The amendments for the Report Stage have been circulated during the interval and Members should find them in their places. It is proposed to accept these amendments at short notice. Since amendment No. 1 concerns the Long Title of the Bill, it is necessary for the Bill to be recommitted in order to discuss this amendment. As amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, are cognate with amendment No. 1 it is suggested that, when the Bill is recommitted in order to deal with amendment No. 1, the debate should cover amendments Nos. 1 to 5, all of which deal with the same essential matter.
National Agricultural Advisory Education and Research Authority Bill, 1976: Report and Final Stages.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 1 to 5.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 4, lines 11 and 12, Long Title, to delete "ADVISORY, EDUCATION AND RESEARCH".
I brought in these amendments in order to meet the wishes of many Members of the Seanad who have spoken here and said they disliked the title of the new Authority. Indeed, I agree with this. I was never very happy about the title. The Members who spoke were also anxious to have an Irish version which would be reasonably short. The groups with whom I discussed the name of the new authority were anxious about the fact that it should be described as a national authority. That is why we are retaining the national aspect of it. The new name in English is, of course, now the National Agricultural Authority. It is much easier to get around. The name in Irish is Údarás Náisiúnta Talmhaíochta. So it is now NAA. We are very accustomed to GAA so, it should not give us any difficulty. I hope the amendments Nos. 1 to 5 will be accepted.
That is acceptable.
I should just like to ask the Minister to describe it in Irish.
An tÚdarás Náisiúnta Talmhaíochta.
I thought it might be "Talúntais".
I am relying on my Irish experts on this one.
I hope the Minister is not afraid of the "Talúntais" part. The only nice taste is the name he has given it.
The Bill is being debated and enacted in the English language and when it has been enacted it will be translated. I think we can leave ourselves in the hands of the very competent Oireachtas Translation Staff.
Can we take it that the Irish version of this National Agricultural Authority will be over the building? Is that how it will be referred to? There seems to be a tendency in recent years to delete Irish titles. I would not like to be a party to that type of performance. We are bilingual but precedence should be given to the Irish version, as in Coras Iompair Éireann, Bord na gCapall, Bord na Móna and so on. The public will adopt it very quickly if it is given its proper title in the national language.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 5, lines 10 and 11 to delete "Advisory, Education and Research".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 7, to delete lines 12 to 17 inclusive and substitute:—
"PART II
THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL AUTHORITY.
9. (1) There shall be established a body to be known as the National Agricultural Authority to perform the functions given to it by this Act."
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 10, lines 5 and 6, to delete "Advisory, Education and Research".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 11, line 25, to delete "Advisory, Education and Research".
Amendment agreed to.
We now report these amendments out of Committee and go back to the Report Stage proper and to amendment No. 6. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are cognate and, accordingly, should be debated together.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, reported and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6.
In page 18, line 37, to delete "three-fifths" and substitute "four-fifths".
This amendment should have been tabled on the Committee Stage but we overlooked it. When the Bill was first introduced it was suggested that 50 per cent of the newly formed committees of agriculture would be members of the county councils and the other 50 per cent would be external members and would have to be elected or nominated by rural organisations. While I fully agree that rural organisations should have a say on our county committees of agriculture, I felt that 50 per cent was too much and I still feel that 40 per cent is too much. I think 25 per cent would be plenty for those rural organisations because it is the people who stand for the county council elections and canvass for weeks and weeks, tramping around the country, who are entitled to get on as many committees as possible if they succeed in being elected to their county council.
Now that there will be a number of external members elected to our county committees of agriculture there will be quite a lot of people anxious to get on that body the easy way. In previous county council elections I was very anxious to get certain people to stand for my party, Fianna Fáil people of course, and I am sure the same applied to Fine Gael. These were people who knew a lot about agriculture or were very good farmers. But they told me that they would love to be on the county council but they had not time to canvass. In other words, they would take the job if they got it, if it was handed to them on a plate. The same applies in this case. Therefore, I feel that 75 per cent should be from the elected members of the county councils and 25 per cent from the rest. In that case those rural organisations would not have much to crib about.
Speaking about the rural organisations, we have mentioned it already with regard to the board and we are going to come up against the same trouble. If people cannot agree among themselves the Minister will decide who has the biggest representation on the board. In a rural county like Tipperary, or anywhere else, where there are 25 or 30 of those organisations—a few more will probably spring up overnight once the Bill becomes law—who will decide on the representatives? If it is left at even 40 per cent, in my county it would mean eight members from rural organisations. I am sure there must be more than 20 organisations in the county and they will all claim a right to get on the county committee. I wonder how we will get over that difficulty.
I feel very strongly about this. Those people do not bother their head about an election. I venture to say that some of them would not even vote for a county councillor because they do not think a whole lot of councillors. They think they are above that section altogether. I just hate to see people walking into the committee of agriculture just because they belong to some organisation, whether it is the NFA or the ICMSA or whatever.
I want to support Senator Ryan in this. As a matter of fact I made this point earlier on on the Committee Stage. It is of tremendous importance that the elected representative would have his proper place on any of these committees. I admit that the powers of the committees of agriculture have been wilting away because of what the Minister is doing here. At the same time it is important even at local level that elected representatives would have the majority on any of these committees. As Senator Ryan has said, people who offer themselves for election have to go before the public. The public are very keen and wise scrutineers in this respect; they weigh the pros and cons for the various candidates. There are many candidates seeking election to county councils. Those people run the gauntlet and are manly enough to put themselves before the electorate rather than be self-elected as often happens.
A very broad base of the community elect these people through the ballot boxes. There is no religious or class distinction of any kind. It is a very broad basis with the result that people who are chosen in that way are truly and democratically the representatives of the area for which they are elected. That is tremendously important because, irrespective of how many rural organisations there may be, there could be many in one area of a county and very few in another.
In the past, as I said earlier, we on our committees of agriculture gave a place to the representative of the NFA and also a place to the representative of the ICMSA. We found that that arrangement worked very well. It is necessary for the elected representatives, even at present, to provide the finances and know what is happening and be responsible to the electorate for their performance during their period on the committee of agriculture.
Many of these other rural organisations may be responsible to the organisation that would select them or nominate them but it is not the same at all. They have not the same power of criticising officials and others whom they might wish to criticise at any meeting of the county committee of agriculture, perhaps even the Minister or his Department. They have not the same liberty, I think, that the public representative commands.
It is the duty of an elected public representative to expose anything he sees going wrong, irrespective of where it happens. So far as the Minister or the Department is concerned we never want to reach the stage where anybody in any Department can shelter behind closed doors and not face the public. It is the best test of democracy that people are dragged into the open and have to account for every penny to the ordinary citizen of this country. That is what we are trying to do. That is a democratic right which we are trying to protect and we do not want to see it eroded overnight by this or any other Minister. I am fully in support of Senator Ryan's amendment to give what I think would be a fair representation to the elected representatives. They are not taking it all but are only asking for four-fifths.
I thought the least we would have got in this House was a responsible response to these amendments from the Government side. They do not want to help the elected representatives, who are responsible to the public. This is where this Bill has collapsed. It is an effort by the Government and by the Minister to shirk away from those who can, as Senator Ryan says, stand up and be accountable for themselves to the public.
As it stands now, this new authority is responsible to nobody but the Minister. This is a reasonable amendment by Senator Ryan. It is a reasonable bit of thinking by the Fianna Fáil Party on this issue. We have not demanded or asked too much in it. The least the Minister should have done was to clarify for us all now the number of people that he would expect or want from the General Council of the Committees of Agriculture. This is basic, vital and important. He will classify the other organisations from A to Z as he thinks fit to do. That may be his problem.
If this is not pouring cold water on what I would describe as the closest thing to pure democracy in this country, I do not know what is. I have a funny feeling that the Minister and the Government want to get away from the public eye. They want to paint the image that they feel should be painted. They want that image and no other image but theirs put before the public and that to me is why this Government shirk the people elected by the people.
There was a time, as I said earlier, when I believed that the Minister meant a portion of what was said. Well, he has come to light today, to me anyway, and I am sure to a lot of other people also, as not being the man I thought he was. That is only my judgment. To shirk away from those who are elected by the people is to me an unpardonable thing. Senator Ryan is right. He is not looking for too much. He is reasonable. He is not seeking to have those members of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture in a dominant position on this new authority.
It is not our intention to upset in depth the plans of the Government on this issue. It is very clear that not even a crumb from that table could we get from the present Minister for Agriculture. In actual fact, by opposing this reasonable amendment, the Minister has, to all intents and purposes, dissolved the committees of agriculture. He has now left them high and dry without any authority whatsoever.
This new attitude by the Minister and the Department amazes me. It convinces me that the Minister had nothing whatsoever to do with the drafting of this Bill, that this Bill is being forced through Parliament and that even this reasonable amendment by Senator Ryan will not be allowed by the Government. It is a sad day for Irish democracy when a Minister and a Government run away from the people. That is what is being done in this Bill, and it appears that the Minister stands fast on this point. It was even pointed out, and I think it is a valid point in relation to Senator Ryan's amendment, that a great many counties had moved appointments on the committees of agriculture away from the political scene by giving seats on these committees to people with a knowledge of rural life, while placing themselves, and rightly so as elected representatives, in control. After all, they are a responsible body. That is what they were elected for. That was their reasoning and it worked quite well.
That being so, giving them the number suggested by Senator Ryan on this new authority would be more helpful to the new authority than the situation been created by the Minister, Is it not logical to conclude that this organisation, which in itself has expert knowledge and has functioned in the way the Minister seemingly would like this new authority to function, are the type of people whom the Minister should be only too delighted to put on this new authority? But no, not even a number: "I will not quote numbers" he said. First he said, "I will not quote numbers" and in the next breath he said: "Some rural organisations will get three, four or five members——
Will Senator Killilea confine himself to the amendment?
I will.
The Senator will, or he will desist from speaking, and the Chair is a judge of whether he will or not.
Here we are, a Chathaoirleach, in a reasoned, thoughtout, clear amendment asking the Minister for Agriculture to be reasonable on one issue only. I do not understand this Bill. I do not understand why the Minister placed himself solidly against reason, and certainly this amendment is reasonable. In fact, I am going to say I thought Senator Ryan has been too reasonable, that we have sought too little. However our thinking was that perhaps the Minister would make a concession if we were reasonable, because even in the dark of the evening there must be some light of reason shining from him and his Government. I find it very hard to understand why this Government have turned upon the elected representatives at local government level.
It is a very difficult matter for me and for the people elected both in his own party here and in his own party in the county at local level. I hope he will be able to explain this new big turnabout. Senator Ryan put his case very mildly and gently and there has not been a move. Not one Member on the Government side would dare stand up and say it was unreasonable. Even at this late stage I would ask one of them to make a logical argument against these two amendments. Possibly they do not understand themselves what the Minister is up to and hence the reason that they dare not stand up and say it is correct or incorrect. They would be afraid of what might happen to them. They might even lose their seats in the Seanad if they spoke here. I have never seen such quiet men. It is a dark day for democracy, a new turn, a new twist, maybe not a new one but the first obvious one. I think this is very important. It is the first time that we could take out the lamp and shine it upon such a performance by this Government.
The situation is so bad that even the beleaguered Senator Quinlan, who was to have moved amendments at this stage, vanished off the face of the earth. I do not know where he has gone. He was a man who rose here today to tell us with fire and fuss that he would put in all those amendments at this stage. Where has he vanished to with all the amendments?
Senator Killilea knows well that it is improper to refer to the presence or absence of Senators. If he persists in breaking the Rules of Order he will be asked to resume his seat.
I was only making a point——
You were making a point which you knew was an improper point.
Maybe I am wrong. I am bewildered. I do not understand the logic of what is happening in this House. I hope the Cathaoirleach does. Where is Senator Quinlan——
Senator Killilea will cease mentioning whether other Senators are present or absent. If he refers to this point again I will direct him to resume his seat.
I regret that I offend you. Seeing that I cannot mention a Senator's name, I have no intention of continuing the argument. The fact is there for everyone to see. I thought we would have all those people with liberal minds standing here to defend this amendment, which concerns the very essence of democracy. These people elected by the people for the people are being annihilated in this Bill. Not less than "one" is the word. It could not be any less than one. If it was less than one it would be nil. On this key point in the Bill the Minister and his Government will not tolerate people elected by the people operating on a State board. It is a disgrace. I beseech him and the party to which he belongs, and the other party which nibbles at it, to accept this reasonable amendment. This is democracy being nibbled at at the roots by a Fine Gael-Labour Government. Ours is a reasonable demand for people responsible to the public at large. This is a dangerous thing. It is the first time that it has become so clear in this House or the other House that this is a Government who feel they are the superior human beings. That is a fact and a sad one, particularly coming from people who at one time used cry "arrogance".
Let us then stand now and defend the unreasonableness of this amendment put forward by Senator Ryan. Let us have their point of view so that the public will know that what I have said about democracy in this House is wrong. I will be the first to acknowledge it if the Minister says "We will give them what Senator Ryan wishes". Then I will have made the point that democracy in this land is not being nibbled at.
I ask the Minister to yield on this point for the sake of democracy and for the sake of showing some modicum of realism on the part of this Government. I say democracy is being assailed in this Bill and if the Minister has the courage of his convictions, let him contradict me.
I support this amendment and I do so for many reasons. I have no intention of repeating what has been said by the previous speaker but I believe that if we want to preserve democracy as all of us would like, we must ensure that elected representatives have a majority, the full right of debate, the full right of decision, on any subsidiary body or any local authority. These amendments are, as previous speakers have said, reasonable amendments. They are ones which should be easily accepted by the Minister because, as has been stated already, you can have people on a committee who are not responsible to anybody. They can be successful in securing the nomination of some voluntary organisation but when their period of office expires they have not got to account to the general public for their stewardship during their term as a member of that committee.
I see danger in that area. People who secure election to office through the ballot box are responsible people. They are always held responsible by the people who elected them. The day comes when they must go back to those people again and render an account of their stewardship, but that is not the case if you allow four-fifths of the membership of the county committees of agriculture to be members of non-elected political parties or non-elected groups. It is in that area that I see the real danger. It is a retrograde step. If we were as concerned for democracy as we pretend to be, we would ensure that the real power comes from the ballot box, irrespective of political parties. No political party enjoys dominance in any local authority. Therefore, it may be one party now and another party the next time who will control the various local authorities. By and large, they are responsible people elected by the people and they set out to do a good job. They do not enjoy a salary.
The Minister is needed in the Dáil. The Whips have agreed that it would be preferable, if the Minister is available, to conclude this debate tonight rather than accept the alternative which is to meet tomorrow morning.
Business suspended at 8.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.45 p.m.
I was advancing arguments why the Minister should allow a higher proportion of elected representatives on this new body. When members are elected to a local authority they are governed by rules and regulations. If a member is an adjudged bankrupt, if he owes rates to a local authority, or if he is guilty of criminal offences he must forfeit his right to membership of that local authority. I would like to know if these members of the organisations which the Minister proposes to include on the body will be bound by the same regulations as elected members. There is nothing in the Bill which states that they will. That is why I am expressing concern and anxiety for the full working of the democratic principle throughout our institutions, whether they be at Government level or at local level.
Democracy at present is under threat in every country. Will a non-elected member have the same voting rights as somebody who goes before the people, secures 1,000, 2,000 or 2,500 votes, whatever the case may be, and get a mandate from the people? Will the elected representative have the same voting rights, the same say in decision-making, as the man who might never get half a dozen votes from the people? That is what I am worried about in this Bill. I am not being political because, as I said before, I respect the will of the people when that will comes to the ballot box. I would not like to see a situation being deliberately created whereby we would by-pass the democratic system and allow greater representation from organisations.
I would advise members of all voluntary organisations to join political parties, whether they be Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour or Independent, and play a full and complete role in the working of real democracy. I would like to see that because there is nobody I have more respect for than people who take the political line, go before the people and seek an endorsement. For that reason I fully support the amendment. It is necessary now more than ever before because democracy is under threat in every country in the world at present.
We had, in the Dáil, a fairly long discussion on the representation of the county committees of agriculture. It was a very reasonable discussion. There were views from both sides of the House. The original proposition in the Bill was that there would be 50/50 for the elected and non-elected members. The non-elected were to be selected from the rural organisations active in the counties. I listened to the discussion and argument in the Dáil and the maximum that the Opposition were looking for, incidentally, was 75/25. Here Senators are looking for 80/20. The peculiar thing about this is that on Committee Stage I understood Senator Dolan to be reprimanding me for going away from the 50/50 ratio because he was all in favour of that. Today he wants 80/20. I can even quote from his Second Reading speech if I may. In Volume 86, No. 9 he said:
There is nobody with the same freedom, who can criticise in as helpful a way, without ruffling the person being criticised, the public representative. These people go before the electorate to gain appointment to a committee of agriculture. It is unfortunate that the Minister did not ensure that they had at least 50 per cent representations on the board.
I said it was unfortunate that I did not ensure that they had 50 per cent representation. That is what I brought in originally. Now that I have increased that to 60/40 in favour of the elected representative, he is now looking for 80/20 in the other direction.
We could not work it out at 75/25.
There appears to be a good deal of confusion among the speakers here this evening. I had to listen for a long time to the faked concern of Senator Killilea—I am sorry he is not here—who comes from Galway. He knows that in Galway, where he has a good deal of responsibility for it, 50 per cent of the members are elected and 50 per cent non-elected. He is perfectly happy with that and is largely responsible for that situation. The only thing is that they were in a position to hand pick them as politicians without going before the electorate. Which is better? I explained earlier that I was the first member of a county committee of agriculture to propose that the rural organisations be represented on the county committees. I did it for one reason and for one reason only. I thought we would have better county committees. At the time I proposed it it was seconded by a well-known Fianna Fáil Deputy and it was unanimous. From that day until the day I left the county committee we had a better committee. It worked well. I was glad some other committees throughout the country followed this example. I think the quality of committees has improved because of this.
As a result of the views expressed in the Dáil, I brought in an amendment giving 60/40. I got the impression, rightly or wrongly, that everybody in the Dáil was happy about that because it gave a fairly solid majority to the elected members and it also gave representations to the rural bodies who should be concerned about agriculture. That is perfectly reasonable. At least one of the contributions that we got here this evening was absolutely unreasonable in every respect. I could not possibly accept the amendment because I think it is reasonably looked after by the amendment introduced in the Dáil as a result of views expressed there.
Firstly, I should like to make it clear that while four-fifths appears to be a big percentage, it was not my intention to look for that amount but the Bill talks about fifths and I could not find a number between three-fifths and four-fifths. What I was asking for was 25 per cent of the committee to be non-elected and 75 per cent to be elected representatives. Having listened to the Minister, and since he has stated that all parties agreed to it in the other House, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I think at this stage that it might be helpful for all the people concerned about what is contained in this Bill if I made a short concluding statement.
The reorganisation which I am proposing in this Bill is not just change for the sake of change. I have said over and over again that the fundamental concept is one of integrating three activities which are interdependent but which now are organised separately from one another. As stated in the White Paper, the objective is to secure the greatest possible degree of efficiency in the services which are basic to the development of our agricultural economy. The aim is to bring about an integrated system functioning as a unified whole and designed to give a better service to the agricultural industry and one more fitted to take account of the changing needs of this sector. Let me briefly sketch the underlying factors which have led to, and now call for, integration.
Our advisory service dates from the start of the century. The few advisers at that time were organised on the basis of county boundaries. The structure suited the circumstances of that distant era. The size and functions of the service are vastly different to-day. There were only 155 advisers in the country as late as 1931. By 1960 there were 350. The number to-day is almost 700. There has been a corresponding rise in public expenditure on the service, but the old organisational pattern was allowed to remain untouched by the changes all around it. The pattern is now as outmoded as it is outdated. Members of county committees of agriculture saw the need for national integration of their members and promptly satisfied that need by setting up the general council.
A number of the Department's schools were established in similar conditions. Athenry, Ballyhaise and Clonakilty were all in operation long before World War I. Kildalton is a product of more recent times. Most of our State-aided schools also were inaugurated for a different era when farming was much less complex, when there were few advisers and scarcely any research. To-day, the educational sector is vital to and strongly influenced by the advisory and research sectors.
Our major research agency, An Foras Talúntais, is of relatively modern origin, dating from 1958. It has now grown to maturity with over 20 centres of scientific inquiry located throughout the country. Let me here make it quite clear that I personally admire the way in which this powerhouse of knowledge for our agriculture has been built up. But the lifeline of research is a ready and smooth two-way flow of information between it and advisers and farmers, especially our younger farmers.
Ireland's entry to Europe has brought new opportunities and new obligations. With it have come new sources of financial aid for farming development, education and research. Many decisions are now taken abroad which directly affect farming prosperity and the different intellectual aids to farming.
To the complexity of farming operations themselves has been added organisational complexity. All these forces have made the handling of both his inputs and outputs more fragmented and more difficult for the farmer who became confronted with an ever-increasing diversity of organisations. Where he could do something about it himself, he brought about the required integration. Major structural changes have been achieved in the processing and marketing of farm products. Their keynotes were rationalisation, co-ordination and integration. They moved with the times.
Now that the automatic EEC transitional increases in farm prices are coming to an end and with the little room left for further devaluation of the Irish green £, farming prosperity will more than ever before depend on competitive efficiency. Again within the constraints of the common agricultural policy, this places a new emphasis on the levels of technology applied in the production, processing and marketing of our food products.
Ultimately, the nation's capacity for successful innovation—that is for applying advanced technology— depends on the skills, knowledge and know-how which our work force in farm and factory must have so as to be able to carry that technology into actual practice. This can be acquired only through proper training.
Merging with this base of individual technical skills, we need a pool of knowledge which understands and can advise on the inter-relationships between land, labour, capital and information that go to make up efficient processes or systems of production. This is the function of the Adviser.
Both these forces need the support of a development-oriented research sector which applies world scientific knowledge to problems hindering technological advancement and which keeps, at least, abreast of world research in its own scientific investigations.
We have all three elements in this country. Together they constitute the intellectual investment in agriculture and they must move together in harmony if the most efficient technology is to be applied in Irish agriculture. Events over the years have built up a fragmented, unco-ordinated organisation pattern of this intellectual investment. This Bill provides the means now called for to integrate the different elements into a coherent whole.
My intention is that there will be a linkage of all three and neither a reduction nor a supression of any. I can guarantee that each of the three arms—research, education and advice —will retain its individual character. The proposals on education bring into focus not alone the facilities of my Department but those of the State-aided schools and the committees of agriculture as well. They also ensure close liaison with technological and business education as a whole.
In unifying the nation's advisory service, I am giving a new influence to the members of committees of agriculture on the formulation of national policy for the development of our agriculture. To discharge this responsibility, the quality of members rather than their numbers will be very important. I am hoping, therefore, that the farmer and rural interests will put forward their best representatives and I urge co-operatives particularly to play a major part in these developments.
As to research, I want to retain the distinctive environment which is essential to successful research activity. The Bill adds to the strength of An Foras Talúntais by joining to it the research facilities and resources now in my Department. This expanded research arm will, I believe, be more favourably placed for the future by coupling it to the related elements of advice and education.
My intention is to give this new crucially important body the maximum amount of freedom to regulate its own affairs consistent with public accountability. For that reason the Bill leaves those who will be responsibile free to organise the new agency as they think best. They have powers to develop structures for education, research and advice which can utilise and involve people specially equipped to deal with those subjects. Apart from the essential arrangements of appointing the board and the chief executive, I have refrained from imposing even the slightest feature of internal organisation on those whose task it will be to administer the new authority. What I am proposing is a framework for the much needed unity of approach in the now substantial and vital intellectual investment in Irish agriculture. Collectively the three individual branches will get renewed strength from an essential unity of purpose, to the greater benefit of themselves and of agriculture as a whole.
I was anxious to put that short statement on the record in the hope that it may relieve some of the anxieties that have been genuinely expressed and I hope that it will be accepted as a sincere understanding from me of what is contained in the legislation. I am concerned about the future of agriculture. That is my job and I would not like to be responsible for any piece of legislation that would in any way injure the industry that I have so much responsibility for and that I have had so much interest in throughout my life.
I wish to make a short statement in reply to the Minister's statement. I probably have been more antagonistic in this House than anybody today. I must say clearly and unequivocally that my eyes were opened when I studied this Bill and tried to tease it out in the House. I accept the principle of what the Minister says, personally speaking, about his future commitment or his past commitment to agriculture. It is his job. I may accept the statement he made in its generality but I certainly cannot— and I do not think any words of his in any way can lessen this point—accept that in every part of this Bill we have teased out today the Minister has the sole right at all stages. He may not always be Minister for Agriculture; there may be another man. He may be of the same political persuasion or of any other political persuasion. What I am interested in is that this new board or authority is in the grasp of the Minister for Agriculture no matter who he may be.
I learned quite a lot today. Personally, I am amazed at the performance. I see it now in its true light. I am fairly sure of what I am saying. This Bill certainly has brought to light a lot of obnoxious things and many obnoxious things can happen under this Bill. It has certainly not changed my opinion that in the forseeable future I can see the end of the progressive work of An Foras Talúntais. That I am certain of. The Minister has said nothing, even on this last occasion when he had an opportunity of resolving my problem and the country's problem, about why the nominations for this board are going to be sent to him.
In a Bill of such importance precautions should be written into it. Certain decisions should not be left to any Minister no matter what his political persuasion. He may be entitled to guide such a board but to be in absolute and total control of it is not democracy: it is not correct. Directions can fly left, right and centre. We can tell people to get on this board and get off this board. There is no question or doubt about that. We have to recognise that very serious fact. Senator Ryan and our party gave him a perfect opportunity some moments ago of dealing with one aspect of it which is still vital. He may get all the publicity and all the public relations personnel in the Department to bolster up this Bill but, no matter what they do, the contents of it are dangerous. He has done nothing at all to rid us of that fear. I hope—and I am not an absolute pessimist—that what the Minister has said will happen will happen, but it is not good enough to hope.
The Minister should be able to bring about what he hopes, not merely hope it will happen. He should be able to direct this board to try to complete the important work before them regarding agriculture and the agricultural community. It is very hard for any Minister to deal with a Bill concerning agriculture. That is the main reason why I think it was a great opportunity for this Minister for Agriculture to make this an easy Bill, a clear Bill, a decisive Bill, a Bill with punch and a Bill with bite, a progressive Bill. It is so much needed. Quite the opposite has happened. I think the Bill will choke and paralyse many important operations in agriculture throughout this land that are, as he said himself, necessary and vital. He has now, in my opinion and in the opinion of the people of this side of the House, paralysed all that.
No matter how many arguments the Minister puts up, I do not think it was necessary to take in, as he himself described it, the Agricultural Institute and hand it out again under a different guise. Without doubt it has lost its autonomy. It is good for him to say here that he would wish the Agricultural Institute to grow stronger and better, but he knows that there is a danger that it will not. That danger is much stronger and much more firm than his will, his desire, my desire and everybody's desire that it should grow stronger. I can see stagnation immediately because there is a reaction and there is a lack of decisiveness in this Bill. There is a lack of clarity. Nobody knows, after a long day here today and a long day yesterday, whom this board will include. It is a big question. The worry of the Agricultural Institute has not been dealt with appropriately. I fear sincerely for this organisation. I fear even more for the advisory service. No matter what the Minister has said or the members of the Government have said, the agricultural advisory service has been choked.
There is no indication from the Minister that that will be remedied other than the bald statement that in his opinion the agricultural advisory service has improved. I know quite positively that in my county it has not improved. It is not our fault that it has not improved. It is clearly the fault of the Department of Agriculture that it has not improved. There is nothing in this Bill to say that it will improve. It is quite the opposite that I read into the Bill.
It is sad that in 1977 we are not clear about where we are going in agriculture through the fault of the Minister for Agriculture. It is sad that the prime industry of this land can be in doubt, can have worries and frustrations, as is obvious from this Bill. It plainly emerged that this authority selected by the Minister can play a major role in arresting the progress of agriculture. The Minister says it may not but "may not" is not good enough for me. We should be clear about it and be able to say gladly today on every section of this Bill: "Minister, you are correct". There were two or three sections that we did not discuss because there were so many serious matters to deal with. This is not the way to legislate for agriculture in 1977. Agriculture has progressed. Are we progressing with it? Does this Bill progress with it? Those are the questions arising on the Bill.
We are no better off this evening than we were yesterday morning. Irish agriculture may not be as well off tomorrow morning. This is the point I want to bring out. This is where this Minister for Agriculture should have shone. He should have clarified our doubts. He should have been clear and strong and said he would do this and that because it is good for agriculture. Instead, we have hesitancy. We have a stop-go policy. We have unsatisfactory answers to reasonable questions. This is not what I expected from the Minister. This is not the man that I was led to believe was the superman of Irish agriculture. If a man is good, he is entitled to be praised for it. I would not go behind the bush to say it.
This Bill has not changed my opinion. It is like muddy water. There is nothing progressive, dynamic, strong, firm or clear in it. It reeks of the Minister's influence from beginning to end. It reeks of indecision and unanswered questions. It goes now to the hands of the demagogues. That is not the way to have agriculture in these progressive years of 1975, 1976 and 1977. We should never find ourselves back in 1974 again. This Bill does not furnish the ideals of a progressive farming community. It does not do much for the situation that is creeping into this country today concerning the alienation of the workers and the farmer, something that we in this House on all sides have tried for years to eliminate. That old thorn has been put in again.
The workers in the factory today stink to the farmer and it looks as though the farmer will stink to the workers. Does this Bill do anything to change that? No, it does not. Does it help us out of this morass? No, it does not. Does it tell us of any worthwhile achievement in the foreseeable future by this authority? No, it does not. It is sad that this Minister for Agriculture allowed this situation to be created about him. It simply amazed me. I do not understand it. If it were a fact that he was doing it for the betterment of agriculture and if this were clear in every part or in most parts of this Bill, one would give him the little laurels that go with such Bills and that help the political party. He would be entitled to them.
There is nothing in this Bill that is progressive for the farming community. All I can see in it is indecision. It is a sad day for this House that we have not the power or the authority to stop it. That day may come.
(Interruptions.)
I did not hear the remark but I suspect what it was. I know why we are so low in number in this House. But I hope all those who got in on the back tit since the last general election will be successful in the next one. Many people sitting over there have to get nominations at party level and so on. I wish them all luck. They are guaranteed for the road and I am sure Senator O'Toole who certainly got in that way could have a bit of a fight on his hands.
(Interruptions.)
Senators should allow Senator Killilea to continue.
After this election it possibly could be Senator Killilea again. There is no danger. I have faith in the party to which I belong. I always had. I do not put my head down behind chairs and mime or whisper something. I stand up here and say it clearly. Far be it from me to go hiding behind my switched-off microphones. I never did it in my life and have no intention of doing it.
You drove all night.
I did and I was successful. I knew what I was doing. I have no apologies to offer. I was clear as I have been clear today. I am as clear as a whistle. On the particular night the Senator talks about I knew what the result was going to be because I was above board. I am above board now and I am clear. Why are you picking on me?
I am not picking on you. You said today you were illustrating something you know nothing about. That is what I cannot understand.
What was it?
That is what you said: those were your words.
I would like to know what the Senator is talking about because I do not know what he is talking about. The only thing I was sorry for today was that I upset the Chairman. I did not mean to do that. I never intended to upset the Chairman. One thing he has above a lot of you is his fairness.
Getting back to this Bill which is very important to us all and to some of the men who will be standing on platforms or—hopefully—will be standing on platforms on behalf of the Fine Gael organisation, they will not be able to take this Bill and wave it at the general public and say: "This is the work of Minister Clinton, super Minister Clinton". This is no great document from him. I dare one of them to pull it out of their pockets and stand outside any church gate and wave it and say: "This is good for you, the people. This is what we are giving you." They know the answer they would get. Only for the price of tomatoes, I know the answer they would get. There is nothing in this Bill that is progressive and I am sorry to have to say that because in 1977 it is progressiveness we are looking for particularly from the Minister. But I have seen him in a new light. I have seen the Fine Gael Party in a new light. I have found out a lot of devious little things about them that I did not believe existed in this day and age. But there it is. They could not even get the full backing of the Labour Party on this Bill. At least they do not close doors on their own as well as we thought.
The old outward face is solemn but there must be steam rising in those big rooms these days, things are not happening in the way they used to happen. The glory is going a little. They may be in a little trouble. It will be sad then when only about 12 or 13 of them will find themselves sitting on this side of the House, from pure democracy. That is what has our party with 13 or 14 Members, their description of pure democracy. They had to get two or three extra chairs at the back to swell the benches to satisfy all the pundits. The day is coming when the Taoiseach will put on his dickie bow and go to the Park and about 25, 30 or 40 of them will go with him, never to be heard of again, sad as it may seem. They are even tormenting Minister Clinton trying to get a nomination. He had only one vote. He will not be able to spread it out as much as he would like. He certainly will not be able to do as good a job on them as he did on the county committees of agriculture.
Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.30 p.m.sine die.