irish agriculture that we have in charge of the most important Department in the State a man who will wield only the iron hand and the iron fist. When I was speaking about the Czech buyer who came here and could not buy any wool I was quoting from the Irish Press of 3rd July, 1968, which stated that a prominent wool buyer had told him that there was no wool available. He said the wool was there all right but they could not lay their hands on it. I am sure the Department of Agriculture should have been able to help there.

They do not know that there is a Department of Agriculture because so much smoke has been created by the pseudo-vocational groups which are represented in this House.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister should be allowed to speak without interruption, particularly on Committee Stage where there is no excuse for interruption.

Senator McDonald has instanced all sorts of people whom he would like to see on this Comhairle. This debate was led off very badly by Senator Quinlan for the reason that he was not talking about the Bill or the amendment but about his pet organisations. However, Senator McDonald has been putting forward a reasonable case and one that is not inconsistent with the Bill as it stands. What the Senator has been advocating is not inconsistent with the Bill as suggested and proposed to the House but the arguments put forward have so obscured what is in the Bill as to make it appear that what Senator McDonald advocates is not capable of being done under the Bill. It is capable of being done and in all probability will be done in a number of the cases mentioned.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Are the amendments withdrawn?

I wish to press amendment No. 4 as clearing the way for amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 6 is consequential on the passage of amendment No.4. I do not think there is any point in dealing any further with the Minister. The Minister just does not understand democracy or co-operation.

I do not understand the Senator.

Neither does the Minister understand reasoned arguments. I have experience of making reasoned arguments in more places than the Minister. I have stood behind the arguments and I stand behind my arguments here. I stand by my belief that to sustain the progress of the co-operative movement we need a co-operative approach by the Minister. Therefore, when a Minister in any Department has to report a record of failure after a year and a half it is high time that he was changed from that Department and I call on the Taoiseach to exercise his right to see that agriculture is given the leadership it deserves.

I am not satisfied with the reply the Minister has given on subparagraph 3. He said that if the Minister appoints a person he should have the power to take him off. In amendment No. 4 he is taking power to appoint the members of the Comhairle for a period of not more than five years so that if he puts in a person under amendment No. 4 he has put him in for one, two, three, four or five years. He has not said how he would take off the person.

I may put him in for no longer than five years but, if having put him in for any period up to five years, I can also put him off.

Why would you want to put him off?

You never know what may arise. Experience may prove that a person appointed is not suitable.

That is what is raising suspicion in the minds of the farmers.

According to your colleague, there are no farmers to be put on it.

Why should we have to listen to cheap jibes at voluntary organisations?

If you cannot put your arguments properly, you cannot blame me for finding holes in them.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

A division has been challenged on amendment No. 4. The question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Schedule".

The Committee divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 15.

  • Ahern, Liam.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brennan, John J.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
  • Dolan, Seamus.
  • Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Fitzsimons, Patrick.
  • Flanagan, Thomas P.
  • Honan, Dermot P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • McGlinchey, Bernard.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • Martin, James J.
  • Nash, John Joseph.
  • Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick. (Longford).
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Patrick W.
  • Ryan, William.
  • Teehan, Patrick J.
  • Yeats, Michael.

Níl

  • Conlon, John F.
  • Crowley, Patrick.
  • Davidson, Mary F.
  • FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
  • Fitzgerald, John.
  • McAuliffe, Timothy.
  • McDonald, Charles.
  • McHugh, Vincent.
  • Murphy, Dominick F.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick. (Cavan).
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • Prendergast, Micheál A.
  • Quinlan, Patrick M.
  • Sheehy Skeffington,
  • Owen L.
Tellers: Tá: Senators Browne and Farrell; Níl: Senators McDonald and Quinlan.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 8:

In article 6 (a) to delete "three" and substitute "four".

The Minister intimated some time ago that it was possible to do some of the things I advocated earlier. If he does not accept this amendment, no matter how he wishes, it will curtail his opportunity to have as many representatives of agricultural organisations as he otherwise could. It is an undisputed fact that by far the greatest number of persons interested in the wool trade are the sheep farmers. Therefore, a minimum of three representatives of sheep farmers is not enough to give them fair representation and I suggest in the amendment that not fewer than four persons, each of whom the Minister considers representative of wool producers, should be appointed.

It is imperative that any wool council must have the views of sheep farmers available to them—the views of a cross-section of the farmers. Anyone who knows anything about Irish agriculture will agree that techniques in the wool-producing industry vary greatly from county to county. If the Minister really wishes to be in a position to get this council to help every section of the sheep farmers, he must be able to have on the council members who represent sheep farmers. He would need, shall we say, to have someone representative of the lowland sheep farmers. There are very important people among the producers who buy in sheep and fatten them in the autumn and during the winter. They contribute to the general economy in different ways. What might suit one group of sheep farmers might not suit another. The phraseology of paragraph (a) of the subsection states "not less than three". It would be a minimum rather than a maximum and I should like to have the assurance of the Minister that at least four representatives of the farmers will be appointed.

In paragraph (b) of the subsection the Minister provides that not fewer than three persons, each of whom the Minister considers to be representative of the wool trade, shall be appointed. I suggest that numerically there are fewer people in the wool trade than there are farmers and, therefore, if we are to use proportional representation, which I suggest we should, the farmers should have the stronger voice. Figures will prove that the number of people in the wool trade has decreased during the years.

There is need, therefore, to have at least four farmers on the council and I cannot see that acceptance of this amendment will take from the Minister's scheme in any way. Indeed, it will ensure that each community of sheep farmers will be represented. One cannot, for instance, compare the problems of Donegal sheep farmers with those of farmers in Laois, in Carlow or in Wick-low. The husbandry in these areas varies widely. The Galway producers with their distinctive breed are entitled to specific representation and then the has not missed the provision in the mountain sheep farmers have their own association, a small vocational group on their own, their strongest area being County Mayo. They can have strong views on the problems and have a lot to contribute.

I am sure the Senator has not missed the provision in the subsection which states "not less than three" representatives of the wool producers and "not less than three" of the trade. This does not indicate that not more than three may be appointed. In addition, "not less than three" in either case is in conformity with the general recommendation of the Committee on Wool Improvements. I do not think there is any particular need for the amendment. I do not think it would be wise and sensible to assure the Senator that there will be not fewer than four. We are providing there cannot be fewer than three but further than that I do not think we should bind ourselves. Though, numerically speaking, there is the matter of comparison between the producers and the number of people in the trade, there is no doubt that there is no comparison numerically between the people the board will bring into play—the usefulness of the trade not only in the purchase but in the sale of wool at the best possible prices, whether at home or abroad. Therefore, it will be essential to have in this council people from the trade who will be knowledgeable of the trade, who will be useful in the trade and who, above all, will be able to contribute to the deliberations of the council.

I should say in this respect that whether it be on behalf of the producers or the traders it is not quite the volume of sound that can be created by a greater number of voices on a board such as this that would count. What those who are talking about on such a board, having the say and the experience from which the talk comes, is really of the essence. In naming three from each there is an effort within a board of limited size, which from a practical point of view must be limited, otherwise it becomes an unworkable piece of machinery— but within the limited size we envisage at the moment that by ensuring that not fewer than three of each of these very vital interests in this matter are on it, there will be drawn from that not fewer than three of each a wide variety of experience and knowledge whether in the buying and selling, the trading and exporting abroad by the trader element or in the production, handling, disposal and breeding of the sheep, from which, and from the fact that three is the minimum, we will ensure that the best and broadest sort of knowledge that could be wished for will be assured.

Whether that may be added to by taking another one or two of each group is a matter that only time will dictate with the setting up of the actual board and its membership, envisaging that this particular one would be available to them and would be likely to contribute from the variety of his experience and his knowledge from the producer's point of view on types of breeds of sheep about which he may have knowledge and of the parts of the country or the practices in production there as well, and we will get a very great variety of producers. Having not fewer than three ensures that we will be fairly well served there, but it does not mean we will have less. We may have four, or, indeed, we could have five if circumstances so indicated that the total knowledge we wanted could only be contributed by adding another. This could only be considered in the actual circumstances of the appointment of the board membership.

If we leave it as it stands we ensure that the minimum will not fall below three, but we are free to add to it if we feel that it is in the best interests of the board as a whole and its obligations to appoint more. For that reason I would suggest to Senator McDonald that he should not press this matter to the degree that he might. On the one hand he should consider this in the knowledge that this three is not absolute by any means but is there as a minimum of the two great interests on either side, and that it may be added to if the calibre and experience of the people envisaged does not seem sufficient, and we may find a fourth or fifth and that it would be a pity to be without them. At that point we could decide that we will move somebody else and put one more on.

The Minister, perhaps, unwittingly has made quite a case for my amendment. What I want in this amendment is a guarantee that the producers will be adequately represented. No one in his sane mind would suggest that Irish farmers keep sheep for the sole purpose of producing wool, because it is not economically possible to do that. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that some representation be given to the views of the various pedigree breeders associations, and we have two or three excellent ones in the country for many years. These people have engaged in upgrading the standard of Irish sheep in no uncertain way. Surely even the Minister will accept that these people are bound to have constructive views to offer. One need only go to any of the Irish provincial shows, leaving the RDS out, to see the quality of the various breeds. As I have said before, the Minister has a wealth of experts in this field from which to draw.

What I strive to do in this amendment is to ensure that the producers, who are the majority of the people concerned, will have fair, adequate and strong representation, and that every section will be well represented. This board, surely, if it is going to be successful must have at least one breeder of the pedigree breeds of sheep. Such a person is not very difficult to find in this country. You have many hundreds of them, and you must have a man such as that on the board. On the other hand, you must have the people with the expert knowledge of mountain sheep, someone from one of the mountain areas who has to exist solely on the sheep. Surely they are entitled to representation. On the other hand, getting back to a distasteful subject, you have the large NFA who have a sheep committee, and whoever they would nominate, or one of their members, would have something constructive to do to help in this entire project.

My only interest is that the farmers should at this late stage get a fair crack of the whip and that their economy would be improved to some degree at least. Unless we write into the Bill that at least four members shall be from the farming community, I feel that they can be more or less outvoted or, perhaps, their voices will not be strong enough to ensure adequate protection for the Irish farmers. If the Minister allows that to happen people will have very little confidence in the board. Four out of 11, even if it be a minimum number, is certainly far from a majority. Having regard to the great differences in the personnel in the many different sectors of sheep farming, it is imperative to give them all a fair crack of the whip. We must have at least four members. There are certainly more than four categories. A minimum of four at all times on the committees is the very least that one can contemplate and that would be providing for just one of the pedigree sheep associations. I can assure the Minister, and I defy contradiction, that any farmer who has pedigree livestock, whether it is sheep or cattle or horses, has such knowledge that there is no one who can tell him anything about the particular animals he has, because you find these people talk about nothing else. They really live for their animals, the way they groom them and produce them. Surely any board that would not get energetic representatives of one of the pedigree sheep breeders associations could not survive very long.

I wish to support Senator McDonald on this. I have no real confidence in the Minister selecting the representatives in this way. At least it should be shown that the producers are considered more important than the representatives of the wool trade. The wool trade is adequately served by three, as recommended in the commission report. They actually segregated the three because of the three natural divisions, dealers, manufacturers and exporters. It should be recognised that the producers should be entitled to more than those, and we should take the fine example of the Wool Marketing Board in England where out of a board of 15 the producers actually appoint 12 members. The Government appoint three and there is no talk about the manufacturers or merchants, who are merely acting as agents for the board.

In the present case the Minister should at least show token recognition that the primary producers are the most important people associated with the wool trade. I should hope that the Minister will bring in an amendment on Report Stage next week, even though he uses the same collective formula as here, to the effect that he will appoint at least one member whom he considers representative of the IAOS and at least one member whom the Minister considers representative of An Foras Talúntais.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator's remarks are not relevant to the amendment under discussion.

Yes, it is relevant. The need for this development is obvious to ensure——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It may be obvious but it is not in order.

I am hoping that the Minister will see fit to bring in a Government amendment on Report Stage next week when he has had adequate time to consider what has been said here. In the meantime we should support Senator McDonald in seeking to ensure that the producers get more recognition than the others in the wool trade.

Why is the Senator taking it that Report Stage will be next week?

I understand we are proceeding in an orderly democratic fashion.

The Senator was not very orderly just now.

This is a fundamental factor. The Minister must accept that the wool trade is secondary to the production of sheep. There are hundreds of farmers in this country in mountain regions living solely from their income from sheep. The Minister is not being fair to them. He is not giving them moral support by ensuring they will be adequately represented. The only way I can be reassured is by the Minister making adequate minimum provision, and I can see little difficulty in ensuring that at least four representatives be appointed. With fewer than four it would be impossible, in my view, to ensure adequate representation for each sector engaged in the production of sheep.

As regards the difficulty of the adequacy and fairness of representation as to the various breeds of sheep, undoubtedly if one was to follow that line and the line mentioned earlier when it was said there were 27 county sheep-dipping committees we could envisage true representation of 70-80. I do not propose, and I think the House will fully agree, it is not even to be contemplated. Having got that far, we are down to the practical difficulty of incorporating within a relatively small board all interests to the greatest degree possible. While the difficulty may or may not emerge, there are as knowledgeable people in sheep rearing today as there have been in the past and will be in the future, who know a great deal about several varieties of sheep. They are not just one-trackers.

I am asking only for one representative of the pedigree sheep breeders.

This is about the pedigree breeders. One might ask which of the pedigree should we have. If we have one rather than another it will be regarded as a slight on the other breed, or one up for the breed represented on the board. Is this a great thing for the sheep rearers in the country as distinct from the pedigree breeders? There is something else which must be looked at and which the board members will appreciate fully. I do not anticipate and I would be very loath to think of decisions in regard to the functions of this board being taken by vote. This is not the way these boards operate and certainly not the way we hope this board will operate. This brings us to the point of getting interests from the organisations on the board. To whom, if they are put on by the organisations, do they owe allegiance? Is it to the organisation or to the board on which they are asked to serve? I assert that this is a very good question. I have my own view as to what the answer must be. We have had experience of this in the past, and we do know from this experience that it is likely to be a more harmonious board working together in a co-operative way which Senator Quinlan likes to talk about, with an common end in view, approaching in the best way they can to attain that end, giving and taking a little as they go along rather than coming in if they are a representative section of the organisation with a viewpoint determined for them, not as to their own best knowledge and interest, but by a general consensus of opinion that may, in fact, represent nothing good for anyone. They are stuck with a viewpoint and they may not depart from these views even after a discussion. Another member well qualified in a particular aspect of the board advances good arguments to change the view of the men, full of the enthusiasm for the line that has been given to them by their own organisation. He is not free to go on that because he is already committed to instructions not representative of his own knowledge. He could be regarded as representing a consensus of opinion which in many respects, as all of us know, represents nobody's opinion.

In that sense I do not see the great good that can come from this idea that we will have a group of people that will hold the same sort of view, so that if and when a time comes when they are voting in a particular way they will vote as a bloc. I should hate to think this board would operate on that basis. That is not the way a board can operate, whether it be a semi-State board or private business. It is not the way that a successful board ever operates. Such a board would not long remain a very successful board. I feel that too much emphasis is being placed by Senator McDonald on the numbers that will be written into this particular measure here. He says "three". We say "not less than three" and all I can say to Senator McDonald is that I as Minister, or any other Minister who may come to operate this particular measure in the future, will be fully conscious of these various interests. If this requires four representatives being appointed on this particular board, or three at another time, or five at another time, depending on what is available to the Minister, the Minister of the day will obviously have to balance one thing against another. He may have three, four or five, but not less than three. This is really what we are doing. That Schedule might well have been constituted without mentioning numbers.

We have come to the point of saying not less than three. This is an assurance beyond which I do not think it is wise to go. Coming to this board, the first board, or any subsequent board, I think the best way the Senator can be fully satisfied is by being assured that whatever Minister or interests come to operate this particular part of the Schedule in the future all of this I can foresee will be in the mind of the Minister, his officials and his advisers, in selecting people where they can and the knowledge they have on it would be in the best interest of a board whose primary business is for the very benefit of the producers Senator McDonald is talking about. Remember, the traders will be on this.

It will not be for the benefit of the producers.

Here we have the cynicism of the Fine Gael Party.

There are certainly grounds for it in regard to Irish agriculture.

They preach that co-operation is what they believe in but they practise the opposite. They do not believe that there is any good in anybody. They do not believe that the traders should get any benefits.

There are certain grounds for cynicism in regard to the Minister for Agriculture.

I do not agree with this.

It is a pity that Senator FitzGerald would not go back to his statistics.

I would suggest that Senator FitzGerald would go back to his statistics and not be misleading the people, as he is at the moment. As I say, the board is for the producers' benefit. It will be there for their benefit. That is what it is being created for. I trust that is the business it will do. The way it is there at the moment it will not give voting strength to any particular group. It will do its best in the interest of all producers.

The Minister will not give adequate representation as the board is at present. How can it have the interest of all the different sheep people at heart when it does not give adequate representation?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

No. The board is not properly representative.

The Minister does not believe in representation.

The Senator does.

I believe in proportional representation.

Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand".
The Committee divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 15.

  • Ahern, Liam.
  • Brennan, John J.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Fitzsimons, Patrick.
  • Flanagan, Thomas P.
  • Honan, Dermot P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • McGlinchey, Bernard.
  • Martin, James J.
  • Nash, John Joseph.
  • Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Patrick W.
  • Ryan, William.
  • Teehan, Patrick J.
  • Yeats, Michael.

Níl

  • Carton, Victor.
  • Conlon, John F.
  • Crowley, Patrick.
  • Davidson, Mary F.
  • FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
  • Fitzgerald, John.
  • McDonald, Charles.
  • McHugh, Vincent.
  • Murphy, Dominick F.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Cavan).
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • Prendergast, Micheál A.
  • Quinlan, Patrick M.
  • Sheehy Skeffington,
  • Owen L.
Tellers: Tá: Senators Browne and Farrell; Níl: Senators McDonald and Quinlan.
Question declared carried.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take the remaining Stages?

Senator Sheehy Skeffington and myself wish to move an amendment to section 6 of the Schedule which will make provision for minimal representation of the IAOS and the Agricultural Institute on the council. For that reason we ask that the Report Stage be left until next week.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is difficult for the Chair to rule on an amendment which he has not seen but, on what has been read by Senator Quinlan, the amendment does not appear to be in order for Report Stage in view of the discussion on Committee Stage.

The question on Committee Stage was different.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is not proper to argue the words of the amendment. It is a matter for the House to decide whether to take Report Stage now.

I think it is the wish of the House to take Report Stage now.

There is an indication that certain Senators wish to put down an amendment. I cannot judge whether the amendment is in order but if Senators wish to put down an amendment they must be given that facility.

I wish to support Senator Quinlan and I can guarantee that this amendment is not out of order.

The Seanad is aware that the points mentioned by Senator Quinlan were widely discussed on Committee Stage when the Minister said that he could not accept an amendment to this effect. This is a waste of time and a delaying action. If the Bill is as urgent as Senators say it is, why delay its passage for another week?

We insist on our rights to move an amendment on Report Stage.

It was established quite recently when fewer people were involved that opportunity should be given to put down an amendment for Report Stage.

I believe the Bill can be improved if the Minister accepts the amendment and so we should not take Report Stage today.

The Minister has indicated that he will not accept the amendment.

If the amendment would improve the Bill, Report Stage can be taken next week or, perhaps, if we had the amendment after tea, Report Stage could be taken then.

Or tomorrow morning.

We have a very heavy programme still to be completed and I was anxious to facilitate Members taking their holidays. I am agreeable to Senator Murphy's suggestion that we take Report Stage after tea.

Will the Minister be available then?

You cannot have jam; you will get the bread all right.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

What is the proposal?

Report and Final Stages will be taken after tea.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Report Stage will be taken after tea and business is suspended until 7.30 p.m.

Business suspended at 6.25 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 13, article 6 of the schedule to add the following new paragraphs:—

"(c) not less than one person whom the Minister considers representative of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society;

(d) not less than one person whom the Minister considers representative of the Agricultural Institute;

(e) not less than one person whom the Minister considers representative of his Department."

Dare we hope that we are welcoming here the new Minister for Agriculture or are we welcoming only a substitute? I hope that, perhaps, the new Minister may see fit to accept the reasonableness of the case we are putting forward in this amendment. I take it that Deputy Davern is in a position to see the justice of our amendment.

The Senator must refer to the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary.

For a moment I hoped there might be a change.

That is democracy.

Will the Senator stop woolgathering and come to the amendment?

Section 6 of the Schedule as laid out has this grotesque business through which the only person capable of deciding who shall represent the wool producers is the Minister—that only those appointed shall be so appointed because the Minister considers them to be representative. On Committee Stage, the Minister rejected our proposal that there should be, as in any democratic body, in any democratically constituted Parliament, direct nomination to this council. This phrase is less grotesque when applied to two other bodies that should be represented on the council—when applied to the IAOS and the Agricultural Institute.

The range of representatives from which the Minister could select from such organisations is very limited and it would have to refer to people very prominent in those organisations. Consequently, even at this eleventh hour, it would be a considerable improvement in the Bill if the Minister accepted that such organisations should be represented by rights even if they are to be selected by the Minister. This is in accordance with the Report of the Committee on Wool Improvements from which the Minister quoted so extensively. It is in accordance with paragraph 137, page 34, of the Report in which the committee envisaged and recommended that the council, in addition to representatives of the producers and the traders, that there should also be one representative of An Foras Talúntais and one from the IAOS, plus two from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

We do not go all the way with the report in that we do not see any reason why the Department should be entitled to two representatives, but we readily concede the Department the same representation as we propose for the IAOS and the Agricultural Institute. That is the only departure we are making from the committee. It is hardly necessary to argue the need for having such bodies represented on the council because the whole future of Irish agriculture depends on the fullest possible development of the co-operative movement. It is sad to think that we, who pioneered the agricultural co-operative movement through the work of such great Irishmen as Father Finlay and Horace Plunkett——

We have never heard of them.

——should sit back and let the rest of the agricultural world get ahead with the fullest development and adaptation of the co-operative movement. We have lagged considerably behind, apart from the great recent development in the co-operative marts and the great boon they have been to the country at large. Now is the time to redirect our agricultural policies into the path of the co-operative and, indeed, the spirit of the co-operative because that is what is needed more than anything else.

At present you have the Irish Wool Traders Co-Operative set up by the NFA in 1964, and also some co-operative societies handling wool, and many more could be got into this. Consequently, it is not necessary to take up the time of the House in arguing the necessity of having the IAOS fully represented on it. The Committee on Wool Improvements did not see that it was necessary to argue this. They just merely put down what was to them a self-evident fact. The same applies to the Agricultural Institute because it is charged with research and development in Irish agriculture. Wool is just one facet of that, and wool development is, of course, in association with the sheep industry generally interwoven into the family farm picture. Consequently, again the necessity for an overall approach on this is absolutely self-evident.

Indeed, if we look at the English Wool Board, which provides the ideal to which we should try to aim in our development in this country, we find on page 22 that the very first statement of the principal concern of the Wool Board is with the wool industry, particularly in regard to markets, scientific and industrial research in relation to wool and sheep with a view to improvements in quality and quantity—in other words, research is right in at the very foundation as one of the chief tasks of the English Wool Board. The other task of stabilising prices and so on is secondary. The first is to produce the quality product and to cut costs of production.

That is where the Agricultural Institute comes in. Indeed, it is not a case of it coming in, for it is in the sheep business in general just as it is in all other forms of agricultural production. Already it has a spectacular list of successes in research in sheep husbandry. Therefore, it is right and proper that it should be recognised— not, indeed, that recognising it in this way is any honour to it—but it is a necessity to ensure that the wool committee or council is in close touch with research and that we should have this indispensable link between the two.

I am sorry to be aware that in the past year or two apparently relations are not what they should be between the Department of Agriculture and the Agricultural Institute. It is only right and proper that that should be faced. This House and the Oireachtas charged the Agricultural Institute with doing a job, and we applaud the way they have done that job, and demand that they be given every encouragement to go ahead with it. We do not want unnecessary duplication or unnecessary pinpricking by the Department of the Agricultural Institute. I think you should extend this invitation to the Institute to try to put one of their leading members, one in charge of the sheep section and sheep development, at the disposal of this wool council so that you will have a really effective organisation.

To show that our proposals here are in every way balanced, as they should be, we acknowledge the position of the Department of Agriculture and the relationship between the regulations and so on and the wool council. As recommended in this amendment, the Department of Agriculture should be represented, but we differ in that we do not see why the Department of Agriculture should have more representation than the IAOS or An Foras Talúntais, but we give them equal representation. We use the same phrase, that it shall be somebody whom the Minister considers representative of his Department. We are not altogether tying him to a Department official.

For all these reasons I urge on the Parliamentary Secretary to bring a fresh viewpoint to bear on this and to show his initiative and his openness by accepting this very reasonable amendment standing in the name of Senator Sheehy Skeffington and myself. If the Minister does this he will show that there is a change of heart in the Government as regards agriculture. He will show that they are getting away from the type of Blaneyism that was repudiated in the recent BGA elections and that they recognise that what is needed for the future is co-operation, not dictatorship, and that what is needed now is co-ordinated effort with balanced co-operation, with research, agricultural organisations and the Department of Agriculture all harnessed together in the service of agriculture and in particular in the service of this small branch we are dealing with here, and dealing with very inadequately because the only long-term solution must be a marketing board. In the meantime if what is being forced on us is this product, right as far as it is done to date up to the Schedule, then at least we can improve that by inserting this reasonable amendment. Consequently, I confidently asked the acting Minister, who is a young man——

The Parliamentary Secretary must be addressed by his proper term.

He is acting in place of the Minister.

The Senator is so ignorant that he does not even know that An Chomhairle Olla is the name of this board, and how can he know the difference between Ministers?

An example of ignorance is set by the Leader of this House. While we are on it, the retirement pensions scheme could be used with profit to retire Senator Ó Maoláin and let Senator Ryan take over as Leader of the House, a position he graced for a year and a half.

You would love that. I will be a thorn in your side as long as I am here.

I shall recommend to the House, ignoring Senator Ó Maoláin's intervention, and simply appealing to the good sense of the Parliamentary Secretary to assert his fresh viewpoint on this and thereby show that the lesson of two weeks ago has been learned and that we are now beginning a period of co-operation where the agricultural organisations can, with confidence, look forward to being received again in the hallowed precincts of Upper Merrion Street.

I second this amendment. I regard it as a second best but the House decided earlier on Committee Stage that it did not want three members of An Chomhairle to be appointed by the NFA, one member by the IAOS and one by the Agricultural Institute. Therefore, it seemed reasonable, as the next best thing, to say: "Let us adopt the formula of the Minister and leave it to him to decide, since this is what he wants, who shall be the most representative of the IAOS and of the Agricultural Institute and, indeed, of his own Department". Nevertheless, let us enshrine it in the Bill and in the Act that there shall be a necessity on him to have at least one each of these interests represented on An Chomhairle when it is finally set up.

This is a kind of compromise in the hope that, despite the fact that the Minister did not feel he was able to accept the earlier amendments and the House agreed with the Minister, that both the Minister and the House might agree to take this compromise amendment. It seemed very important to me that the organised agricultural community should have recognition in the Bill and at least the right to this minimum amount of representation.

One of the things about which the farming community generally complain, and the sheep farmers in particular, is something that occurs also in other walks of life. It is that the middlemen, sometimes the buyers or the intermediary buyers, seem to get more out of the product than those who produce it. It has been suggested to me that there are more bloodsuckers on sheep than ticks. The preying upon the sheep producing community by the middlemen, sometimes rather parasitic middlemen, is one of the factors in the very small amount of money that reaches the producers in this very important sector of the agricultural community in Ireland.

It is in the hope that the organised agricultural interests shall be represented and recognised in the Bill—after all nowhere else in the Bill are they recognised—that I second this amendment of Professor Quinlan.

I should like to support this amendment, especially because I feel that not sufficient emphasis is placed on the work of the Agricultural Institute. While I concede that the Minister, who is now taking the right to appoint whom he likes, I still think he can do this and be quite free to do it. If he were to ask the Director of the Institute, Dr. Walsh, to suggest a name to him of somebody who, in Dr. Walsh's experience, is an expert in this particular field of agricultural husbandry, I feel sure he could come up with an eminent expert who would be a great asset on the proposed board.

I believe that sufficient acknowledgement is not given to the tremendous work that the Agricultural Institute is doing. The State is paying for this service and I do not think that sufficient of its findings are percolating back to the farmers. In this way the Minister can come along and lift off the top of the expert knowledge and advice that the State is actually paying for. They are doing the work but I do not believe that the results of the various experiments are getting across to sufficiently large numbers of the farmers.

I feel also that as a token of the Department's desire to foster co-operation it would be important that the Minister should look to the IAOS for one person to serve as a member of An Chomhairle Olla. In this way the Minister cannot only have the best possible brains and experts in this particular field but he can also emphasise the importance of these bodies and support them in their great work.

I cannot accept the amendment as put down. The board, in common with many other boards, can consist of up to approximately ten people. There are six altogether which are being specified. There is nowhere an indication that, in fact, some from the Irish agricultural societies or from An Foras Talúntais might not be on the remaining four. This wool Bill, even if it has not shown anything else, has certainly brought out those wolves who are masquerading in sheep's clothing. People who spoke here of their wish to have co-operation and who by innuendo or, indeed, by open statement said that relations between the Department and the Agricultural Institute have not been what they might have been during the last two years are as far off their mark as the Tuskar Rock is from here.

The Department of Agriculture not only set up both these organisations but financed them and last year £1½ million went to the Agricultural Institute from the Department, similarly the IAOS received £30,000 and a licence to collect £70,000 from cooperative creameries. These are the things that often irritate me—people who try to act as peacemakers turning out to be troublemakers, people who make difficulties and invent them where they were not already.

Regarding what Senator McDonald has said in relation to insufficient information coming back for the money being paid for the maintenance and the workings of the Agricultural Institute, I could not disagree more with him. The Agricultural Institute is doing a first-class job. The findings of its many researches are available to every farmer and every farming organisation and to the public at large if they display sufficient interest in them.

The most that the Agricultural Institute can do is to make its findings, make the submissions on paper and then those who are interested can avail themselves of that certain knowledge that has been found on a scientific basis and, indeed, on costly research. I should like to extend a special word of thanks to all the people involved in this research for the magnificent work they are doing not merely for the Department, not merely for farming interests but particularly for the nation, because they are doing a national service which I and the Department appreciate. I am not prepared to accept the amendment but nonetheless I see in the other four people on this council, the possibility that one or each could possibly fall within that ilk. It baffles me why the Department should be mentioned in this regard but I am not able to follow all the devious routes of Senator Quinlan's imagination.

I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary did not show a little more initiative and comprehension. He, too, believes in whistling past the graveyard. We will have to leave him whistling there for a little longer. He says that relations between the Department and the Agricultural Institute and so on are good but that is not what we hear. Like his Minister, he claims he has no quarrel with the NFA or any other organisation. In other words, there is nothing good, bad or indifferent between them but that is not so. It is right that we should say that here and also indicate, as public representatives, that we are aware that things are not as they should be between the Agricultural Institute and the Department of Agriculture.

I refute that.

As public representatives here we are far more in character with the Agricultural Institute than the Senator.

Who are "we"? The Senator is making wild accusations again.

It is essential in this amendment which we have proposed that the Agricultural Institute——

The affairs of the Agricultural Institute are not under discussion in this Bill.

I appreciate that but the position of the Agricultural Institute in its right to contribute to the wool council should be given some consideration.

An Chomhairle Olla.

The Parliamentary Secretary thought it rather strange that we should mention the Department of Agriculture being represented. If it is strange we are being strange in good company because paragraph 137 of the Report of the Committee on Wool Improvements makes that recommendation, so it is rather strange that we are all out of step in this except the Parliamentary Secretary. We have to try to preserve here some vestige of democracy in this country and to save it from the type of bureaucratic dictatorship that is a real threat to all of us. Senator Yeats may laugh at this but it is a very real threat to everybody. Today it is the farmers. Tomorrow it may be the educators and the day after that the trade unions who will suffer from this Blaneyism.

It is ignorant to refer to this as Blaneyism.

We will leave Senator Ó Donnabháin to his Blaneyism.

It was Checkpoint Charley before this. Now it is Blaneyism.

We appeal to you all to have this amendment accepted. Consequently, we ask the House to disregard the Party Whips and return to some sanity in regard to agricultural policy.

You cannot accept commonsense.

Is the amendment being pressed?

An bhfuil an cúigear ann?

Question put: "That the proposed words be there added".
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 26.

  • Carton, Victor.
  • Dooge, James C.I.
  • FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
  • Fitzgerald, John.
  • McAuliffe, Timothy.
  • McDonald, Charles.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Mannion, John.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Cavan).
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • Quinlan, Patrick M.
  • Sheehy Skeffington,
  • Owen L.

Níl

  • Ahern, Liam.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brennan, John J.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Fitzsimons, Patrick.
  • Flanagan, Thomas P.
  • Honan, Dermot P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • Martin, James J.
  • Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
  • Ormonde, John.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Patrick W.
  • Teehan, Patrick J.
  • Yeats, Michael.
Tellers: Tá: Senators McDonald and Quinlan; Níl: Senators Browne and Farrell.
Question declared lost.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

I wish to dissent at this stage. Unless this Bill leads into a marketing board that has the full confidence of the producers it will be useless.

The Senator must confine himself to the terms of the Bill.

This is in the Bill.

The Chair holds that it is not.

I do not hold with what is in the Bill and consequently I dissent.

Senator Quinlan will be recorded as dissenting.

Question put and agreed to.

The House will now proceed to take items Nos. 3 and 4 on the Order Paper and in conjunction with them Motion No. 13.

Top
Share