Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 May 1977

Vol. 86 No. 12

National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority Bill, 1976: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McGowan

I was criticising the Minister and the Department for the decision to dissolve the institute. Many people in the agricultural industry are very worried about the institution which will replace An Foras Talúntais. There is an outline of the proposed board that will replace the institution and its functions but this is far from satisfying those involved in agriculture. I have listened to many fears being expressed and to the good grounds for those fears. Let us look at some of the boards that exist under the Minister's own Department.

If you will allow me I will refer briefly to the Potato Marketing Board. I would ask the Minister to allay the fears that now exist. The Potato Marketing Board are under the Minister's control. One of the nominees of the General Council is still acting on the Potato Marketing Board and is no longer——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator asked the Minister to deal with this point. I am afraid I must intervene to say that it is very wide of section 10 and it would be most undesirable for a debate to continue along the lines of such specific points which, if related at all, are very tenuously related, to the question of the abolition of this particular body.

Mr. McGowan

With respect to the Chair, I am trying not to go wide of the section here, but I must——

An Cathaoirleach

I appreciate that the Senator is trying and I do not want to interrupt him, but up to now his contribution has been related to the section. While he has been trying not to go wide, I am afraid he has not succeeded, he has gone considerably wide of the section.

Mr. McGowan

I respect fully the Chair's wishes that I should keep to section 10. The agricultural community are far from satisfied that the Minister has given any clear indication of what will replace the Agricultural Institute. The broad outlines are there, but one has to look at what is going to replace the institute. The only knowledge we have is of other similar boards that exist under the Minister's control. I must refer again to the experience of boards already in existence. We in the west have got a very raw deal. We feel that whatever organisation replaces the institute, the farming community will get a very raw deal. This is quite a genuine fear. We feel all this has been necessary because of the sluggish inactivity in the Department of Agriculture. We felt that the taking away of fisheries would open the door and that the Minister for Agriculture would become active in the day-to-day administration of agricultural affairs. We welcomed that decision and hoped the Minister would get down to business. This is far from anything like that. The Minister is pushing the problems further away from him. If we look at the size of the country and the amount of business, we will see that this is a small area. It is really only a small region in Europe.

To abolish an advisory service that has been established, trusted and proved is a backward step. The advisory service can be a much better service if it is kept completely aloof. People engaged in agriculture believe that it is much better if it is kept away from the practical side of agriculture. To dissolve it and amalgamate it with something that is uncertain and over which the Minister will only have remote control, only makes people engaged in agriculture suspicious.

The Minister may argue that he will have a completely new approach to agriculture but this does not give those people confidence. When the Minister saw fit to abolish the Agricultural Institute, he should have looked at the whole agricultural administration and done a first-class job. This is only piecemeal, and those engaged in agriculture will demand at the first opportunity that this decision be reversed.

I am precluded from giving details of what I believe to be the experience of those in agriculture of the committees set up under the Minister. I will be able to give these details under other sections, but they will only confirm the fears that the new board will not be in the best interests of those in the agricultural industry today. This is a clumsy effort to encourage those people to believe that the Minister is active.

I am a member of Donegal County Council. They applied to this Minister two years ago to have approval for a sheep dipping bath. There was a political involvement here because a local sheep dipping inspector recommended his uncle's land as a site. That Minister did not act on behalf of those engaged in agriculture. I am pointing this out to show the Minister's lack of sincerity. My colleagues put down a parliamentary question but it did not make any difference. Despite the fact that the chief veterinary officer and the Donegal County Council made a recommedation for the siting of the sheep dipping bath, for the past two years this Minister for Agriculture did not make a decision. Is that being active? How does one relate sincerity in that instance to sincerity here? How could the Minister expect people in my county to believe that he is going to do something for agriculture? I do not believe it and I know many more involved in agriculture who do not believe that this is a sincere and honest attempt to bring the agricultural organisation up to what is needed in Ireland and Europe today. This lack of sincerity does nothing to allay the fears that have been expressed in the industry.

There is no widespread acceptance from the farming community, the IFA or anybody else. I only hope the Government will soon see that this is not a popular move. We are restricted on this section, but we will have to show the public that we are sincere in challenging this move. To abolish an agricultural institute that was ready to give good service to the country, which has been long establised, long trusted and long accepted, is the most ridiculous step that has ever been taken in either House. I hope the day will soon come when we are able to re-establish the agricultural advisory service.

Professor Quinlan

We should get back to reality in this section. The first fact is that for the last 20 to 25 years the agricultural sector have demanded the reorganisation of the advisory services. It was recognised that the country was proving too small a unit to allow the efficient utilisation of the expert and special skills in the service. Also, it was recognised that while the county committees had done good work, again there was too much of a political flavour about the county committees as such and it was necessary that the rural organisations, especially the farming organisations, should be involved and get representation. These organisations have emerged only in the last 20 or 25 years. They have emerged fast and are now comparable to corresponding farmer and producer organisations anywhere. They have done us proud. Their development over the past 20 to 25 years has been a great tribute to many, but especially to the advisers who nurtured Macra ne Feirme in the early fifties. One of those advisers is seated behind the Minister today. We pay tribute to their work——

An Cathaoirleach

Reference to persons present in their official capacity is not appropriate.

Professor Quinlan

I want to pay a general tribute to the members of the advisory service who contributed so much to the developments in Macra na Feirme, which, in turn was responsible for the development of the IFA. We have that genuine demand for these services. That demand was realised in England 25 years ago when the National Agricultural Advisory Service was set up there. There is a need for intertwining research and advisory work. The pattern, by and large, has been set. As far as I know, farmers organisations and other bodies have been in favour of the organisation.

What are we making a song and dance about? Of course there is some genuine fear. A number of research people would like a little more protection. That can be achieved. I have put down amendments which would ensure that the deputy director would get a certain sum out of the budget for research. The Minister's view seems to be that that can be achieved and that he would expect the council to do that of their own accord. Somebody at deputy director level should be expected to be responsible for that and, provided it would be perfectly legitimate to have Dáil questions, we could extract a breakdown of the figure in the Vote for the newly reorganised body that is accountable for the research services. If we can get that, then there cannot be any running down of research.

Naturally, we are reluctant to see the name, the Agricultural Institute, disappear. It was suggested, and some might feel rightly so, that the institute could have been expanded to include the advisory services. If that had been done, we would have a bigger row here than we have at the moment. The advisory services, who regard themselves as in the front line with the research people at their back, would regard that as a takeover by the research arm. We have to strike a balance. The present reorganisation has been accepted with certain reservations or suggestions of change by all the leading organisations connected with agriculture. If that is the case, I do not see why we should have such ologóning on the passage of this Bill.

I am not at all happy with the name. I can understand——

An Cathaoirleach

I would remind the Senator that the only name mentioned in section 10 is that of the Agricultural Institute.

Professor Quinlan

I am not happy at losing that name. If it is at all possible I know that the partners in this— and the advisory service, numerically, are probably the larger partner—have an interest in the name. I do not think anyone could have an interest in the name NAAERA.

An Cathaoirleach

I must intervene. The Senator is now going over matters which were dealt with on an earlier section. The name of the new body does not come within the scope of the debate on section 10.

Professor Quinlan

We are abolishing the name of the Agricultural Institute.

An Cathaoirleach

The position is that the question of the name of the new institute was adequately debated on an earlier section yesterday. This debate should not be entered into. The fact that the Cathaoirleach was not in the Chair at the time should not mislead Senators into thinking that it can be debated on a later section with impunity.

Professor Quinlan

I respect the Cathaoirleach on this point. We would feel happier to accept section 10 if we had a name that came somewhat nearer to the one we are changing. In section 10 we are abolishing a name that is well known, both nationally and internationally. We are abolishing the Agricultural Institute, An Foras Talúntais. The same functions continue, the same work continues, but according to the wording of this Bill section 10 abolishes this body. There must be some other way of saying this because we are not abolishing the Agricultural Institute.

I hope the new institute will lead agricultural research in the years ahead into bigger and greater activities and that there will be more funds placed at their disposal because our whole future depends on agricultural production. The Agricultural Institute has made a major contribution to the future of agriculture since its foundation. This has saved us and enabled us to ride relatively well out of the recession of the last couple of years. There was a tremendous depression everywhere, but 50 per cent of our exports are agricultural exports. Because of the work of the institute and others, agriculture had a boom period while other countries suffered as a result of the depression. I would like to pay tribute to those who have helped so much in the creation of these conditions.

I do not see why we should drag out the passage of this Bill or why we should contribute to creating unnecessary or undue alarm. Some Senators asked if the abolition of the institute was legal. I think the Minister answered last evening that its passage had been cleared. I wish there could have been some better way of wording section 10 than its present terse form, but that is the work of the parliamentary draftsman. If he could come up with a better formula it would be accepted, but it is still something that should not be raised to the extent of creating national alarm and anxiety amongst research people. As the debate progressed, I believe that there is no need for alarm. I am sure that the assurances we seek can be got on a later section.

Dr. Martin

I must reiterate my distress at the bleakness of that formulation. As Senator Ferris said, the formulation itself is so final, total and pitiless that it seems to destroy and set at naught the entire existence and identity of the institute. I do not know whether we can meet Senator Ferris's suggestion that perhaps a better formulation could be found. For my own part I wonder if, instead of just bleakly opposing the section, as the Opposition propose to do in their amendment, the Minister would not accept some such formulation as: "The Institute, while retaining its name and identity, is hereby brought under the authority of the NAAERA". Would it be an enormous abrogation or surrender in principle to allow the name to survive in some form within section 10? The words, "The Institute is hereby dissolved" and summarised as "Dissolution of Institute", are bleak and final and disheartening for other bodies of the same kind. The man who formulated that section must have received training in Belsen or elsewhere, or perhaps in Lewis Carroll's fiction—"off with its head"; end, dissolution, instant apocalypse at the stroke of a pen.

It seems that a better formulation could be found, but the thought behind it is rather callous. I would suggest that it would not be a surrender of any kind of principle to say that "The Institute, while retaining its name and identity, is hereby brought under the authority of the NAAERA", that is of course if you do not change the latter rather clumsy appellation.

Mr. Harte

I have sat very patiently listening to the various comments in this debate. I am speaking on this debate because I am angry. A person employed in industry can be sent for and told that there will be no work for him in four weeks' time. We pass Acts to facilitate that arrangement, to ensure that certain moneys will be provided, that it would be legal for the employer to embark on this course of action and so on. We say we are doing that in the name of change and that we think change and progress are necessary. The whole basis of this debate seems to be that we do not mind change so long as it affects the other fellow. On the one hand you are able to send for someone and say "you are redundant, you are gone" and there is nothing wrong with that, and we pass legislation to approve it. But when we come to what legal terminology can be used when you are merging certain sectors in the agricultural field, that is different. It seems to be very hard to say that an institution is dissolved, but it is not too difficult to say to a man "your job is gone".

The arguments on this section are a bit crazy. I have listened with great tolerance to the whole situation. I am not arguing about the rest of the Bill. I am merely arguing about this particular section. I am not the type of person who goes along with closure motions. It was quite right to allow the debate to develop the way it did. But we are getting a bit of a hangup on this, and my points have not been heard up to now I would like to ask Senators a question: would they stand up and scream when a man is being made redundant, or when a company is going out of existence because of a merger or for some other reason? No matter which way you describe it, the job is gone. I cannot see the common sense in this argument.

It is proposed in this Bill to merge certain bodies, which happen to be under an executive agency, and there will be a board. If this Bill dealt with industry or anything else, the same thing would happen; one body would have to lose its identity. Other people lose their identity. A worker loses his identity if he is moved from one job to another. He loses his identity completely if his job is taken away from him. I cannot see why we have these crocodile tears about the change of a name. I am not arguing about the rest of the Bill. I believe there were some very good points made in respect of it, but I think the arguments in this case are weak.

Mr. Lenihan

I am going to keep my contribution to two minutes flat. I want to emphasise why we are opposing this section. I believe it is unamendable. I accept that if the Minister wants an executive agency of the Department of Agriculture, hogtied to the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Finance, that that sort of innocuous, anonymous name is all right for an organisation or agency of that kind. Fundamentally we are opposing the section because we believe that the basic principle of the Bill, removing an independent autonomous research organisation which has the capacity to expand into the educational and advisory areas is disastrously wrong and capable of very serious deterioration in the administration of agricultural education, research and advice.

Briefly, that is our position on the matter. We think that this whole expansion of the area of activity of the Agricultural Institute could be much more easily done by an amendment of the existing Agriculture (An Foras Talúntais) Act, 1958, by adding these extra functions in the areas of education and advice to it. In that manner we preserve what is good and add all that is required to it by way of an amendment giving it extended functions. That is our straightforward position. We are opposed to this section. We, like others here, think it is unamendable. If the Minister wants to set up an agency, as seems to be the basic principle throughout the Bill, then that sort of name is as good as any name or label.

Mr. Ferris

I have already contributed on this section. I, apologetically, stand up again. I would ask the Minister, in view of all that has been said—and I know he is restricted in what he must do in this section—if there is any way in which he could convince the institute that they are not being dissolved? You know they are not being dissolved. I know the Minister does not want to dissolve them; he wants to repeal the Act which set them up. Can the Minister not say that the institute are hereby dissolved and their functions transferred to the new board? Can the Minister not add any rider to this that would make it more evident and more convincing that they are not being dissolved? Surely there must be a half dozen words that can be used to protect their identity, which is what we are trying to do, when we know it is being protected? Surely, the Parliamentary draftsmen are not so lacking in ingenuity in the use of the English language as to be unable to convince them that they are being transferred. We know they are. Why not say it in this section?

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Clinton)

I have gone to a good deal of trouble previously indicating why it was necessary to do it in this way. I went back to the office of the Attorney General and I was told there was no other way to do it. I have to accept legal advice on this. What Senator Ferris is looking for is being done exactly and is explained in section 17 of this Bill, where it shows everything that is being transferred totally to the new authority and preserved there— all the things they do at the moment and some additional things which they will be doing under this new authority. While it looks, as some people have said, harsh and cruel, we overestimate the sensitivity and delicacy of people dealing with agriculture in this country. In the main, they are people with their feet on the ground. There is a lot of nonsense being talked about all this, if I may say so. It is similar to the nonsense talked here this morning by Senator McGowan about the people in the west of Ireland.

The people in the west of Ireland have never done better and that is true particularly of Donegal. Of course, he is preparing for an election which he imagines is coming up later on in the year, but it has nothing at all to do with the Bill. That is all I want to say except that quite genuine concern was expressed here yesterday evening that we were acting, perhaps, illegally. I got some additional information on this point. The change in the agreement was notified in Iris Oifigiúil on the 1st February, 1977. It is provided that every international agreement to which the State becomes a party shall be laid before Dáil Éireann but it has not to be ratified. It has just to be laid before Dáil Éireann. This agreement will appear in the Treaty Series published annually. All the legal requirements have been fulfilled in this case. That is the point I was endeavouring to make. We would be very foolish if we were proceeding illegally having got all the advice we could possibly get from the legal resources of the Government and from Foreign Affairs. I hope that anxiety has now been removed.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 10.

Tá

• Barrett, Jack.
• Blennerhassett, John.
• Butler, Pierce.
• Codd, Patrick.
• Connolly, Roderic.
• Daly, Jack.
• Ferris, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Alexis.
• Harte, John.
• Horgan, John S.
• Kerrigan, Patrick.
• McAuliffe, Timothy.
• McCartin, John Joseph.
• McGrath, Patrick W.
• Mannion, John M.
• Markey, Bernard.
• O'Brien, Andy.
• Owens, Evelyn.
• Prendergast, Micheál A.
• Robinson, Mary.
• Sanfey, James W.
• Whyte, Liam.

Níl

• Browne, Patrick (Fad).
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
• Garrett, Jack.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• McGowan, Patrick.
• Martin, Augustine.
• Ryan, William.
• West, Timothy Trevor.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Sanfey and Harte; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Garrett.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 11.

Mr. Lenihan

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, line 23, to delete ", advisory and research" and substitute "and advisory".

I believe in reality; I do not believe in repetition. Fundamentally the point we have down here in this amendment has been very adequately dealt with in our earlier amendments and it is really consequential on the sort of attitude we have expressed both on the Second Stage and in our earlier amendments that the research functions should be deleted from this Bill in order to maintain the independence of research and the autonomous aspect that is so essential if research work is to be carried out properly in an environment free from day-to-day control which is envisaged in this Bill, free from day-to-day financial management restrictions.

This view was expressed at all Stages during the passage of the Agricultural Institute Bill through the Dáil and the Seanad by all parties and notably at the time by the then Taoiseach, Mr. de Valera and Mr. James Dillon, who spoke in the Dáil very eloquently on this aspect of the importance of independence in regard to research functions. This independence as operated heretofore by the institute in regard to research is now being diminished substantially. In fact, this is one of the main purposes of the Bill—to diminish the independent research functions heretofore operated by the institute. Research, along with the other areas to be controlled by the new agency, will in effect be submitted to the day-to-day accounting procedures of the Departments of Agriculture and Finance. The purpose of the amendment—we know it is not possible to implement this but we are just being consistent in suggesting it—is to have research deleted from the functions of the Bill and the institute rendered independent to operate as heretofore.

Now, while it does seem that is impossible, I would like to hear from the Minister. I am sure he appreciated as well as I do the importance of having research dealt with in a rather different way from the administration point of view, compared with other aspects of administration. Given that this Bill goes through and given that this amendment is not acceptable—we will not push it beyond just making the case—given all that, would the Minister give some assurance to the House as to the possibility of an independent division of the new agency? I appreciate this would be a matter for the new board, but the Minister of course will have a strong say in putting a point of view on this aspect of having an independent division of the new body devoted to research with the possibility of a deputy director in charge of this independent section and the possibility of a different type of financial allocation towards that division as compared with the other operations of the new agency. This, at least, would be a constructive reassurance and in the event of such a reassurance being forthcoming I would accept the reality and withdraw this amendment.

Mr. Butler

I could not accept the amendment. First of all, I think the authority would be a very weak authority if research was not included. Research is so vital to the industry that we are talking about—the agricultural industry—that it must be included in the authority. Research must have its say in the functioning of the authority and must have a say on the board. Having a say on the board, it will be able to put its point to that board. Without research, you can only go so far, and the advisory section and the educational section cannot fulfil what is required for the industry as a whole unless research is included. I would accept that there must be a committee which would represent research but that committee must be within the authority. I would also accept that there should be a deputy director responsible for that committee. I would hope that the new board would set up such a committee and such a deputy director. This is what is required for the country: We want to get agriculture going. We want to get full development of agriculture and unless we have that, unless we have all sections combined with one another, then we cannot have full development in agriculture.

Mr. Clinton

For the many reasons that I have already given in relation to sections 7 and 10, I must oppose the amendment. I think I have given all the assurances that should be reasonably required by the Members of the Opposition that I want to see research, not only continuing in its previous functions and its previous independence but I want to see these functions and the scope of the institute's work enlarged. In fact, I am making such provision in the Bill. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why we require any further assurance. In regard to the ideas that Senator Lenihan had as far back as 20 years ago, I have to remind him that over all these years— 16 of them—his own Government were in office and he, as a Minister for so many years in that Government, was not able to impress his views on them and make the changes he pleaded should have been made over the years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section put and agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Quinlan

I have a query on paragraph (e) which says the authority may

provide scholarships to students of agriculture at institutions of higher education, or such other institutions as may be approved by the Minister;

I take it that it is first of all accepted that, as far as institutions of higher education refer to the universities or to other bodies eligible for the type of four honour grants, those of course are open to all students. I presume what is at issue here are some scholarships over and above those, that aid in the recruitment into certain areas which in the judgment of the institute board are areas that need a certain boost.

Mr. Clinton

In this section I am simply transferring the Minister's present responsibility for scholarships to the new body.

Professor Quinlan

The grants for creamery manager training and so on presumably come under this.

Mr. Clinton

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Quinlan

I think this is a very important section. If a certain criticism might be made of the Agricultural Institute in the past it was that there was not sufficient co-operation. There was some, but I would like to have seen more of it. I hope that in the future every encouragement will be given to this and especially co-operation in developing research and encouraging the universities to play their full part in it. I think there is a big field there and I hope the maximum co-operation will be sought and given.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Quinlan

Section 14 is a ticklish one implementing directives of the EEC. Some of those directives may be rather controversial. In fact we suffer from the defect in the EEC that we are committed to carrying out what is agreed. It may be something that we would not do and indeed that we recognise as not being in the very best interest of our own section, but yet we have to carry it out. On the other hand, it may not be good that the advisory service should have the odium of having to either try to sell something they do not really believe in or carry out certain directives that the Minister has probably done his best earlier to resist. At this stage we have no option but to carry them. But there is always that question about the advisory services in implementing policy that, where policy is wrong or has certain overtones, it undermines a certain amount of the confidence in the advisory service. I wonder is this even a greater difficulty now when it involves directives from the EEC.

Mr. Clinton

I just want to say that this work is already going on in the advisory services. An example is Directive 161. It is about the authority providing courses, not implementing the policy of EEC or EEC directives.

Professor Quinlan

I know that the Minister himself has given this advice at times, which was that we should not fall for switching over to beef and so on.

Mr. Clinton

That authority still remains with the Minister.

Professor Quinlan

And the advisory service will still be in a position to give advice that may be counter to what the EEC wish for the Community as a whole?

Dr. West

What about contraception for bulls?

Professor Quinlan

We will leave that to Senator West; he is an expert on bulls.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lenihan

First, but without withdrawing from my firm opinion that this whole matter could be met by an amendment of the existing legislation, I would like to say that I agree in principle with what is incorporated here in regard to the advisory functions. There is no question but that there is a need for this sort of direction in regard to the advisory services throughout the country. I see no reason why the existing institute could not have assimilated these functions as set out in section 15 by a simple amendment of the existing legislation. However, we have gone over all that ground, but certainly, in general, I feel it is desirable that an overall national policy in regard to agriculture should be brought home to every farmer on a regionalised basis throughout the country, having regard to the different needs and requirements of each area of the country, and that we should have a co-ordinated approach to the advisory services backed up by the sort of research that is available, has been available, and hopefully will be available under the new authority so that I go along in principle with the section here.

Just one question to the Minister, and I know that this has been contentious internally between the institute and the Department over the years or so my information goes: it is not really relevant to this work; it is more relevant to the research function on section 17. So, I will not raise it here at this stage. Certainly, as far as the principle of this section is concerned and on the assumption that this authority is inevitable I have no objection whatever to the advisory service being added to it.

Mr. Clinton

I am very pleased that Senator Lenihan is coming around now to my views in relation to this Bill and the ideas behind it.

Mr. Lenihan

No; there is a difference now.

Mr. McGowan

I think the Minister for Agriculture will have difficulty in convincing the agricultural community that the advisory service is going to be any better. In fact, in my county the committee of agriculture actually has done a useful job. If it has fallen down anywhere it has fallen down because of restraints that the Minister and his Department put on it. The agricultural advisory service has been first class but any difficulties and any restrictions are due to the lack of response and the lack of action and the lack of communication by the Minister and his Department. I am familiar with the advisory service and the administration of the farm modernisation scheme in Donegal at the moment. It saddened me to see how little authority the committees of agriculture had in giving advice and the restraints that were placed on them by the Minister.

I do not see any new attitude here; in fact I see more restrictions, more difficulties, more problems, more reports from one advisory service to the other. We shall have local committees now in a county giving a report to a body or board and which in turn will be giving a report to the Minister. We shall have the whole Department and the whole system clogged with reports from one advisory service to the other. I speak with knowledge of my own county and, right across the Border, where we have the farm modernisation scheme in progress in two counties, County Donegal and County Tyrone, side by side. I am certainly in a position to look at them. The farmers in County Tyrone actually have no difficulty. They have one advisory centre. The local committee of agriculture is on the ground giving advice, giving practical knowledge and administering the grants. This is a cumbersome arrangement here, where one section of the farm advisory service is advising by report. I see nothing but trouble and delay. I only hope that the Minister will finance this whole service and that he will cut out any red tape and delay in providing the service. Last year's headage grant scheme is not yet completed in Donegal, and the Minister has already embarked on paper on next year's scheme and has reduced the headage payments.

The Bill will do nothing to modernise the farm advisory service, to make it more easily understood and more easily availed of by the farming community. The difficulty is that of late, and more especially since we have become Europeanised, committees of agriculture have not been allowed to play their part in giving an advisory service. In Donegal we have an advisory service split into three parts. Any man who applies for farm modernisation scheme advice, planning or grant has to first send his application to Lifford, then it is referred to Raphoe and it finishes up with an inspector of the Department and final examinations are made from Letterkenny. I do not see anything in this Bill that will streamline or replace this system or will help the committee of agriculture on the ground to be more efficient. This is out of control. It is a useless exercise on paper that is being put forward by the brains trust in his Department, far removed from the practicalities that are needed on the ground. I am sorry that the grasp of the Minister of the needs of the agricultural community is slipping away all the time. This will be seen to be so if this legislation is carried through.

Mr. Clinton

I should like to say that Senator McGowan is speaking only for himself. He is not speaking for the farming community because organised farming set up a group to study what is being done and I quoted what they had to say. I will have to quote it again:

The Minister must be congratulated for introducing this Bill to streamline the operation for the advisory, education and research services to farmers. With a few minor amendments this authority will be very capable of meeting the challenges of the ages.

In relation to Donegal and the operations of the modernisation scheme, which is not included in this, we have not had one single complaint and we have not had an application for one single extra member of staff to carry out the modernisation scheme in Donegal. As far as the payment of grants in Donegal is concerned, when I came into the Department I found that there was a backlog of two years; now it is only a matter of two months, if it is that. All this does not cut any ice with me.

Mr. McGowan

I do not accept what the Minister says. It costs him nothing to reply in that tone and he has no records here. I hope he will go back and consult his records. This is a totally inaccurate reply he has given. There is widespread disillusionment in Donegal about the farm modernisation scheme. Those are facts. The Minister gave a misleading answer in the other House not too long ago when he gave the number of people that are accepted. I have been a member of the committee of agriculture for 15 years. I know the number of applications in Donegal. It is nearly 3,000. I know the number who are accepted as development farmers in Donegal, and the Minister knows it, but he is not honest enough to give the reply as it should be given. The farming community in Donegal do not believe that the Minister and the Department have been pursuing the best interests of agriculture.

Professor Quinlan

There is a query about section 15 (g). I take it the authority here is permissive rather than mandatory. In other words, "the authority may, in particular"—is that "may" just permissive? Paragraph (g) states:

adopt measures to ensure that those engaged in agriculture——

and paragraph (g) (ii) states:

are encouraged to avail themselves of those schemes and facilities;

I have in mind the General EEC policy of encouraging people within the Community to get out of milk and providing certain financial inducements towards this. We all recognise that, while that may be good policy in the Community as a whole, as far as we are concerned, we are by far the best situated area in the Community for milk production. It is our life line. The Minister has said so again and again. Therefore, I would like to feel that the "may" was permissive and that if the board, and indeed the general agricultural opinion, shared the view that it was not wise for us to drag our feet in this situation, in this directive, that the "may" would be permissive rather than mandatory. Am I correct?

Mr. Clinton

There is no question of the new authority being compelled to do something that would be detrimental to the development of agriculture in this country.

Professor Quinlan

My reading is correct?

Mr. Clinton

The Senator's reading is correct.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 16 agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lenihan

I will not go into the whole aspect of the importance of independents and autonomous operation of research functions in agriculture and, indeed, research in any area. I should like to ask the Minister a question. I notice in the list of agricultural research and basic veterinary research activities under subsection (2), giving the authority discretion to carry on various activities in that area, there is no question of agricultural marketing research mentioned in any of the functions. Did the Minister and his Department give thought to the idea of having agricultural marketing research included as one of the functions in that area? Unless there is a link between research activities and actual marketing there is an important practical element missing.

Mr. Clinton

The definition on page 5 includes marketing.

Mr. Ferris

In the Second Stage debate, volume 86, column 656, I referred to the interpretation of the words "basic veterinary research" which appears in section 17 (1), section 17 (2) (g) and section 17 (2) (k).

I stated:

In my opinion and in the opinion of other people the term "basic veterinary research" is negative and meaningless.

I have made suggestions to the Minister to delete the word "basic" before the word "veterinary" in each of these sections. I realise and have agreed that the Minister, under EEC Regulations, must retain unto himself and his Department of Agriculture responsibility for veterinary research on the compulsory disease eradication programme, notifiable disease and so on. Veterinary research as I have outlined it in my contribution and in a memorandum to the Minister should be part of the board's function. Between now and Report Stage I should like the Minister to consider seriously my suggestions in this regard and that sections 2 and 17 which refer to the restrictive basic research should be looked at with a view to incorporating my thoughts and those of many others involved in veterinary research.

There are other sections which deal with grey areas which may be areas of disagreement as to whether they are applied research or otherwise. I know it is only technical, but it has a fundamental bearing on the importance of this board and the importance of veterinary research to the agricultural community and the availability of veterinary research to the board proper so that they can continue their full programme. I am prepared to wait for Report Stage if the Minister would give me the commitment that he would look at my submission to this.

Professor Quinlan

I was going to raise the same point as was raised by Senator Ferris. The words "basic veterinary research" seem to be very unusual. It seems to exclude only (a) and (b) on page five, that is, the functions specifically reserved to the Minister. Elsewhere, it places veterinary research on the same level as agricultural research. I do feel there is a difference between the two in that there are very few veterinary research facilities coming under the authority at present. Those research facilities are in the veterinary college, whereas there are agricultural research facilities in the universities. The institute has also got a very wide range of those, so obviously there is more scope for it in carrying out agricultural research rather than veterinary research. I would like to feel that, in the years ahead, this is something which will be kept under review, and that there would not be a parallel development in veterinary research in the institute and the policy would be to centralise it in the veterinary college.

Mr. Clinton

This matter was raised in the Dáil also. In replying to that in the Dáil, in Volume 298, I stated:

In the functions being transferred there are clear areas and grey areas. What we want to do is leave the grey areas for discussion between the board and the Minister when the time comes for the transfer of these functions and to decide what is appropriate to transfer and what is appropriate to hold. In other words, it is to wait until the board are set up and we can get the views of the members as to what they think they should have and what is appropriate for them. There are certain regulatory functions the Minister cannot give the new authority because of his responsibility for disease eradication and so on.

I think it is understood that the Minister has to retain responsibility for disease eradication and for certain matters in relation to the EEC.

Section 17 (3) states:

In case of doubt as to whether any activity in relation to veterinary research is or is not proper to the Authority, the decision of the Minister shall be final.

It shall be final when he has discussions with the board, and that is indicated in the Bill.

Mr. Ferris

We are leaving a grey area and we have the facilities available to us in legislation to make it more black and white, if possible, at this stage. It does not preclude the sentiments the Minister has expressed if there are further grey areas. Veterinary research consists in diagnosis on behalf of the Minister, herd-owners, flock-owners, or veterinary practitioners of diseases of animals or poultry by means of clinical or laboratory examination of animals or birds or herds or flocks, whether alive or dead, or their carcases or of specimens taken from them and investigations and consultations leading to the solution of these diseases. That is veterinary research.

Mr. Clinton

That is ordinary veterinary research.

Mr. Ferris

That could be precluded from the functions of this board because of the grey areas that are left there and because of the words "basic veterinary research". The other researches, which are also veterinary, are the specific responsibility of the Minister and must by statute remain his responsibility. I would define that veterinary research does not include investigations, tests, inquiries or trials arising from disease eradication schemes and hygiene control programmes operated by the Minister. That would cover the Minister's requirements in that he must retain unto himself that responsibility. All the others should be available to the board. It is a pity to leave such a vital and important section of research in the grey area when it can be defined and must, in fact, be available to the board and to the agricultural community. This is the normal examination of disease control, not necessarily eradication.

Mr. Clinton

All the things Senator Ferris describes do not constitute research. This is ordinary veterinary practice. They have——

Mr. Ferris

I am speaking biologically. The biological diagnosis and laboratory tests.

Mr. Clinton

That is being provided at present for the veterinary people.

Mr. Ferris

It could be precluded by the words "basic veterinary research".

Mr. Clinton

That is not the intention in the Bill.

Mr. Ferris

The Minister might look at it again at Report Stage to see if a form of technology could be used which would leave no doubt.

Mr. Clinton

If there is any doubt it can be rectified as soon as the board is set up. We have a specific reference to it here in subsection (3):

In case of doubt as to whether any activity in relation to veterinary research is or is not proper to the Authority, the decision of the Minister shall be final.

Mr. Ferris

I am trying to make the board as important and as broad as possible.

Mr. Clinton

That is what I am trying to do too, and I am trying to leave the responsibility with them in discussion with me to decide the details of it.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Professor Quinlan

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 10, lines 16 and 17, to delete "in order to avoid duplication of effort and, for that purpose,".

It is the phraseology and the intent of this about which I am in doubt. As I read it here the authority should know what is happening elsewhere and it states:

In order to avoid duplication of effort and, for that purpose, the Authority may, subject to the approval of the Board, engage in joint research activities with such institutions and bodies.

The words "in order to avoid duplication of effort and for that purpose" seem to me to be unnecessarily restrictive because it appears that the Authority, to engage in joint research, would have to establish that there was duplication of effort. It might well mean that the other body was not making an effort at that time. There might be some research that the university or college could carry out but were not carrying out at that time. I should like to feel that the board could decide the best way of having this research carried out. It could hardly be called duplication if it were not going to take place at all so those words seem to be unnecessarily restrictive.

Mr. Clinton

I understand the view of Senator Quinlan but I think that he has misrepresented this section when he suggests that the authority can engage in joint research projects only for the purpose of avoiding duplication. The phrase "for the purpose" refers not only to avoiding duplication but to the entire preceding part of the section. In other words the Authority may, in maintaining close liaison with other bodies involved in the field of agriculture and veterinary research, engage in joint projects with them. It is just a misreading, I think.

Professor Quinlan

It is a cumbersome section but I accept the intention. I endorse that intention and I am happy now.

Dr. Martin

With regard to the institute that was extinguished half an hour ago, I understand there are about eight veterinary people at work. Is it envisaged that the Authority, under the direction of the Minister, could take them out completely and transfer them to a university institution? There is this very small research element in the institute as it stands. Under this rationalisation Bill, would it be possible now for the Minister to lift those eight vets and disperse them among the universities, to extinguish that element of research in the institute or build it up into something far bigger? How large are the powers? Could he in fact transfer the personnel? Could the Authority transfer the personnel and run down that operation?

Mr. Clinton

I want to point out that the entire functions and responsibilities of An Foras Talúntais as it stands are being transferred to the new Authority.

Dr. West

No. They cannot appoint their own director.

Mr. Clinton

They cannot appoint their own director.

Dr. West

Which the council were able to do before.

Mr. Clinton

The council were not able to do it. When they were set up they did not appoint their director. Their director was appointed by the Minister.

Dr. West

I will quote the section of the Act.

Mr. Clinton

The Senator is raising a new issue altogether.

Dr. West

I am just trying to point out that the functions of the new authority are not the same because the director is now always appointed by the Minister.

Mr. Clinton

We are talking about research functions.

Dr. West

The Minister said that all the functions were the same. They are not.

Dr. Martin

My question really was about research functions. The Minister did not quite answer me except to raise the issue which made it possible for Senator West to raise the issue on which he was rebuked. My question was quite specific. Under the new authority as it stands, would it be possible for the authority now, in fact, to so act as to remove the entire veterinary research operation from the institute that was and replace it elsewhere?

Dr. West

Like TCD.

Dr. Martin

It is something that could not have been done in Trinity, for instance.

Mr. Clinton

Does the Senator mean to remove it from one site to another site?

Dr. West

No, to remove it from the authority.

Mr. Clinton

There is nothing in this Bill to indicate that that is possible.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section agreed to.

Sections 19 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 25.

Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McGowan

There is lack of clarity here. This section provides that the board shall be established and another section refers to powers to dismiss a member of the board. These two should be related, because it is very important that the board will have the confidence of those engaged in agriculture, and I want to stress this strongly.

I can now refer to a board that is under the Minister's control, the Potato Marketing Board. A member of the board was a nominee from the General Council but he retains membership of the Potato Board while he is no longer a member of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. That situation has existed for some time and I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that no such anomaly will be allowed to prevail in relation to this new board. We should have directors who will be qualified in every regard and who will not qualify because of their political affiliation to the Minister's party or that such affiliation will be the only qualification needed to become a member of the board. I hope that the public fears are allayed here. This should be made quite clear and not allowed to drift while it is convenient for the Minister and his party to overlook such a point. The general public and those engaged in agriculture must see that there is fair play and that the Minister will not turn a blind eye to anomalous situations.

Mr. Clinton

All these practices disappeared with the disappearance of the last Government.

Mr. McGowan

As far as the Minister is concerned I do not think that the record of this Government would bear scrutiny in regard to the appointment of peace commissioners, directors, and right across the board. No Government in any country would have a record like it. There are 4,000 peace commissioners——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator McGowan is travelling outside section 25.

Mr. McGowan

——and every board appointed by the present Government is loaded, and the only qualification of most of them is to be tagged to the party that the Minister represents.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 26.

Professor Quinlan

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 11, subsection (1), to delete line 30 and substitute "twenty-four ordinary members of whom not less than eight shall be members of the staff of the National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority equally distributed as between the research, advisory, processing, and marketing areas."

This is seeking to make more explicit section B by making provision for the nomination of a representative of the staff. In accordance with some of the recent efforts on industrial democracy we should give substantial staff representation, and that representation should recognise the four main areas involved— research, advisory, processing and marketing. Processing and marketing are becoming more and more important in our agricultural effort. It is at least 50 per cent of it, and therefore, I would like to see that each of those areas would have at least one or I would suggest two representatives in the nomination scheme to be introduced by the Minister by way of an order. To that end I am inclined to suggest that a third of the membership would come that way in accordance with recent practice, which might mean increasing the number of the board from 23 to 24. As one who has had very considerable experience on boards— whether on the governing body of University College, Cork, or the Senate of the university or in other places— I was amazed to hear Senator West concerned about numbers. I would have thought that any board in the order of 20 to 30 is quite a reasonable board. I shudder at the small board Senator West seems to favour. He seems to suggest six or eight as the most effective board. Six or eight can be dominated by one man, but a board of 24 will not be so easily dominated. It also provides a much greater cross-section of interests. Today a board, of necessity, has to have extra technical advice available to it from the administrative and executive side of the operation, so you will have some members present on that account. This again tends to give the board a type of establishment complex unless the board is of reasonable numbers. I am quite happy with the numbers suggested, but I would like to see provision for recognition of vital areas.

Mr. Harte

There are two points that I want to raise and get on the record. First could the Minister indicate whether it might be possible, if not now at a later stage, for a body of this nature to have representation from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on it? The rural organisations and the agricultural organisations are represented by the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. That to some extent is the national representation. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have a very deep interest in this Bill because not only do they represent rural workers and the staff of the authority but because very often demands are made in economic programmes for further industries based on agriculture. When regard is had to the nature of the present authority and to the fact that there are Irish Congress of Trade Union representatives at State board level and also involved in the question of industrial research and standards, I think it would be consistent with that practice to have a representative of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on this body.

The other point is that I feel the section should be so written that representation on the board of the authority would be in accordance with the recent decisions on levels of staff representation taken by the Minister for Labour in regard to worker participation. It is generally recognised throughout this whole debate that industrial relationships in the other bodies that are now merging, particularly An Foras Talúntais were very good indeed and these bodies had a very healthy respect for one another's position. It will be of great benefit if that relationship continues and if we carry on the trend that we started by the introduction of workers participation in the State boards, because the workers can make a very valuable contribution through their knowledge and the ideas they can bring to board level discussions. They will be able to play a useful role in helping through a difficult transition and also in contributing to humanising the relations in this new executive agency. Nothing but a beneficial effect can come out of those two areas. Perhaps it may be jumping the gun to suggest that the ICTU representation should be there straight away. Possibly some consideration would have to be given to that. I do not think that the workers who have built up this very good relationship in other agencies and who are now being merged can be denied such representation. It is actual Government policy now to involve workers in State boards and I do not think the fact that it is an executive agency debars it. There is a board there and there is ample evidence to prove that this is the natural thing to do, particularly in view of worker participation.

Mr. McCartin

I agree with the principle behind the suggestion by Senator Quinlan that staff should be well represented on this authority. As one who has had experience of carrying on discussions and working with the representatives of the people engaged particularly in the advisory services, the CEOs, the AO and also the Agricultural Science Association. I can say that the representatives of these people, when they all come together, can have nothing but the most important contribution to make to the working of this board. If it never was the aim to pursue workers' democracy ideas or the involvement of the people who must actually carry out the work, I think from my own experience of having had dealings with the people involved, the Minister for Agriculture cannot go wrong by giving them important strong representation on the board of this new organisation.

There is provision for the appointment by the General Council of Committees of Agriculture of one person to the board, and, while I have nothing specific by way of amendment to put forward, I would like the Minister for Agriculture to seriously consider giving considerably more than one place on the board to the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. Much reference has been made to the agricultural institute which, somebody said in this House, will cease to exist. In a way the same thing could be said of the committees of agriculture. I agree that as far as the institute is concerned this is so in theory, but not in practice. While the role of the committees of agriculture has been greatly reduced in theory, they were the people who provided the advisory services, employed the agricultural advisers and paid them, the people who directed the whole process of giving advice to the farmers in the past. They have definitely suffered a serious loss of power in theory. The General Council has looked at the new Bill, and while they have put forward suggestions as to how the situation could be improved, they were very responsible in their acceptance of the general idea put forward by the Minister, and I think he should consider the position.

I am glad to see that the Minister has made provision in the Bill for the annual submission by the county committees of agriculture of a plan for the workings of the new body in their particular county. In the past too many of the committees—probably for the reason that a number of them were politically dominated, and this does not refer to one party more than another— used political tactics in the appointment of committees of agriculture. The Minister, by his provision here that some of the rural organisations must get representation, which in fact the majority of committees have already given, will improve the standards and the quality of the committees of agriculture in most counties. The introduction of the idea that they must at all times prepare and submit a plan for the carrying on of advice and education in their county is a step forward and a good idea. I would ask the Minister again to further consider the possibility of giving stronger representation to the general council on the new board.

Dr. Martin

I would like to endorse Senator Quinlan's amendment, which seems to be a very good one and one of extreme importance and urgency. I would like to go even further and say as regards those who would be on the board representing the research, advisory, processing and marketing areas, that if some mechanism could be arranged to have them elected rather than selected, it would be better still, because Senator McCartin has spoken about this notion of industrial democracy. This Bill has taken a rather strong line with existing institutions and with existing sensibilities and with people's feelings and it is very important that its passage towards success should be alleviated as much as possible. One of the ways in which the wounds inflicted by the extinction, at least the formal extinction, of the institute, could be healed would be to make sure that the people involved in research there would have a guaranteed place on the board and the authority. Indeed, it strikes me as strange, that a man like the Minister for Agriculture, who even in his very deportment here has shown a great deal of patience and courtesy, and always has in every area of his life, should produce such an autocratic measure. From top to bottom the matter is over-ridden by the notion of appointment: "The Minister shall appoint". Everybody on that board will be appointed. If Senator Quinlan's amendment is accepted and if research, advisory and processing people are included on the board, by the very terms of the Bill, they are still going to be appointed. That is not the best idea in the running of institutions; in other words, that the boss reaches down and picks a safe man from this or that area. That does not make for industrial democracy or for the smooth or democratic running of an institution. It is much better if the people in the field select one of their number and appoint him, admittedly for a short period, to such an authority. That is an aspect of this that has disquieted me from the very beginning, that the Minister must be very anxious indeed to get an extremely strong, autocratic hold on the entire organisation.

The whole burden of what Senator West and myself and a number of others have been saying with regard to the entire operation is that the autonomy of individual bodies—the institute just happens to be one that stands out most—their very raison d'etre, the very things that give them a reason to get out of the bed in the morning and to embark on the research or on their teaching or their advice have to do with giving them the dignity of arranging their schedule and their programme according to the needs of the disciplines to which they have dedicated themselves, not according to the needs imposed on them from without by civil servants, however excellent. I am not saying that civil servants are either unnecessary or undesirable or in any way objectionable, but merely saying they operate on different sorts of principles. The proposed operation of this board seems very autocratic. It is done entirely from the top. Everybody is selected. Ultimately at the end of the day it is the will of one man that is operating down the line. Is that not true? The Minister looks outraged.

Mr. Clinton

I do not know where the Senator sees all this selection by the Minister. It is not in the Bill, wherever he got it.

Ruairí Quinn

I am sorry I missed the earlier part of this discussion. I was at a meeting in another part of the House. I would like to comment very briefly on section 26 and to take the last point that Senator Martin made. I understand that in fact the order has to be set out by the Minister defining the procedure. My interpretation as of now reading this section—and you will have to allow that I am not in this House more than nine months—is that it is up to various bodies to nominate people, that the selection process is an open-ended one in which people will put forward names on the basis of an agreed procedure. Taking that point, I would suggest that all of the debate we had on Second Stage and a lot of the debate we had earlier regarding the autonomy and the independence of this institute could be very much enhanced and strengthened if the principles of representations laid out in the Worker Participation Act were to be adopted in the order which the Minister has yet to bring in and define allowing for representation along the lines that Senator Quinlan has suggested. No research authority and no group of research officers can seriously claim exclusive autonomy while they are at the same time obtaining public money. In fairness to them, that is not the position they are putting forward. Under the heat of debate in this Chamber, it would appear that this is what they are asking.

I do not think that any responsible group of research officers or any responsible trade unions could simply argue that they must be given something in the region of £6 million to do research as they see fit without accountability to anybody. That is an exaggeration that does an injustice to the people involved and plays down the very responsible attitude with regard to this that the institute has had over its lifetime in existence. The whole function of research with which we have concerned ourselves very much in the past would be very much sustained and strengthened if positive and satisfactory recommendations for research were followed by members of the new board along with the education and advisory staff in a manner suggested in the amendment put forward by Senator Quinlan.

The procedures are already there, and we are getting to the stage in all of our semi-State bodies where it would be very undesirable, to say the least, that one process for representation would exist in one authority and a different one in others. I know CIE, Aer Lingus or these companies are not analagous to this authority; they have a different kind of function altogether, but the principle of representation, the principle of workers having a say in the overall policy decisions of the board, is basically, so far as I am concerned, the same. An amendment, as such, is not necessary at this stage. The Minister can, quite simply, give an undertaking at the end of this stage that in the order they would have to be defined, that he will meet those requirements. I would formally ask the Minister to give that undertaking either now or at the Report Stage to report back to us on it. Many of the fears expressed today on section 17 in regard to the organisation of workers in An Foras Talúntais, as it is at the moment, and in particular those in the research office who are more concerned with policy and the allocation of funds than technicians or administrative staff, could be allayed Technicians are going to have to work an experiment irrespective of what that particular experiment happens to be and the administrative staff, generally, are going to have to administer the institute irrespective of what the direction of research happens to be. Discretion with regard to the application of funds into different areas of research should be argued out by representatives of research officers around a council board with members of the rural organisations, with the nominee from the Minister for Education and they should get the programme sorted out there before they go to the relevant Minister looking for funding for that programme. The input should not come up from the research and development section by way of written submission to the board in the hope that something will come out of it into the programme. The research officers and the advisory staff should do it

I do not claim to have any real knowledge of agriculture in the general sense, certainly not like my colleagues, Senator Ferris or Senator McCartin, but it seems to me that problems have obviously arisen with regard to the relationship between the benefits of research as discovered in An Foras Talúntais and their non-application or the delay in their application throughout the country. It is in the interest of all concerned that this time lag should be shortened. If there is adequate representation on the board then this kind of difficulty could be got over. I would impress on the Minister that this should be done.

I would also suggest at this stage that the Minister, as a member of the Government, should consider the need to co-ordinate research in the various institutes that are now emerging. It was mentioned yesterday by Senator West with regard to sensitive areas of research, like looking at farm taxation, farm economics and so on. This might be an area which might be sat upon or warned off by people who felt that it was a political minefield. This area of social research could equally be undertaken by the Economic and Social Research Institute or by other such bodies in the country. Some attempt to co-ordinate the research bodies between the various groups should be made. The board could possibly be encouraged to do this. One of the functions of the board should be to establish links with other such bodies, like An Foras Forbartha, the new Science and Technology Board, and the ESRI, because there seems to me to be an overlapping there. In terms of resources, which are going to be scarce, and competition for research funds, there should be complementary benefit derived from the spending of these resources.

To conclude, I would like to support what Senator Harte has already said on this, that the Workers' Union of Ireland have already made comments to this extent, and I understand that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are in a similar frame of mind—and it is fair to say that the entire trade union movement would welcome an announcement by the Minister for Agriculture with regard to the nature of the order that he has to make under section 26.

Mr. Dolan

I, too, agree with what Senator Harte has said. A case has certainly been made in this debate for the Minister to make it possible to include on this board a member of the trade unions. It is important that there would be perfect understanding between workers and the whole agricultural sector because, as you know, agriculture is our greatest industry. It is an area in which we hope to extend employment and create many jobs based on agriculture, such as food, milk and meat processing and other allied industries which can arise by virtue of extra production on the farms. The small farmers and workers are the most important people in this whole exercise, regardless of the competition of boards and so on. The people who produce the materials are the important people. It might help to improve relations between workers and farmers. It might stop an idea being put across, particularly by this Government, that the farmers are all millionaires and that the workers should lie into them and squeeze all they can out of them and make sure they pay their share, which the majority have always done, especially the small farmers.

On the composition of the board the Minister has been wrongly advised if he feels that in a board of up to 24 members only one representative from the committees of agriculture will be sufficient. Surely one must recognise that the county committees of agriculture who have sent their representatives up to the general council are a very important body. Indeed, half the members of the committees of agriculture are members who had to go through the process of election and run the gauntlet, put themselves in front of their neighbours and seek their endorsement through the ballot box. They have come through that and on to the committees of agriculture and entered the general council. It is wrong for any Minister to say that from that representative body, representing all Ireland and representing our basic industry, there should be just one person. So far as I know, he will not even allow the committees of agriculture to select that one person; the Minister will do the picking. It is fundamentally wrong and bad for democracy.

In the county council and the committee of agriculture in my area we allowed the IFA to select their representatives and we allowed the Creamery Milk Suppliers' Organisation to select their representatives and their two nominees are on our committee of agriculture. It has been working tremendously well. We did not say that we would pick the person we would think should represent the IFA or the Creamery Milk Suppliers' Organisation on this committee of agriculture in County Cavan. We allowed them to do the picking, and that was the proper way to do it. The Minister is wrong if, out of these 24 people, he selects one from the general committees of agriculture and then does not allow these rural organisations, to whom he is boasting that he will give them great representation on this board, to do the selection.

I know, and indeed the country knows, how the Minister will do the picking. He will make quite sure that it will be his own political hacks that will be on these committees, and they will not be there because of their ability or their knowledge of or interest in agriculture.

That is fundamentally wrong, no matter which Minister is in office. The Minister should have another look at this. It is undemocratic for any Minister—and particularly this Minister, who will be trying as he has been doing in the past, to please two elements of a Coalition—to pick these people. It is wiping out existing institutions. It is very unfair to An Foras Talúntais and to many dedicated men who worked for the benefit of agriculture.

Let nobody believe that there is any democracy in this type of exercise. It is a complete dictatorial take-over by the Minister who is going to set up this committee with his own political hacks in charge. It is very wrong to ask educated, well versed and interested members who have proved their worth in An Foras Tálúntais to sit on such boards in such company.

Mr. Butler

The board of the authority is so important that the organisations who will be selecting members for that board should think seriously about whom they select. There are people attached to those organisations—very good members— who would be the obvious choice but who may not have the time necessary to give to this board. The members will have to give a lot of time to the development of agriculture and to the functioning of this board, especially at the initial stages.

After the formation of the board many problems will have to be ironed out. I suggest that these organisations —the farming organisations and the associations involved in the processing and marketing of agricultural products—think seriously of whom they suggest and select to be members of this board. If we recognise that the board is important, then we must recognise that those who are involved in the working of the authority—that is the staff—must also be represented on the board. I believe they will be represented on the board because it is already stated in the Bill "That the board shall consist of members, who shall be representative of the agricultural and rural organisations, the staff of the authority..." Therefore the staff of the authority will be represented on the board and that representative will take a deep interest in the working of the authority.

I agree that technicians and workers should be represented on the board by a member of their trade union. That problem will be considered and ironed out later. The co-operative movement has a vital part to play in the working of this board and the authority. They also should be represented on the board because they are involved in all sorts of agricultural production. The most important thing here is the selection by those organisations of the personnel for that board.

Mr. Killilea

This is one of the most vital sections of this Bill. Senator Eoin Ryan made a very important statement yesterday when he said that it was obvious that retired senior men in the civil service recently were appointed as chairmen of certain boards. The farming community do not want such an appointment on this board. I say that clearly because I have a sneaking suspicion, despite the Minister's statement that he was responsible for this and for every word in this Bill, that there is an idea at the back of his mind that such an appointment might be appropriate in this case. I live in an area where agriculture has improved and these people do not want such an appointment.

Under this Bill, the Minister makes the selection himself. I am not going to go into the history of the type of selection done by this Government, because that is obvious to everybody. When mention is made of appointments to State boards on the streets of any town people just laugh and say: "Well, you are the wrong colour". Even Fine Gael and Labour people will say that their brand of Fine Gael or Labour was not strong enough or good enough for that appointment. To get such an appointment you had to be an absolute hack; you had to be trusted in every sphere. Then the Minister had the audacity to come here and say, after the annihilation of the county committees of agriculture, that he had the right to select the members of that body—a body selected by the people. In my view, that is the lowest symbol of this type of appointment.

Mr. Clinton

Where is that in the Bill?

Mr. Killilea

I will read the last part of subsection (3) (a):

and such other agricultural interests as may be prescribed shall be selected for nomination in accordance with the provision of an order made for that purpose by the Minister....

Mr. Clinton

Yes, the body shall be...

Mr. Killilea

I will read subsection (3) (a):

One member of the Board shall be appointed on the nomination of the Minister for Education, at least one member——

note the words "at least one member".

on the nomination of the Minister and at least one member on the nomination of the General Council referred to in section 43.

Mr. Clinton

That is refuting what the Senator has just said.

Mr. Killilea

Would not the Minister be as well off to say in the Bill "there shall be one", "there shall be two", or "there shall be ten"? What is he afraid of? Does he think I have not noticed that when he put in the words "at least one" he put in the minimum? We all know this was done because politically speaking the Coalition Government do not control the General Council of the Committees of Agriculture. The Bill says that there will be "at least one".

Mr. McGowan

Of the Minister's choice.

Mr. Killilea

Yes, of the Minister's choice.

Mr. Clinton

Not of the Minister's choice.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Killilea

Yes "of the Minister's choice". We know that now. We know a lot more than the Minister thinks because we can read it right through this Bill. This sinister performance by the Government will be regretted by the farming community until such time as the Coalition are removed from office. Whether that will be sooner or later, this Government will be remembered as a great failure.

Another point was raised by Labour Senators. Senator Harte is a personal friend. He is a very sociable man and a very good man for his cause. What amazes me is that this problem was not solved behind the closed doors of Government. The way this Minister will deal with Labour appointments to this board has now been brought out into the open. Do I scent a little rift in the Government? It was mentioned in the other House. Has agreement not been reached about the way they will fix up the tail-waggers on this board?

Dr. West

Maybe there is a treaty about it.

Mr. Killilea

I doubt it. I think there is a good argument going on about it at this moment of time and, fair do to Senator Harte, he is fighting his case.

Mr. Harte

Keep your eye on the lobby.

Mr. Killilea

Under instruction, the Labour Party are making their case and are seen to be fighting for it. I will be anxious to hear what the Minister has to say when replying to that point. We know that the love the farming community have for the Labour Party is extraordinary. They will shed crocodile tears for the way the Labour Party will be fixed up in this board. They care a lot about the places for nominees of the Labour Party in the actual setting up of this board. They are worried that the Labour Party will not get their nominations.

The Labour Party will be fixed up in this board against the wishes of the farming community. An Foras Talúntais and many other organisations. There is no question or doubt but that they will get their appointment. It seems to me that this will not be done the way the Labour Party in the Seanad want it done. The Minister's nominee will have to be a farming type Labour man. He will have to have some background in agriculture. He will not be a worker. He is not going to be an ordinary shop floor worker in any of the groups that will be considered here. No, the Government will have to say "He is a Labour man but he has a good farming background" because that is the only way out of it. It is a disgrace that the Minister has rejected the county committees of agriculture.

As was said when discussing An Foras Talúntais on another section, this Bill has destroyed a body elected by the people. These representatives may have been elected on peculiar policies, or on different types of policies, but they were elected by the people and, from the agricultural point of view, did a good job for this country since the foundation of An Foras. They have worked hard under difficult circumstances, although they may have been politically orientated one way or another.

I foresee that the Minister in his reply will make an inference about the Galway County Committee of Agriculture. When he makes that remark I shall be quick to my feet to reply to it word by word. It is a humiliation in terms for the people who worked diligently in agriculture without pay for many years to hear the Minister say "Just wipe them out". They will be forgotten, their work, efforts, sadness and victories will be forgotten.

Until he took the reins of the Department the Minister was a great speaker on behalf of the county committees of agriculture. I cannot understand how this change came about. In my view the Minister has not been responsible for this Bill at all, it has been lobbied on him. He said he wondered why Senator Lenihan, when he was in Government, had not made some of the statements he made in this House today. The situation prior to the introduction of this Bill was much more acceptable than it will be when this Bill is passed. If you cannot do things better, do not ever do them worse.

We have watched appointments on other boards. This is not the first time I have made the remark in this House. I have seen appointments on semi-State organisations that amazed me.

Mr. Clinton

The Senator is not talking about Deputy Callanan, I hope?

Mr. Killilea

The Minister would not have the moral courage to put him off.

Mr. Clinton

The Senator could be right.

Mr. Killilea

The Minister would not be fit to put him off because he could not replace him with any man in the Fine Gael organisation on any board and dare this Minister or any other Minister put him off. I challenge the Minister to put him off.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Killilea, please address your remarks to the Chair.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Killilea

I have always shown absolute courtesy towards the Chair.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

No doubt the Senator will retain his good reputation.

Mr. Killilea

Dare I mention one word concerning the problems of Senator McCartin in his constituency because——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If it is relevant to section 26, the Chair will be happy.

Mr. Killilea

He will never be in a position to put himself further than this House. From what I hear he will be lucky to get back into this House after the next election. However, I will be sad to see him gone. He makes some good contributions He gets a nice bit of television coverage now and then.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are on section 26.

Mr. Killilea

Getting back to the point, on which I was so rudely interrupted, concerning the county committees of agriculture, I would like the Minister to explain when replying why has he had this change of heart towards that great organisation. If, for instance, it is not operating to his satisfaction, would it not have been better for him to make suggestions as to how it should work? Could he not have said "Ladies and gentlemen, you are on the wrong road, let me redirect you. Let us solve this problem for the people who were committed not alone to agriculture but to the public at large, who always saw that reasonable fairness was applied." I will stand over that statement anywhere.

I am lucky enough to be still a member of the local county committee of agriculture and I am proud of that fact. We have done a lot. Had the Minister and his Department tried to do as much for us as we have done for our county, we would be a better county from the point of view of agriculture. How many times has he refused to appoint advisers? How many times have we sent requests and how many times have we got letters back saying no? Yet, in his twisted way, he tried to infer that the county committees of agriculture were not doing their job. They were doing their job, but they were hindered by the Department in many ways and by the Minister, too. What I can never understand is how his man who spoke so highly of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture took this sudden twist in the last three years.

Then we come to the most sinister part—the last three lines of subsection (3) (a). The Minister is responsible for this. If you listen carefully to the words, you will hear what they really mean. This section concerns membership. I will read those three lines to show clearly what the Minister and his Government are doing. It reads:

...and any such order shall indicate the procedure for filling casual vacancies in the membership of the Board.

What is the definition of a "casual vacancy"? There are about ten different types of casual vacancies, and I know one of the best. If the Minister makes a mistake in the appointment of the first board and some guy at the back is pressing the button on the Minister and the Department, then that individual on the board will be classified as a casual vacancy on the reappointment of that board. That is the first criteria for this Government and their performance. If he sits down doing nothing at the back, would the Minister classify him as a casual vacancy?

Dr. Martin

A vacant casualty.

Mr. Killilea

Would the Minister, in his reply, fill us in on what he really means by a casual vacancy? Let me clarify a point raised yesterday and reiterated today. It concerns this section, from the Fianna Fáil point of view. Our spokesman said clearly in the other House—and it is only right that it should be put on the record of this House—that he would dissolve and obliterate this Bill. I agree wholeheartedly with that. Never in the life of a Fianna Fáil Government would we dare to put on paper such arrogant, dictatorial methods for selection of State boards. We never did it. In my time in politics we never appointed men to State boards who were not capable of defending those boards and their positions on them. We put on representatives of the Labour Party on State boards. These men were representatives of their union, not of their political persuasion. We always saw to it that the unions and the people were properly represented. We put it into print and produced it before both Houses. Do this Government do that, or did they ever do it? Has this ever been stated? While we were in Government we never had a Member of the Labour Party standing up on this side of the House asking that the appointments on a State board be done the way Members in this House felt they should be done. We never gave them that opportunity. We did the job properly, logically——

Professor Quinlan

You could trust Deputy Blaney to do it.

Mr. Killilea

If the cap fits, wear it. I know the Senator's politics. He is sitting on the wrong side of the House, because there is no man so blue on that side of the House as this man. I have had him under observation for the last four or five years. There are two decent Independent men behind me——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would Senator Killilea please return to section 26?

Mr. Killilea

They would not dare sit beside him in case it might rub off. I have had Senator Quinlan spotted for a long time. I have watched him for the best part of nine years here and he is the greatest bluffer, politically speaking, who has ever come in these doors.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am not too sure what that has to do with section 26 or the amendment.

Mr. Killilea

He even slips into the Order Paper a couple of meagre words, such as, change A to B and change B to C and so on. I have made my point concerning the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture and the county committees of agriculture. I would like the Minister, in his reply, to state where this turnabout came from.

There is another tricky point in this. Why has the Minister not named in this Bill those beloved rural organisations from which we will nominate members? Is he afraid to name the farming and other rural organisations which he believes should be represented on this board? It is very important that we should know because I have a funny feeling that at this moment there are many unreliable Labour people and diligent Fine Gael people pushing into these organisations because they can foresee a State board job coming up in the near future. I am certain that the Minister is not going to appoint the people who would have the courage to make good members of this board, as a Government Senator said.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Before the House adjourns for lunch, I would like to point out that technically we are still discussing an amendment. As the amendment is very much at the heart of the section, I allowed a rather broad debate on the section on the basis that it will not be repeated when we come formally to the section.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Killilea

Before lunch I was discussing the mode of apointment to this board and I assume that the logic applied by the Government to it would be as clear as the logic that they have applied to the appointment of other boards. During lunch a Member of the Government side said to me: "You are debasing the standard of debate in the Seanad." I am not and I have no intention of doing that and I had no intention of doing that but I am talking clearly under section 26 of this Bill because that is the level at which this Government have created this debate. They have created a situation where we have to talk at that low level in this House. That is a sad reflection on this nation and indeed a terrible reflection on this Government. Sadder still, the Minister for Agriculture, the man who is held in certain respect throughout the country has allowed himself to be debased. I think it is sad; it is tragic. It is a national catastrophe in its own way. We have known that until now, unless the Minister for Agriculture is going to change it, the criterion this Government used for appointment on a State board was that if you had primary education upwards you qualified and if you did not have that qualification you were sure to be appointed a peace commissioner. That is the level of the performance on appointments by this Government. That is a sad fact.

An Cathaoirleach

Fact or no, the Chair is worried about its relevance to the amendment, however proper it might be to raise it on the section.

Mr. Killilea

It is very relevant because the farming community are worried that this——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator would have to persuade me that the farming community are worried on the question of whether or not the staff should be represented on the board, because that is what is in amendment No. 4. We are on amendment No. 4. When amendment No. 4 is disposed of we can discuss the whole section, but it would be as well to keep to the amendment. Otherwise, if the debate is allowed to spread, the Chair would be in the position of not allowing for the discussion. It is a matter for the House. There cannot be two debates.

Mr. Killilea

I agree wholeheartedly, but the point I am trying to make is: what is the qualification for a member of the staff to be a member of the board? This is the point I want to bring out. We do not know, and I am suggesting that so far, the qualifications to be a member of a State board have been, and as far as I am concerned continue to be, that from the level of primary education upwards you qualify. It is not specific and we even had a situation where the Labour Party in this House themselves asked questions and they are part and parcel of this national Coalition. If they are baffled, so am I and I am sure the farming community are in a desperate state about it. They do not know whether they are coming or going. There is no qualification at all. Where do you come from? What is your qualification? I am saying that to date, the qualification is if you are a sound, reliable member of the Fine Gael or the Labour Party and you have primary education upwards you are guaranteed to be OK:

That is not good enough and I think it cannot be good enough for an industry that is so highly rated in Europe, not alone here. The prime gross national product of this country is treated with contempt due to the standard of political obedience you have. It is a national scandal. Up to now that the only guide I have, and that, obviously, is the only guide the Government benches in this House have: are you a good political hack? The better you are the more chance you have. At this moment the hacks around the country are getting into rural organisations, arranging themselves in positions where the Minister will be able to pick them out and put them on this board. I say that because the Minister has not in this Bill named the organisation, or the qualifications or the level in that organisation at which you would qualify to be selected as a nominee.

That is a fact. We have an illustration of it from a recent appointment. The west of Ireland from Donegal to Kerry is the main tourist attraction of this country and is there a nominee on the tourist board, even a Fine Gael nominee on the tourist board in that region, much less a decent independent man with a mind for tourism? Not even a Fine Gael hack or a Labour one. I do not know whether they are aware of that. There is not one in the prime region for tourists. Here we stand without even a Fine Gael hack on the tourist board.

I believe that under this Bill that will continue in the appointment of members to this board. Would the Minister state clearly and emphatically what are the qualifications? Where do you come from? What organisation are you in? What qualifications of intelligence and knowledge must you have to qualify to be on this board? There is not a word in this Bill about that question. To me that is very relevant We have situations in other agricultural boards. It was noted in this House today and yesterday that we have a Fine Gael hack who was nominated from the General Council of the Committees of Agriculture and the Potato Marketing Board. When he failed to qualify with the electorate and be re-elected to his local county council, was he taken off the Potato Marketing Board by the present Minister for Agriculture? It is a fact. That is not suspicion. That is fact and what happens? Nothing. Is that fair? What does he represent? Nothing. What are his qualifications? Nothing. He was beaten in a county council election. That is his qualification. I say it is not above suspicion. I can see this and I illustrated it earlier on the question of the chairmanship of this board. Again, at lunch time, I was told I was a suspicious man. By nature I am not suspicious. I say what I feel. I say it because I feel I am clear in saying it. It has been illustrated twice to us on two occasions that senior civil servants are being appointed to those arduous tasks.

I said it before lunch and I reiterate now that if such an appointment is made to the chairmanship of this new board it will be resisted throughout the country. Perhaps I am helping the Minister in saying that because perhaps he is under duress to make this appointment by those people about him in Government who want this type of chairmanship. He can now go back to the Government and say that at least Senator Killilea said in the House that he could feel or had a suspicion that perhaps such an appointment would be made. It will be resisted at a political level as well as at the level of the staff working under this board. The Minister is getting prior warning here and now that it would be resisted and it would cause trouble and, in any event, it would be a bad decision by him. But, perhaps like this Bill he has not the decision in this matter; it may be pushed on to him. He may be told to put Mr. X on as chairman of that board. Perhaps he will resist and come out fighting but at the end of the day, this open Government behind closed doors will make the decision and the Minister will come out and justify such an appointment. That is perhaps something that I am prejudging; perhaps I should not be prejudging, but this is a very very important point and it has to be reiterated as often as possible.

I want to ask the Minister a few simple questions: would he put on the record of this House in reply the names of the organisations, the farming organisations, the educational organisations——

An Cathaoirleach

I must intervene. The Senator is now solidly on the section and not on the amendment and I must warn him that while passing references to these things certainly would be in order, if such matters are brought up on the amendment then the Chair will have to be absolutely rigorous in regard to repetition if there is any attempt to discuss them again on the section. It would be far better for the orderly debate of this House if the net point of the amendment were dealt with and disposed of so that there could be a full, free debate on the section so that neither Senators nor the Chair would have anxiety about being out of order.

Mr. Killilea

Sorry, a Chathaoirleach. I can bring that matter up at a later stage.

An Cathaoirleach

But not twice. The Senator has already threatened reiteration on this particular point.

Mr. Killilea

No, perhaps I took you up wrong. When I was asking the Minister certain questions I did not get to the point of asking him about the level and the organisation at which he will make——

An Cathaoirleach

That arises on the section and not on the amendment.

Mr. Killilea

I yield the point. I will bring it up on the section. I trust that the Minister will make a clean break from the present ritual and the present criteria for nomination. I trust and hope that the Minister will tell us clearly if he and the Labour cohorts in Government, have come to any agreement as to who will be nominated from the Labour section. It is very clear that they have not reached agreement on this point yet. They should, because written into this Bill should be the qualifications and the mode by which a person from the labour movement would be qualified for nomination. There is division amongst the ranks of the Government on this very important question. It is clear to me that the Minister for Agriculture wants to appoint some farming-labour type rather than the trade union type to the board. They may come to a point where they will differ so greatly that probably those working inside a section in this new body may again be disappointed by the Minister's performance. I will personally be delighted if the records of the House hold the qualifications of the chairman, the type of man that the Minister wants and has the right to want and put on this board. I shall wait to see what the Minister has to say on those very important points.

Mr. Kennedy

In my view the amendment has some considerable merit. I am aware that correspondence and discussions are still proceeding between the Minister and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in regard to section 26 and also in respect of other sections of the Bill. Because the discussions are still proceeding I was reluctant to put down amendments but those discussions are proceeding, not as has been suggested behind closed doors but quite openly. The whole matter has been considered in so far as it relates to the staff of the board and the authority and has been considered quite openly at many trade union meetings throughout the country. I cannot understand the reference to closed door discussions. I hope, although I personally have not submitted any amendments, that when the discussions have concluded and when the Minister has another opportunity of considering the representations made by Congress and indeed by every body, every individual and every political party, including Fianna Fáil, of course, that he will re-examine his own viewpoint. May I say that this should be the axiom of all Ministers and all Governments: if something in the course of time should prove to be unworkable or unfair, then the Government and the appropriate Minister should always be prepared to reconsider the position. I hope that in this case, if he is unable to agree to this amendment at this stage, he will re-examine the position and, if necessary, bring in further amendments to the Bill.

Dr. West

I would like to support Senator Kennedy but I am worried about the procedure. I think Senator Quinlan's amendment is a sensible one. It may not be acceptable in the terms in which it is expressed but the spirit of the amendment seems to be supported by all parties. There does not seem to have been any opposition from the Fine Gael Party, the people on this side clearly support it, the Labour members support it. It is one of these cases where there is universal agreement. It is not a political issue. Whatever Senator Killilea says, even the Independents support it, so it must be good.

The problem that I see is that, if we pass the section as it stands, it would take an amending Bill—not just the order which the Minister will make by virtue of this section—to do what we all want. The real point is that—and I think Senator Kennedy would agree with this—amending Bills can be long-fingered for ever. They just never come. One of the great last resorts is to say: "Yes, provided you pass the Bill in the present form, then we will be able to amend it later on". That is the sort of thing that never happens and we should not accept that. I would like to support this and help the Minister but it is a feeling that all Members have subscribed to. That somewhere in the Bill concretely written in there should be a statement which would satisfy the feelings that we have expressed on representation on the board of the authority. If we pass the section now, the difficulty is that it will take amending legislation and we might have to write that off forever. That is the substantive point I would like to make.

Mr. Ferris

I do not think Senator Kennedy actually envisaged the passing of the Bill before these consultations are completed. Certainly, there should be room for staff representation provision and I would welcome the opportunity at another stage in the discussion —on Report Stage possibly when the Minister has completed his consultations—to discuss this. I would refer to my own reference to representation of the staff on the board, in Volume 86, column 656 of the Official Report where I said:

Representation of staff on the board is important because the Houses of the Oireachtas recently initiated legislation regarding industrial democracy. I would like to see the principles of that industrial democracy forthcoming in the relevant sections of this Bill to ensure that there is adequate representation of the staff on this board.

Those are my views on it. They would be the views I would express on amendment No. 4 to secton 26, tabled by Senator Quinlan and spoken to now by Senator Kennedy. We know there are discussions taking place presently. I would hope that these discussions could be completed before Report Stage so that we would know that if we were passing legislation that we were unhappy about there would be amendments, possibly by further legislation which is a cumbersome way to deal with the problem. There is no point in steamrolling something through if there are still areas in which negotiations are going on. They are not behind closed doors but they are within the proper democratic set-up of trade union negotiations. This is democracy and this is, I am sure, what the Minister is welcoming, the views of everybody concerned and there is nobody better to represent the staff on these boards than their trade unions. These are the people who are and should be doing the negotiations.

Mr. Killilea

Just a matter of clarification on a point made by Senator Kennedy—when I made the reference to closed doors, it was not on the negotiations end of it because one can clearly see what the Congress of Trade Unions are doing. That is not where the decisions are made. The decisions I referred to are being made behind the closed doors of Government meetings when they do not seem to be aware of the urgency of the situation and where they just want to bide their time to get what they want eventually. That is what I feel is dangerous in this Bill.

Mr. Clinton

I am very glad that Senator Kennedy has exposed the fiction that was being put forward by Senator Killilea in relation to all the terrible things that were happening in secret between the partners in the Coalition, "behind closed doors". We have all listened to him for at least an hour, putting forward a lot of fiction, a lot of stuff that is not in the Bill and which would be much more suitable outside the Church gate at Tuam.

Mr. Killilea

But a lot of it is real.

Mr. Clinton

If I recited what is contained in section 5 (8) of the An Foras Talúntais Act in relation to the appointment of the board it might be helpful. It is very short:

Five persons shall be nominated by such agricultural and rural organisations and in such manner as may be determined by the Government to be ordinary members of the Council.

Mr. Killilea

By whom?

Mr. Clinton

By order of the Government, and they are not named.

Mr. Killilea

That is only five out of 12. It is not 24 out of 24.

Mr. Clinton

I have gone much further in this Bill and have made much greater concessions to democracy, the new type of democracy that the Opposition are now talking about.

Mr. Killilea

Four thousand six hundred peace commissioners.

Mr. Clinton

At least I took the trouble in the Dáil to name the organisation that I have in mind and there may be others.

Mr. Lenihan

You will not fool the people.

Mr. Clinton

Strictly dealing with the amendment, I have been pressed very strongly to spell out the exact number of representatives that some of the groups listed in this section will have on the board but I have resisted this pressure and I will continue to do so. I can assure all concerned that the final composition will be determined only after the fullest consideration of all representations from whatever quarter. I can give Senator Killilea one assurance——

Mr. Killilea

That there will be no Fianna Fáil representative.

Mr. Clinton

——that any comment coming from Senator Killilea will not have the slightest effect on my judgment in the appointment of any member that I have to appoint on this body. I can assure him of that.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

I would remind Senators that there is an ante-room for private conversation.

Mr. Clinton

With regard to Senator Quinlan's proposed amendment, this section provides for staff representation on the board of the authority. As I have already said, I am not prepared at this stage to be more specific than the section is about the exact number of representatives which any group will have on the board because if I were to be more specific at this stage we would not finish this legislation in 12 months, we would have so much argument about it. There is no precedent in any previous legislation where any Minister ever spelt out in a Bill the exact number that should be appointed from every section on a board. The type of board that was provided for An Foras Talúntais has been praised at length. I gave the vague prescription that was laid down in section 8. There was no specific there and it was all the Minister.

Mr. Killilea

And is this one?

Mr. Clinton

This is not the Minister. Perhaps I may quote what I said in the Dáil:

This section provides for the appointment of the members of the board by the Minister on the nomination of bodies such as the General Council of the County Committees of Agriculture, such farming and rural organisations as the IFA, the ICMSA, Macra na Feirme, the Irish Countrywomen's Association, the Irish Creamery Managers' Association, and the staff of the authority, the universities, the Irish Veterinary Association, the IAOS, the processing and maketing sectors of the industry, and the livestock breeders. These are the rural groups I have in mind who will nominate people to this board. How can Deputies opposite by any stretch of the imagination say it will be rigged and only who I want will be on the board?

All these organisations will have an opportunity to nominate people whom I will accept when they have made their decision. How can this be said to be a board rigged by the Minister of the day? How can this be continuously said?

Mr. Garrett

Because they have to be sanctioned by the Minister before they are finally taken onto the board. Why does the Minister have to sanction them after the rural organisations have chosen them? The Minister has to sanction them and has to nominate them.

Mr. Clinton

It is exactly the same, word for word, as the legislation put through by the Fianna Fáil Government setting up the previous board.

Mr. Killilea

Our intention and application were completely different.

Mr. Clinton

I have never heard such hypocrisy since I was born.

Mr. Killilea

Does the Minister stand over the appointments he has made on other boards?

Mr. Clinton

I have dealt with any points which are relevant to Senator Quinlan's amendment

Mr. Killilea

The Minister put a man on the Sugar Company board who did not know the difference between a swede turnip and sugar beet. He comes in here today and says openly that he has not the right. Has he not got every right? Is it not the Minister who selects after the nominations have been put forward? Is it the Minister's intention to cod the people in that way? If they send in 45 nominations the Minister has the right to select 24 or 25 of them. Does the Minister mean to tell me that he would not look at their political history before anything else? Does the Minister mean to tell me that I would be so naive as to believe that he, and the Government he belongs to, would not pick them for their political history? That is what the Minister and his Government have done in the last four years on every single board in this country, and if the Minister would like me to name the appointees on those boards I can do it. I will do it. I know them. A man from my town was put on the board of CIE and he would not even come up on the train to Dublin; he drives up to gather his expenses. Does the Minister mean to tell me he stands over those appointments? The Minister should not stand up there, all pious, pompous and arrogant, saying that he will do all good things. We know that they have been done. There are about 4,600 peace commissioners, for God's sake.

Dr. West

I should like to ask the question which I was under the impression Senator Kennedy asked of the Minister but which has been deflected by the internecine struggle between Senator Killilea and the Minister. What is the position, as Senators Ferris and Kennedy have asked, as regards the Minister's consideration and possible acceptance of an amendment, along the lines of the amendment here, for the Report Stage? Has the Minister anything to say on that? Is he prepared to accept it?

Mr. Clinton

No. I say that these discussions will take quite some time before they are completed. One can imagine from the list of organisations which I have named and which I intend to consider for representation on this board, in addition to the staff, that we could not possibly have all this settled and defined before the Report Stage of this Bill. It would be totally unreasonable to expect it, and in no previous legislation have we spelled out exactly who would form the membership.

Once again, I have named the organisations. I have said that I will decide at the end of the discussions what the proportions will be, but I will certainly not say who these organisations will send up to me as their representatives. Once they select their people, I will appoint them. But I will have to decide first what the representation will be and the numbers they will have.

Dr. West

That is not what the amendment says. I am trying to speak on the amendment. The Minister is now talking about the section.

An Cathaoirleach

The situation is that the Chair has been endeavouring for the best part of an hour, and the Leas-Chathaoirleach was endeavouring to do it before lunch, to ensure that the House would conduct its business in a proper fashion, which would be to confine itself to the amendment, dispose of it and then go on to the section. In spite of the efforts of the Leas-Chathaoirleach and myself, the discussion has ranged all over the section. That has been the position. The Chair has not been obeyed in this regard, and so we find ourselves willy-nilly discussing the whole of the section. There is nothing the Chair can do if Members continue to disregard the indications from the Chair. Senator West to continue.

Dr. West

I wanted to ask the Minister about the specific point Senator Quinlan makes in the amendment. Senators Kennedy, Ferris, and I have made this point. We are not asking him about organisations; we are asking about amendment No. 4. It states, basically, that a certain number of staff members of the institute should be on the board. That is the position which, as far as I can see, is impossible if the section is passed as it stands. The question is: are we going to have an opportunity to amend this at Report Stage? It is not an unreasonable question. I know the Minister has been deflected, but I should like him to answer that if he could.

Mr. Ferris

I now read the Minister as saying that he concedes and agrees that the staff will be represented on the board. He agrees that all these organisations which he has mentioned will be represented as soon as they nominate their members. He will not dictate who they should be or what their political affiliations are or should be. He is going to say that the IFA can say X number, one, two or three. The General Council to which I referred are looking for more than one and the term is used "at least one". He is now saying that he guarantees that these people will be on the board but because consultations have not been completed he is not in a position to say how many each particular section will have, only the principle that they will be there and the numbers will be thrashed out at a later stage. Is that what the Minister is saying? If that is so, I am prepared to accept it.

Mr. Killilea

On a point of information, what I want to get into Senator Ferris's head is that that is not what is really acceptable to us. It might satisfy him and the Labour Party but we are resisting it in toto. I have asked the Minister a question about the chairmanship of this board; he did not even think it worth his while to reply to it.

An Cathaoirleach

The chairmanship of the board does not arise on amendment No. 4.

Mr. Killilea

It arises just as much as some other things which have been talked about.

An Cathaoirleach

It arises just as much as several matters which have been brought up here by Members against the urging of the Leas-Chathaoirleach and myself. Senator Killilea cannot have the position of continually disregarding the Chair and then saying that further matters are as relevant as what he has got away with before.

Mr. Killilea

On a point of information for myself, if the Minister agrees with this, can he not solemnly get up and say it? What is he hiding from? What is he hiding concerning the negotiations with the Congress and trade unions? If he agrees with it let us hear him say it openly today. What is he afraid of?

Mr. Clinton

I have simply written into this section that the staff will be represented on this body and I have not said in what proportion these various organisations will be represented. I am not going to say it. I have given a guarantee to one organisation only, and that is the county committees of agriculture and the advisory services. There is one organisation that has been guaranteed—"at least one"—and there is a cry about that too.

Mr. Prendergast

The Minister mentioned in the Dáil a list of organisations which could nominate members and he left out, I notice, the national executive representing the Irish livestock trade.

Mr. Clinton

I mentioned the marketing sector. Surely they come under that.

Mr. Prendergast

The national executive of the Irish livestock trade had a nomination in An Foras Talúntais. Will they continue to have a nomination?

Mr. Clinton

They will be considered with the others.

Cáit Uí Eachthéirn

I have come in late in the discussion. On our county committees there are elected representatives and there are nominees, but there is no doubt they are all from farming organisations. They belong either to the ICMSA or the IFA. Without asking these organisations specifically to appoint somebody or to have another rat race in their organisation, they are already—automatically, I believe—on the county committees of agriculture, be they the ICMSA or IFA.

The only group not represented there are the rural women. I will make a point that the others are already represented on the committees of agriculture all over Ireland and the only group that has no representation is the farm home advisory service. I would make a plea for those. As regards the others, they are already adequately represented.

Professor Quinlan

After the discussion we have had it is clear that on all sides there is full support for the necessity of staff representation. The Minister has conceded that point. I can see the difficulties of the continuing negotiations. It is stated here that the Minister will, by order, set out the conditions and so on. That is something, of course, that has been used many times in the past and it is a device that is acceptable provided that the order would be made amenable to the Houses; in other words, the order in question should be laid before each House of the Oireachtas to be considered by the House within the 21 days usually allowed for that procedure. This is stated in section 35 (7) in connection with the superannuation provisions. It is something which is quite normal and I do not see any reason why the same procedure would not apply to the orders made by the Minister under this section. This applies in the Agriculture (An Foras Talúntais) Act. Having had the debate and having had such a volume of support for that representation—indeed I feel we are pushing an open door with the Minister who recognises the necessity for that—I would be quite happy if he would bring the orders under the regular routine provision and lay them on the table of the House. There could be a debate on it then if there was volume of support for the view that justice had not been done. If that were the case I would be quite happy to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Clinton

That, in fact, is covered under section 4 of the Bill.

Professor Quinlan

In that case, then the debate has served its purpose and, I withdraw the amendment.

Dr. Martin

I did not quite——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Quinlan, who was the proposer of the motion, has asked for leave to withdraw it. That is a matter for the House to decide. If Senator Martin wishes to raise a point that is entirely on the amendment then this would be in order but otherwise, if it is something that can arise in the section, he should wait until the question of the amendment is disposed of.

Mr. Killilea

It smells of rich man, poor man.

Dr. Martin

It is a rather tricky situation when on one's feet. If the Chair would just listen for a moment to what I am saying he could perhaps decide—help me to decide— what the issue is. I raised a point earlier about which the Minister expressed a sort of horror. The representation from the research, advisory, processing and marketing areas was mentioned in Senator Quinlan's amendment. Would such people be elected or selected? Section 26 (3) states:

... shall be selected for nomination in accordance with the provisions of an order made for that purpose by the Minister and any such order shall indicate the procedure for filling casual vacancies in the membership of the Board.

That was something decided on after the Bill was passed. The explanatory memorandum states:

The remaining members will be selected from prescribed organisations, in accordance with the terms of a statutory order.

This is still very much on the amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

I have heard enough from the Senator to realise that he is quoting from subsection (3) whereas subsection (1) is the subsection that is the subject of the amendment. I should be glad if we could dispose of the question of the amendment and then allow the——

Dr. Martin

It could be disposed of very amicably if I could simply confirm what I think the Minister has said. Various bodies will have representatives on the board. I should like the Minister to confirm that those representatives will not be selected from above but will, in fact, be elected by their peers from below. If I could get assurance from the Minister on that I would be silent on the rest of the section, on the lot. With all due deference to my colleague, Senator Killilea, the Minister has in a way been blocked from giving straight answers to straight questions for some time by very colourful rhetoric from this side of the House.

Mr. Kennedy

May I say something about the request for the withdrawal of the amendment? The amendment, Cathaoirleach, is strictly in accord with the provisions of the legislation on worker participation in respect of the number of staff to be appointed on the board. It is not in accordance with that other Bill regarding the method of appointment of the staff. For this reason, and in the hope that the Minister, when reconsidering this whole section, will bear in mind the desirability of having a uniform system of appointment of staff in State and semi-State companies and boards, I would welcome the withdrawal of this amendment. It is very desirable that there should be a uniform system, otherwise the whole concept of the worker participation legislation would be in jeopardy. Apart altogether from this, it is only a question of time before the EEC Green Paper on worker participation is translated into a directive and it is certain that that directive, whatever else it may contain, will suggest a uniform system of appointment nationally and amongst the member countries. If we have a uniform system of appointment and procedure of appointment of staff to public boards it will be easier for us to conform with the EEC directive.

Mr. Clinton

We have given a guarantee of representation to the farmers. I have been asked if the representatives will be selected or elected. This is part of the discussions that must take place. We will have a composite staff and this staff will be represented by a number of unions. There will have to be considerable discussion as to how the representation from the staff will be appointed, but I will not appoint them. They will have to be nominated by the staff representatives. That is the only way I can see it.

I would just like to say about Senator Kennedy's contribution that I do not accept that we should have uniformity for the sake of uniformity. If we are dealing with totally different situations and totally different boards I do not think that at all times it will be suitable to have the same uniform system and this, in fact, was not accepted even by the Minister who put the legislation through the House. He did say that the legislation he was putting through applied specifically to commercial-type boards and that it did not apply to the other types boards.

I have given a solid guarantee here that there will be worthwhile staff representation. I will not interfere unduly in the way that the staff go about selecting the people who will represent them. I want them to work that out as efficiently and effectively as they can. That is their responsibility.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."

An Cathaoirleach

I must point out to the Senators that the Chair is only prepared to hear on the section arguments that have not been made before.

Mr. W. Ryan

I do not think that is very fair to me, because it is not my fault——

An Cathaoirleach

When I say arguments that have not been made before I mean arguments not made before by that particular individual.

Mr. W. Ryan

I will be very brief. The General Council of Committees of Agriculture feel that they are entitled to eight members on this new board. I do not agree because to look for a third of the membership of this board is going altogether too far. While they have gone to one extreme the Minister has gone to the other extreme in saying that at least one member will be from the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. When he provided for at least one member we know it will, in fact, be just one. It cannot be less than one. I would suggest to the Minister at this stage that he should be good enough to say to us that the General Council of Committees of Agriculture are entitled to two members and that he will give them two members. After all, they represent 27 committees of agriculture and there are three representatives from each county on that body. It is a fairly big body of people who know quite a lot about agriculture. They are not all politicians. There are a few people on that board who have been co-opted and who never stood for the county council or anything like that. The one representative will represent one political party.

In fairness to the Minister, I do think that he will probably select the man who will be nominated. I think the Minister should do so. It would be very wrong if the Minister did not do that. I would rather see two political parties represented at that level.

The Minister has mentioned a number of rural organisations that may be represented on this new board. It is a difficult thing to decide which rural organisations should be represented and which should not. Quite a number of organisations will spring up straight away now looking for representation.

The Minister did not mention two organisations that are doing a lot of work for the small farmer. They are the Land League and the Small Farmers Defence Association. The latter was founded during the past few years and the work they are doing is principally for the small farmers. With all due respects to the farming organisations like the IFA and others, while they may be doing a bit for the small farmer it is the big farmer who is gaining most by their work. The Land League and the Small Farmers Defence Association are two bodies that are endeavouring to get the Land Commission to take over land and divide it amongst the small farmers in order to improve their lot in life. When the time comes around for the final selection of this board I hope that those two bodies will not be left out.

The Minister also mentoined how the council of An Foras Talúntais was set up and he said that the Minister appointed the five people on that board who represented the farming bodies. The Minister, I suppose, had the final say, but he appointed the people who were selected by the farming organisations. I do not know how many farming organisations there are but I do know that in 1950 when the first council of the Agricultural Institute was set up there were 25 farming organisations seeking nominations on the council. In order to sort things out the Minister suggested that they be divided into five different classes. One class or section represented the dairying section, comprised of members of the Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, the Dublin milk producers, the Cork milk producers, the creamery managers association and I think the IAOS; they came together and selected one person. The tillage farmers did likewise and so did cattlemen. There were five sections, and that is how the council was set up. I think it was a very good way of doing it. I hope that the Minister will do something like that when it comes to the setting up of the board rather than let them all fight for it. As I say, there were 25 rural organisations in 1958; there are probably 50 such organisations today who will be seeking representation on this board.

Dr. West

I want to make a couple of points concerning this section and particularly the appointment of the chairman and the board. First of all, I would like to refer to Senator Quinlan's remarks concerning the board and his suggestion that the numbers were suitable. Clearly the Minister has a problem if he is going to try to give representation to the many organisations who have a claim to membership of the board. These claims should be resisted. I do not like to see boards of this size.

Senator Quinlan gave the university analogies, and this is right. The boards work relatively well in universities. All universities have boards of about this size. As Senator Quinlan will recall from the debate in the Seanad when the institute was set up, there was considerable discussion as to whether the institute should be an agricultural university or whether it should be more narrowly defined. The vote came down in favour of setting up an institute whose function was essentially to do applied research in agriculture and to have much more specific tasks than an agricultural university would have had. The analogy failed on that ground. I do not think that what is suitable for a university is suitable for an institute of the type of the Agricultural Research Institute or, indeed, of a board of this size. What I see happening is that when the numbers get to the size of the present numbers, 23, 24 or 25, the board becomes less efficient. Therefore, it becomes easier to manipulate a board of this size than a smaller number such as the 12 we had previously in the council of the Agricultural Institute.

I have soldiered on through this debate and I am feeling somewhat like the Minister with my patience expiring, and I do not intend to continue much longer, but I have done so because of the points so succinctly made by Senator Eoin Ryan earlier on the Committee Stage concerning the bureau-cratisation of a successful body such as the Agricultural Institute and the extension of civil service control—the sort of thing set out in the Devlin Report, which I dislike intensely. I shall continue to oppose this process. The test of this process is in the sort of appointment the Minister will make of the chairman. The director of the authority is covered in section 31 and the first appointment is made by the Minister. From there on the board makes the appointment which is similar to the set-up in the Agricultural Institute where, in 1958, the first director was appointed by the Minister and from there on the council chose their own director. I do not see how anyone could find a better director for the authority than the man who is currently Director of the Agricultural Institute, Dr. Walsh, who has made an outstanding contribution.

On this section we are concerned with the appointment of the chairman. It would be wrong if the chairman of this board turned out to be like the chairman of so many of these boards have turned out to be in recent times, a civil servant or a former civil servant. This would be doing precisely the thing that we have been trying to resist.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Section 27 deals specifically with the chairman.

Dr. West

This deals with the chairman. I am not going to dwell on it for very long. This discussion has gone on long enough. But I would like to make the point before I sit down. We are talking about the very sensitive area of appointment. I do not know who the chairman might be— whether he is a civil servant or a former civil servant—but it would be the wrong thing in this situation. A strong chairman from outside all the bodies concerned is needed—the Department, the Institute, or the other two education and research services which work from the Department— because one wants to be in a position where one has an independent person, obviously with a strong farming background, who is able to stand up to the Minister, if necessary. The Minister has the power to dispose of the chairman, but he will appoint the chairman. The appointment of someone from the civil service, which would mean, in this case, someone from the Department of Agriculture, would just be cementing the grip that I believe the Department would get on this new body. It would be totally wrong. That is the point that I have striven to fight in the Committee Stage of this Bill. All I could say is that if the Minister does make an appointment of that nature, then it confirms all my worst suspicions.

The Minister talked about threats when Senator Killilea talked about appointments. Nobody is in any position to threaten the Minister. The only threat that has been issued is something that I would go along with when Senator Lenihan said that Fianna Fáil would repeal this Act if and when they get into office. That is not a threat. That is a political statement.

Mr. Clinton

Probably a long way off.

Dr. West

That is a point. As an Independent I will do my best to hold them to that because I dislike the whole spirit of this Bill. The appointment of the chairman will be one of the tests as to whether bureaucratic control from the Department of Agriculture will allow the board to develop its own identity and personality, and whether it is going to be able to get the freedom it will need.

I would make a final plea to the Minister to appoint someone from outside the civil service, from outside the areas we are talking about, someone who is independent and someone who can give the lead that such a chairman will have to give.

Mr. Garrett

I would like to ask the Minister if he has any intention at present of appointing a member of the Mountain Sheep Breeders' Association to this board. We all realise that the sheep stocks are decreasing at an enormous rate. With the disaster we had in Mayo and Galway last year, as a result of some errors or a lackadaisical attitude by the Department of Agriculture, we had a very severe outbreak of scab in both counties. I think the Minister has accepted that the responsibility lies with the Department of Agriculture. I am sure that under these circumstances it will be of benefit to the method of increasing the sheep numbers. They have been practically reduced by half within the last five or six years. The sheep trade is in a very sorry state at present. The Mountain Sheep Breeders' Association should have a representative on this board in order to look after the interests of the sheep farmers.

Mr. Dolan

I agree with what Senator Garrett has said. The Minister is only picking one representative from the committees of agriculture. This is too small a number. These committees represent the agricultural committees of all Ireland. There should be one from each province, because if there is only one person, that person will probably be from the south of Ireland. There are other parts in Ireland, particularly along the western coast, where sheep farmers suffer a lot because the Department went back to the single dip in a season instead of having a double dip. It is important that the people in the grass roots of farming would know that they are being adequately represented on this board. Despite the expert knowledge civil servants have, it does not mean the same thing to the farmer. They have been proven wrong last year as far as delivering sheep is concerned and, indeed, on many other aspects.

If a committee such as this is totally dominated by a wealthy section of the community it will be to the detriment of the ordinary small farmer who will find it hard to spare a day to come to a meeting, and who, when he is here, will feel inferior amidst people of that calibre. The Minister will have to have a representative from the general council of committees from this province. This is a big organisation but there are other farmers and other people engaged in producing agricultural goods who are not under the umbrella of those organisations. At the same time, they would feel that they should be represented. A man is free and a farmer is free to do what he wishes, but at the same time if there was one member on this board who was an elected representative of the committee of agriculture, at least he would feel there was some representation. Because of the small numbers in, the Beekeepers' Association, the Sheep Breeders' Association and other associations, they will not have any hope of getting representation.

Mr. Killilea

I have spoken prior to this on most of the issues in this section. I want to ask the Minister about the chairmanship of the board. I would also like to add to the points made by Senator Ryan and Senator Dolan concerning the General Council of the Committees of Agriculture. I think Senator Dolan's suggestion is quite an appropriate one. It is important that we have a member from each province, and it is vitally important to us in the west of Ireland that we have a member on this board and that he should come from the General Council of the Committees of Agriculture.

In my county we are very big producers of store cattle and potatoes and the second biggest producers of beef. We are coming into our own at last as milk producers. It would be foolish of the Minister to thwart the wishes of those people. He cannot in conscience, as has been done in previous boards, deny the claim of the good reliable Connachtman, be he political or otherwise. Politicians can be acceptable to the community. The Minister himself has recognised that in the Wool Marketing Board with Deputy John Callanan. He is very acceptable not only to the local community but also to the Government. I can explain why Deputy Callanan is left on that board. The Minister would not have the guts to put him off because he could not get another man in Connacht to replace him.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Killilea should not labour the point.

Mr. Killilea

I am just making that point in case the Minister might think otherwise. The people of Connacht are no fools.

Another organisation that deserves recognition is the Horse Breeders' Association. They command worldwide respect for the types of animals they breed, including the Connemara pony, which is a great national seller. A person representative of that organisation should be included for selection by the Minister for this board. That of course will not guarantee selection. The proper political elements for selection must be presented to the Minister. The tactics are quite clear. If he is of the right political persuasion he is a certainty. Even the Labour Party are going to lose. The idea is: "all things being equal, we will look after ourselves". Another point is in connection with a casual vacancy. I have indicated two types. There is the obvious one, R.I.P. The definition of "casual vacancy"——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Killilea is repeating himself.

Mr. Killilea

I have no intention of continuing on. I just want to put this on the record of the House. There should be some explanation in this regard. There are many people on this and on the other side of the House who would like to know the meaning of "casual vacancy". The Minister has given off the top of his head a number of rural organisations. I did not get them all. I got some of them. He meant well, possibly, but he was going so fast I could not think of them all. In regard to the 50 good solid, rural organisations who submit the names of their nominees for selection by the Minister, will he explain to the House his definition of what he considers the most worthy to serve? How, for instance, will he deal with the situation of a tillage farmer as against a milk farmer? There are two organisations representing the milk farmers. We have one organisation representative of the tillage farmers.

This year the Minister and his Department have been getting the whole country to turn to tillage. How is he going to pick? How is he going to choose a tillage farmer to be a representative on this board? He himself stated—and I think maybe he has made a mistake in this Bill—that in the Foras Talúntais representation the Government reserve the right to have five. Which of the bigger organisations is going to produce a tillage farmer? It is a problem. Maybe if the Minister had thought a little longer he could have reserved two or three and I certainly would not be against it if the Minister was in earnest about the type of men he would put on the board. What are the potato growers going to say to the Minister if he is still Minister next Autumn? Where will they turn if they are not on this new board? There is no point in putting down motions in Seanad and in the other House, as we did before on several occasions, asking the Minister to do something. We are late. Nearly every field from here to Belclare, on the Minister's own instruction, is filled with potatoes. I hope he is not going to leave the potatoes as he has left them in 1974, rotting by the sides of the walls.

Mr. Clinton

Is the Senator sorry they are grown?

Mr. Killilea

No, but I may be and the Minister may be very sorry they are grown in the quantities in which he has allowed them to be grown. I live in one of the best potato producing parishes in the country, and I have seen the misery and misfortune arising from this type of chat from the Department of Agriculture: go out and do this and go out and do that. We have always grown potatoes, and under Deputy Clinton's Ministry we had two terrible years and if we are now heading for the third what are those people going to say?

The Minister and his officials know they have made a terrible blunder in regard to this Bill. Maybe it would not have been such a bad thing at all if the Minister had copied from the previous Act. Under the previous Act, which was proposed by a Fianna Fáil Government, we would get five out of 12. There is still a majority; but under this Bill the Minister has a complete majority, the 20 for himself.

Mr. Clinton

No.

Mr. Killilea

The Minister may have 50 nominations and I ask him how he will sort them out. What is the qualification? He may have 60 or 70. He has referred in this Bill to "the remaining members who shall be representative of agricultural and rural organisations"—words used by the Minister or by someone who drafted this for him. How is he going to fix them? He could pick out two or three big organisations and fix them up. He would fix them up anyhow, because he would be afraid to do anything else. But how will he pick the remainder? I know how he will do it. He will pick the remainder as he picked them before, not possibly the Minister but what he will be told to do. There will be letters from Fine Gael and Labour TDs swarming down on top of him. His Private Secretary will be bursting at the seams. There will be party meetings above in the Fine Gael room deciding who is the best Fine Gael man.

That is how it is going to end. That is how it has gone on for the last four years. That is how the Minister has operated for the last four years. There is no indication in this Bill that he will now operate any differently, although the Minister will stand up and try to be sincere on this point. His party have hogged the appointments. It did not matter what their qualifications were. So long as they were above primary education they qualified. As I said before, if they did not achieve primary certificate standard then they were eligible to become peace commissioners. That is how the Minister sorted them out to date.

Will the Minister tell us now how he is going to overcome this problem if every rural organisation that he has named in this Bill makes a nomination to him? Will he go about it in a different way to that which this Government have done in the recent past? It is a disgrace. That is why I ask the Minister, a man with respect throughout the country, why does he not hold two or three positions here so that he will have the right to pick men he knows are capable of working on this board honestly and with integrity, whether they be politicians or otherwise. It is not the end of the world to be a politician.

Therefore I say now is the time for the Minister to protect himself. Do not get lost in this morass of the old Cumann na nGaedheal type talk. I listened last night when the Leader of this House got up to defend the Minister for Agriculture. What I heard can only be described as the old Cumann na nGaedheal line. One speaker stands up, makes his speech and is then forgotten.

That is the situation one finds oneself under this section. I want the Minister to tell me how is he going to pick the nominees from this 50 or 60. He has only named about ten. In so naming those ten does he exclude the other possible 40? Is this a new trick? Nominate ten and get the Government to fill the other ten. Now it is becoming clear to me. Now I understand what the Minister has done. I knew there would be no change in performance. He picked ten out of the bag, named them in a very sly way, a typical Fine Gael way, and then let the Government pick the other ten political hacks. If he picks the chairman he controls the board. That is a real Fine Gael set-up and we have caught the Minister in the act.

I am not being cynical. I thought there was more to the Minister for Agriculture than that. I did not think he would come here, slyly name ten and say that that was it. This will be done by the decision of the Fine Gael and Labour Parliamentary Parties. They will decide the majority on this board, as they decided the majority on every other board. I hope that when the time comes the Minister will not forget a certain nominee, Professor Quinlan.

Mr. Clinton

I said earlier that the Senator was allowing his imagination to run away with him. I think he still imagines he is outside the church in Tuam. I do not know whether he is even going to be a candidate at the next election, he may be even Independent as he threatened before. I do not know where he is getting all his confused ideas. One moment he is applauding the idea of appointing politicians—they are great people, unpaid people—and the next minute he is decrying the possibility that politicians may be appointed.

Mr. Killilea

No, I am talking about political hacks.

Mr. Clinton

I do not think he knows what he wants. He expresses a lot of concern about the people in the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. The Fianna Fáil spokesman on Agriculture in the Dáil last October brought out the Fianna Fáil gospel. He said they should be all abolished because they were a ridiculous outfit. He said that the control of the advisory services by committees of agriculture had become an absolute absurdity. That was Fianna Fáil thinking in October. Now we cannot get sufficient representation for them on the board. He blackened them and now wants to put some other organisation he has in mind—a co-op or something—in their place. Nobody said a word about co-ops here today. Nobody said they should be represented on the board. I simply named the sort of organisations I felt should be represented on this board because I felt these people should be close to the farming requirements, close to agriculture and knowing something about the industry and its needs. I named those organisations. As soon as Deputy E. Ryan spoke he specified two further farming organisations he thought it was a shame not to have named as important organisations. I think we have one too many farming organisations at the moment. We would be better if we had one farming organisation representing the lot. I always thought it was a pity, and I said so publicly before, but to add two more organisations to this is a bit too much for me.

I am endeavouring as far as possible to have all the important sectors represented on this board, and now the Opposition have suggested other possible organisations. They complain on the one hand that the proposed board is too large and then name new organisations they think should be represented. Also, I should hold three, four or five members up my cuff who I know would be useful members on this board and I should have the courage to appoint them, even if they are politicians.

One of the things that has pleased me most throughout this debate, and it has been mentioned on at least three occasions by Senator Killilea, is that the agricultural sector was never doing as well as it is at the moment in the west, and particularly in Galway. This does not agree with what some of the people on that side have been saying, but I am glad that the Senator had the courage to come here and say what is a fact.

Mr. Killilea

It was not anything the Minister gave them.

Mr. Clinton

The people have responded well, and I am very pleased to acknowledge that they have never done better. They have increased milk production——

Mr. Killilea

All the Minister is doing is backing up a tax system to kill them.

Mr. Clinton

When I assumed office I was told by the people in the west that sugar beet could not be grown there. Arrangements were being made to close down Tuam. What is happening now? I said we would grow beet in the west, keep Tuam open and spend £750,000 re-equipping Tuam, despite what the people were saying down there.

Mr. Killilea

Despite what the Minister for Finance said in Tuam; he said we are grossly——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister, without interruption on section 26.

Mr. Clinton

We are nearly embarrassed now by the amount of sugar beet that is being grown in the west. I hope we will have to expand the sugar beet factory in the west. I am proud we are getting that sort of response. To hear Senator Killilea regretting the fact that they have responded by increasing tillage, in a country where we have less than ten per cent of the total land area in tillage, is appalling. Perhaps I am going a bit outside the section.

Mr. Killilea

Go on, let us hear a little more.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair maintains order, not the Senator.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

On section 26, the Minister is replying to points raised in the debate.

Mr. Clinton

I would like to explain why I have opted for a large board. The functions of the authority are many and diverse, and the organisations with a direct interest in agriculture are also diverse. You have education, research, and many different sectors. I have provided for a large membership to allow for the fullest involvement of all these organisations. The section has also been criticised on the basis that it allows the Minister to exercise undue influence in appointing board members. It is clear to me that those who have levelled this sort of criticism have either not read this section or have chosen to misread it. Under this section the agricultural and rural organisations represented on the board of the authority will choose their own nominees for appointment. So, too, will the general council.

Mr. Killilea

For selection?

Mr. Clinton

They will choose their own nominees for appointment, and I am giving that positive undertaking. I do not want Members of this House to continue to misrepresent that situation. The staff and the other interests listed will also have the same privilege. How then can criticism of this kind possibly be justified? I have said this over and over, and I can do no more. I want this to be a good board. I want it to exercise its authority as it should. There is no difference in the procedure I am following in setting up this board and the procedures that have been laid down under the Foras Talúntais Act—I have read them— except that in this case I am making provision for representation for the staff. That was not done under the Foras Talúntais Act and was never done before. If they complain about the methods being used here under section 26, it is very difficult for the Opposition speakers to justify their criticism.

Dr. Martin

Now that the Minister has mentioned that we are all very reassured.

Mr. Killilea

I am not reassured. The only thing I am reassured about is that he has named about ten of the board. That is an assurance, but he has not yet said how many of that ten were coming from the General Council of Committees of Agriculture.

Mr. Clinton

At least one.

Mr. Killilea

That is such a stupid remark that I would not even comment on it. That is not what we have been talking about here all day. The second point is that the Minister made no reference to the chairmanship of this board. He has not told us who will get the last 12 or 13 seats. He now says that we should have only one farming organisation in the country, and that would leave 22 or 23 seats to be filled. The Bill says "at least one member", and that is all there may be. Assuming the maximum would be ten, how are you going to fill the remainder?

Mr. Clinton

I said that this is the type of organisation I am considering.

Mr. Killilea

That is what I am saying. Senator Martin quickly accepted and was delighted with the Minister's statement. So was I, but I would have been more delighted if the Minister would tell us how he will fill the remaining 12 posts. This is what I want to know.

Mr. Clinton

This is again misrepresentation, I am sorry to say. I want to explain again. I have listed ten organisations that I feel at this moment are entitled to representation. That is not to say that they will each get one; some might be entitled to two or three. I will not know until I have looked at all the organisations that should and could profitably be represented on this board. You have to accept that I am trying to find the best possible board to do the job. Why would I not? I have a very big responsibility because when it comes to agriculture the buck rests at the table of whoever is in this job. If there is trouble he has to answer. He is not going to foolishly pick a board that is going to do a bad job.

Mr. Killilea

This is the point I am trying to make. If the Minister has taken this Bill through both Houses and has not yet made up his mind about allocating seats on the board, then my argument is that he has made no commitment concerning at least ten remaining seats and that he is open to pressures for those seats. Those pressures could come, and I say they will come, from his own political party more than from the rural community. He does not deny that fact.

Mr. Clinton

They will have the same.

Mr. Killilea

I call his bluff when he says that we are misrepresenting the facts. I have illustrated the facts in this House today, and if the Minister wants to pick out any other board, I will name the people he put on them and their qualifications. I dare any Fine Gael Senator to ask me about any board.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Killilea, we are on section 26.

Mr. Killilea

I am on section 26. It is very important because the Minister certainly has not changed my opinion, or the opinion of any Member on this side of the House, about the remaining ten members. He glibly said some organisations might get two or three. How do those organisations know today that they are supposed to send in for selection a range of ten names, for instance? Some organisations may get up to ten, if the Minister sees fit. What happens if they only send in one or two nominations, when they might actually get four members on the board? What instructions will be given to those individual organisations that he has handpicked for nominations to this board? What is the general council of committees of agriculture going to do? How many names are they supposed to send in? They are supposed to send in at least one; but "at least one" is not good enough. The Minister may even have a change in mind about the county committees of agriculture and he may even give them four or five. What are they to do? They do not know how many names they are supposed to send in. Would the Minister clarify this point? I think it is vital.

It would be a disgrace and a catastrophe if an organisation sent in one name for selection and later complained because they did not get all their seats. The Minister could turn round and say "you only sent me in one name, what happened the rest of the names? Why didn't you send me in four or five to pick from?" Where do they stand? How many names do they send in? How many names do the IFA, the ICMSA or the ICA send in? How many names does the general council of committees of agriculture send in? What is the criteria? Where do we go? Where do we turn? We are all lost in this morass. Would the Minister explain that point? I will call the Minister's bluff a thousand times.

Mr. W. Ryan

The Minister stated that he is appointing members of the staff on the new board. He went further and said that that is more than was done when An Foras Talúntais were being set up. At that time, a staff member could not be appointed to the board because they had no staff. There was nobody but the council and the director at the start.

Mr. Clinton

There is no staff there now either.

Mr. W. Ryan

Yes, there is. Does the Minister mean to say that the 2,000 people now working on the staff of An Foras Talúntais are not regarded as staff? Those people are worried that they will be completely ignored.

The director of An Foras Talúntais looked after the staff very well but the position has changed. That staff will be integrated with other groups and they will not know where they are. I hope that when the Minister is appointing staff to the board that members of the present staff of An Foras Talúntais will be included. I I should like to point out that there will be no credit to the Minister for appointing them because he must do it. At the same time he should not make comparisons between what is happening now and what happened when An Foras Talúntais was set up because at that time they could not appoint anyone from the staff because they had no staff.

Mr. Clinton

The Senator will notice if he looks at section 26 (2) (b) that provision is made for the appointment of the staff representatives when the staff come into existence. There is no staff in the new authority yet, and there was no staff in An Foras Talúntais when it was first established. Fianna Fáil could have made the same provision at that time. They could have waited for the staff to come into existence, left the places vacant and then appointed them, as we propose to do under this Bill.

Mr. E. Ryan

That is a technical point.

Mr. Clinton

That is exactly how it is being done in this Bill, and the provision is there. But it cannot be done immediately because the staff are not in existence.

Mr. E. Ryan

Are we to understand that the existing staff of these bodies are to be sacked? The whole point is ridiculous.

Mr. Clinton

No, we want the staff to nominate their own representation. When they have time to come together and do that, we will appoint them. We are leaving the vacancies for that purpose.

Mr. Killilea

How many?

Mr. Clinton

I have told Senators that I am not prepared to say how many or to put a number on anything. I have said at least one for the county committees of agriculture. Further than that I will not go.

Mr. Killilea

The Minister cannot say that we are misrepresenting him. He is the person who got up in this House, as the record will show, and named approximately ten rural organisations. In the next breath he said that his personal desire is that we would only have one rural organisation. We are not misrepresenting anything. It is clear to me that the Minister has put all those organisations into a situation where— and this is where the trick is—they will all send him about ten names. If they do not do that, they could lose out. What does the Minister do then? He picks from the ten.

Mr. Clinton

Would that not be a very silly approach?

Mr. Killilea

Explain this. If those rural organisations want nominees on this board, could the Minister tell the IFA, the ICMSA or any other body he has named how many names they should submit for selection?

Mr. Clinton

When I have finished holding discussions I will then tell them the number, and that is the number they will send in.

Mr. Killilea

The Minister is holding discussions with only some of the organisations?

Mr. Clinton

I am holding discussions with whatever organisations I think are relevant to the board.

Mr. Killilea

The point is very clear now. The Minister is in touch with organisations he thinks fit.

Mr. Clinton

All that was said in previous legislation was "rural organisations".

Mr. Killilea

I am not talking about previous legislation. I am talking about the legislation the Minister is responsible for in this House. What he is saying now is that he decides which organisations should be represented on the board and the number of seats to be given to those organisations. One of those organisations he has specifically stated "shall have at least one member" and that he is most afraid of. The general council of the committees of agriculture to whom he gives at least one seat and whose members are responsible to the people through the ballot boxes, may not get as many on this board as some private rural organisations who are responsible to nobody. I would go so far as to say that the people who run these organisations could not get elected to the local bodhrán team. The Minister is now going to decide, on his own, that the elected members of the general council of the committees of agriculture are not as entitled to, and shall not get, the same representation as some of those other rural organisations.

I have no intention of naming any of them because this is where the Minister committed a big sin. He is going to take his preferences of A, B, C, D, E, and F. He will say that A will get so many, B will get so many, C will get so many and when you come to F he will say: "Well, we had better try to divide up the rest". Is that the way he is going to do it?

Mr. Clinton

The Senator's party would have abolished the committees last October.

Mr. Killilea

Do you know why we had to suggest doing that? The Minister read part of a statement, but he did not read it all. That is what I call the Fine Gael bluff. The reason why we had to say things like that was because the Minister created the impression that the county committees of agriculture were not doing their work. The Galway County Committee of Agriculture requested from the Minister and his Department over the last four years the appointment of at least 12 county advisers and he refused them. I can say the same for Mayo, Sligo and some other county committees of agriculture. Those committees could not function because the Minister choked them. The Minister and the Department of Agriculture have deliberately done that and the blame rests on the Minister's table.

Mr. Mannion

Will the Senator tell us how many are Fianna Fáil members?

Mr. Killilea

There are only ten Fianna Fáil members on the Galway County Committee of Agriculture. The only problem concerning that issue was that despite all the pundits of Fine Gael at the council election, and some of whom were on the county committee of agriculture at that time, they blamed the Fianna Fáil Galway County Council for not doing A, B, C, D, E and F. What I said then I say now: the next time they make that accusation they will be telling the truth because the Galway County Council is now a Fianna Fáil organisation, and we are proud of that fact. When we get beaten we will take it and we will not go around crying in the wilderness.

Today the Minister for Agriculture has created the greatest morass of all times. He made the decision that the General Council of the Committees of Agriculture shall get at least one nominee and that he shall pick the remainder of the board from whatever organisations he deems fit and which are, I assert, Fine Gael/Coalition minded. The more they are aligned towards the Government, the more they are steeped in political hackery, the better chance they have of getting on this board. The Minister has not mentioned the chairmanship of this board and he has dodged the issue of putting clearly on the record that he shall not be a civil servant or an ex-civil servant. He has refused to do that.

Mr. Clinton

Wait for section 27.

Mr. Killilea

We will be delighted when it comes, but as this Bill is being teased through this House, new elements of——

Mr. Clinton

Inspiration?

Mr. Killilea

No, weird crookedness —begin to emerge. I never thought that the Coalition were so bad. I knew they were bad but it never dawned on me that they were so twisted. It never crossed my mind that a Government under the Taoiseach, Deputy Cosgrave could be so twisted as to have the audacity to nominate the rural organisations of this country, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. I never thought that in the passing of this Bill through the House, we would find that the Minister for Agriculture—supposed by the hacks of the Fine Gael Party and some of the Labour Party to be a genius— would stoop so low as to nominate in order of preference and he has now admitted that is what he is doing—in order of his choice the rural organisations of this country 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Would the Minister let the General Council of the Committees of Agriculture—a responsible elected body— know how many members they would submit to the Minister for selection? Will he do that? Will he answer that question now for me?

Mr. W. Ryan

The statement made by the Minister a few minutes ago in reply to my question about the staff is a very serious one because it is the first time that we have learned that the staff of the Agricultural Institute are going to be sacked. He has said that he has no staff: when this board is set up there will be no staff. Now, I would take it that when the Bill is passed, if the Minister is really taking on the 2,000 or so people who are working for An Foras at the moment, as in other cases they would automatically become members of the staff of the new authority. He cannot appoint the 24-member board until the Bill is passed. Could he not, there and then, appoint those people to the staff? It is no use his saying that: "You did not do it when you had the opportunity when An Foras Talúntais was set up". As I have said, they started with a 12-man council and one employee, if you like, a director. It took him years and years to build up a staff: they are still building up that staff. In the first year of their foundation I think they had not any more than 50 people working for them.

It is ridiculous for the Minister to say that we could have waited at that time to appoint members of the staff, that we could have waited until we had the staff, because they have not a full staff even yet in An Foras. The difference now is that some 2,000 people are going over from Foras Talúntais to a new authority. They are not happy about it at all; they are worried in case their status or salaries might be affected. The Minister has told us all along that that would not happen. Now he says that when this board is set up there will be no staff. That means that the new board is going to recruit a staff. Have we any guarantee that the 2,000 people who are working for An Foras Talúntais at the moment will be taken into that staff?

Mr. Clinton

Your figures are all wrong.

Mr. W. Ryan

When I say 2,000, I reckon myself that the total staff of An Foras is about 1,460 or something like that; I think that is the exact figure, if you want the exact figure.

Mr. Garrett

Would the Minister answer the questions I asked him about the mountain sheep farmers' association?

Mr. Clinton

I do not mind considering any worth-while rural organisations. I would certainly have a look at it.

Mr. Dolan

Would the Minister refer to the point I raised regarding at least one from each province who was a member of the general council——

Mr. Clinton

I have said over and over again that I will not put numbers on it.

Mr. Dolan

But you say that there will be at least just one on it?

Mr. Clinton

Yes.

Mr. Dolan

That is what we are protesting about again.

Mr. Killilea

It may even possibly happen in the foreseeable future that only one member of the staff will be appointed. With all the Minister's peculiarities, he may say: "Give me one member." They may not accept it. What does he do then? He has made a hash out of the whole thing because he is trying to speculate in his own peculiar way. There was a time when one would believe what he said, but after what he said here today nobody could believe what he is saying. He does not know whether he is coming or going. What do we make of a man who would dare say that he would make a decision on who were in the rural organisations of this country in priority, the strong and the weak? It is a disgraceful performance. Senator Martin says that he accepted what the Minister has said. I do not even accept what Senator Martin agreed with, because I do not know what will happen if the Minister says at the end of the day that the staff of An Foras Talúntais are only going to get one member. What will happen then? This is no way to treat this House and try to fool the people in the most peculiar way I have ever seen in a democracy. It would not happen even in a banana republic. Fidel Castro would not do this in such a filthy, low way. I thought Cumann na nGaedhael were bad when I read about them in the times gone by. They would not blow wind to this outfit. That is the lowest performance by any Government since we got our freedom or what we have of it. No government should say to the rural community, to the agricultural community, that this organisation is better than that organisation or that organisation is worse than the other. The Government have not the courage to say to the elected representatives who go before the people, the General Council of the Committees of Agriculture: "You will have four or you will have two or you will at least have one." We do not accept that situation.

We now see the Minister in his true light. Now we see that the National Coalition Government is 50 times worse than what we read about the Blue Shirts. Never in the history of this State have I seen such a performance. I think it is crude; I think it is low. We are almost in a state of anarchy. The Minister for Agriculture and the Government will now decide, among the rural organisations built up voluntarily by the sweat of many people, that this is No. 1, this No. 10 and that No. 24. This is what they are at. I have asked the Minister at this late stage to change his attitude of saying "I will not give numbers". By so saying he is naming numbers because he will be compelled to name numbers.

I smell trouble in this Government. I smell trouble between the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party at Government level. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions do their business openly, but the decisions on these matters are dealt with behind the closed doors of Government. Fine Gael and Labour are "at it". I do not think we will have an election in June because we will not have this board before June. A few other boards will have to be filled in July. I think we will probably have it in the last week in September when we have another fixing operation done. The decision of the Minister and the Government is distasteful, to say the least of it. They have taken it upon themselves like dictators to say to the rural population: "We will decide which of your rural organisations is good or bad." That is nothing less than dictatorship. That is what we are witnessing in this House and it is a sad day. We witnessed some of it last night; we witness much more of it as this Bill goes through. I am sorry for the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Dolan

I want to protest again that the attitude of the Minister here in not saying that at least there will be four people from the General Council of County Councils on this board. I think that is a fair assessment. After all, the General Council of these Committees of Agriculture are, for the most part, elected representatives and they represent the various committees of agriculture at central level. Is it right for a Minister to ignore that great volume of opinion, and especially opinion from people who know agriculture from A to Z, people who have worked on the farms and who have produced the goods and who are members of their own committees of agriculture and who as Senator Killilea has said, have been trying to push the Minister to appoint extra staff so as to have better jobs done at each level? Or is it that the Minister is not satisfied with this General Council; has he something up his sleeve so far as each county committee of agriculture here is concerned? The majority of the committees deplore the attitude of the Minister and pass resolutions deploring his inefficient attitude on behalf of the people of this country in Europe. In particular, they remember in 1974 when the farmers of this country were losing an average of £70 per animal or £60 to £70 per animal by virtue of the fact that the Minister sat there glued to his seat in the EEC when the beef came in from outside the EEC. The Minister then has the audacity to take credit for what the farmers are doing at present, rejecting the fact that it was Fianna Fáil who pioneered and advocated openly and financed the entry of this country into the EEC, and that the very Coalition to which he belongs were the very people who shot it down at every church gate in Ireland. If the farmers are doing reasonably well now, nobody may thank the Minister for that, because the Minister is today ignoring these county committees of agriculture, every one of them, and their personnel. He has the audacity to say that he will appoint one from that very representative body, I think it would be a shabby performance on the part of any Minister and certainly from this Minister, who was so completely out of touch with the real issues of farming until very recently, until he was goaded into it by the county committees and by the farmers in general.

Professor Quinlan

I ask permission to withdraw the amendment standing in my name because of the disgraceful turn the debate has taken and its total irrelevancy, and I intend to re-table it on the Report Stage when at least we will have one speech from each Senator. The display by Senator Killilea was the worst I have witnessed in my 20 years of attendance in this House. As a protest against that I want to withdraw the amendments standing in my name and I will re-table them for the Report Stage.

Mr. Killilea

I asked the Minister to define what he means by the filling of casual vacancies.

Mr. Clinton

Casual vacancies are dealt with in the Bill. Casual vacancies, as Senator Killilea should know, occur if a member dies, if a member resigns or if a member is removed for any reason, for misconduct or one thing or another. That is a casual vacancy. There is no difference in the way we propose to fill that casual vacancy and the methods used under the Foras Talúntais Act.

Mr. Killilea

I do not fully accept it. An Foras Talúntais is a live, working autonomous body. This is a completely different setup. This is a different organisation altogether. This, financially, is under the control of the Minister.

Mr. Clinton

What do you want?

Mr. Killilea

That clarification is not enough for me.

Mr. Clinton

Perhaps I could clarify it further. If an organisation loses a member, where they nominated a member, that organisation will be asked to nominate another member and that member will be appointed. Is that clear?

An Cathaoirleach

I would like to intervene here and say that casual vacancies do not arise on this section. They arise on the Second Schedule, and the position is that if casual vacancies are discussed now, then there will be no debate on the Second Schedule. There cannot be two debates on such matters.

Mr. Killilea

But it is quite clear here: "... any such order shall indicate the procedure for filling casual vacancies in the membership of the Board".

An Cathaoirleach

The fact that something is mentioned in several parts of the Bill does not entitle a full debate to take place on every section. Every time the Senators decide to discuss a question, for example, on section 26, they are abrogating their right to discuss it on the Second Schedule, and I want that to be absolutely clear.

Mr. Killilea

Under section 26 (3), line 45, I want specifically written into the Official Report what the Minister meant in this line, as regards the filling of casual vacancies in the membership of the board. He has illustrated one or two or three points. I think he should at least run down through the list of what a casual vacancy in his opinion would be or should be. There are ways and means of dealing with casual vacancies. What I would normally assume is gone out of my mind now after the Minister's statement here concerning rural organisations and his definition of what he should be the judge, the lord and master of. I just want clarification of the phrase as it stands in this section.

An Cathaoirleach

I want it to be absolutely clear to Senator Killilea that the question which he has raised on this section cannot be raised again on the Second Schedule.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 12.

Tá

• Barrett, Jack.
• Blennerhassett, John.
• Butler, Pierce.
• Codd, Patrick.
• Connolly, Roderic.
• Daly, Jack.
• Deasy, Austin.
• FitzGerald, Alexis.
• FitzGerald, Jack.
• Harte, John.
• Kennedy, Fintan.
• Kerrigan, Patrick.
• McAuliffe, Timothy.
• McCartin, John Joseph.
• McGrath, Patrick W.
• McHugh, Vincent.
• Mannion, John M.
• Markey, Bernard.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• O'Brien, Andy.
• O'Toole, Patrick.
• Owens, Evelyn.
• Prendergast, Micheál A.
• Russell, George Edward.
• Sanfey, James W.
• Whyte, Liam.

Níl

• Browne, Patrick (Fad).
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
• Garrett, Jack.
• Hanafin, Des.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• McGlinchey, Bernard.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, William.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Sanfey and Harte; Níl, Senators Garrett and W. Ryan.

Question declared carried.

Sections 27 and 28, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 29.

Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Garrett

Will the committee be made up of members of the board or will there be a new type of representative on it?

Mr. Clinton

Subsection (2) explains that. It says:

A committee may include persons who are not members of the Board.

Mr. Garrett

Who will select the members who are not members of the board for the committee?

Mr. Clinton

The board.

Mr. Garrett

Do they have to go back to the Minister for sanction if the board picks them?

Mr. Clinton

No.

Mr. Killilea

Is it still under the control of the Minister's Department?

Mr. Clinton

There is nothing under the control of the Minister or the Department once it goes out to the board. That is the board's job.

Mr. Killilea

The selection is under the control of the Minister. Is that not the important part of it?

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 30.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 30 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lenihan

There is much that is objectionable in this Bill. Senator Killilea has made an excellent series of contributions in the earlier section, section 26, concerning the composition of the board. The real, basic, fundamental objection to this Bill arises in sections 30 and 32. Section 30 sets out the powers and duties of the board and section 32 sets out the annual programme of activities.

Section 30 (1) (a) states:

The Board shall exercise general supervision over the work of the Authority and be responsible for the attainment of the objectives of the Authority and the completion and implementation of such educational, advisory and research programmes as may, in accordance with section 32, be adopted with the approval of the Minister.

That is the section that effectively hamstrings this National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority, especially when taken in conjunction with section 32 (1) which states:

The Board shall prepare, in respect of each financial year, a programme, in such form as the Minister may require, of the projected activities of the Authority in that year.

That means that there is no board. We have an independent institute that could carry out its work and the legislation setting it up could have been amended so that it could still carry out its work in a reasonably free manner. That cannot be done by reason of this section and by reason of the subsequent section, section 32.

The Minister may check me up on this, but I have gone through the 1958 Act and through this Bill and counted the number of times "Minister" is mentioned in each piece of legislation. It occurs 175 times in the current legislation and is mentioned 24 times in the Act under which the institute has operated effectively for 20 years. That is the sort of bureaucratisation that, in my view, will totally stultify and frustrate this measure. All that had to be done was to amend the Bill by adding the extra advisory and educational functions. The independence and separateness of the institute could be preserved. In the 1958 legislation the functions of the institute are set out in great detail, and they have been operating accordingly for 20 years and there is not one, single reference to the Minister, except at the end where it is provided that the institute shall advise the Minister on any matter relating to agricultural research or agricultural science on which its advice is requested by him. In subsequent sections the Minister requires that the activities of the authority for the current year shall be submitted to him. This is not mentioned in section 4 of the original legislation. It goes through the functions of the institute without any reference to approval or requirement of the Minister or Ministers.

In section 4 (3) it states that: "The institute shall advise the Minister". In other words, the institute is put into the primary position. It does not have to have the requirement of Ministerial approval, literally and metaphorically, to dot every i and cross every it in regard to its annual programme of work. That is what is envisaged here if one reads sections 30 and 32 together. It is very graphically brought home in the figures I have mentioned; 175 examples of Ministerial intervention under this Bill; 24 examples of Ministerial intervention under the legislation setting up the institute.

The capital situation is the very same. The capital fund is established under the foundation legislation and again, the fund is to be used by the institute solely for certain purposes. It is stated in the opening of section 10 of the foundation legislation that "the Minister for Finance shall, when requested by the Council to do so, pay to the Institute". The institute is in the strong position that the Minister for Finance shall pay the council of the institute when they require. It is put into reverse in this legislation whereby the institute is effectively being translated into an executive agency where the Minister, himself, must approve the programme of work or approve of capital or current funding expenditure.

The same thing applies to section 11 of the foundation Act.

The Minister for Finance shall, when requested by the Council to do so, pay to the Institute, out of the moneys held in the Counterpart Special Account, a sum of one million pounds and that sum, when paid to the Institute, shall be known as the Endowment Fund.

The important section is section 12, which deals with the current fund. This is the fund that shows the big leap backwards that we are taking in this legislation. Section 12 (1) of the foundation legislation, setting up the State endowment of the institute, states:

For the purpose of assisting the Institute to carry out effectively its functions under this Act, there shall be paid to the Institute in every financial year, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, a grant towards the expenses of the Institute the amount of which shall be determined by the Minister for Finance in consultation with the Minister and the Council after due consideration of any information furnished under subsection (2) of this section.

Subsection (2) states:

The Council shall furnish to the Minister such information regarding its income and expenditure as he may from time to time require.

We have here a global grant situation. The council requests, the Minister gives the annual grant and the council shall furnish the Minister with information. That is the basic, annual, working current grant provision. It is set out here that the board shall exercise under this legislation general supervision over the work of the authority. The programme shall be adopted with the approval of the Minister. That is the key phrase. Section 32 (1) states:

The Board shall prepare, in respect of each financial year, a programme, in such form as the Minister may require, of the projected activities of the Authority in that year.

Not alone must the authority be submitted to exercising functions which must have the approval of the Minister, it must submit a detailed programme which the Minister must approve before they can implement it. We will go on to the financial provisions at a later stage in which this is set out in greater detail.

We are going backwards instead of going forward into a progressive situation. Great progress has been made over 20 years and we are effectively limiting the objectives of this new agency. It will be so circumscribed, so hamstrung, so spancelled to the Minister's Department that in effect it can do nothing in the way of any initiative or any creative or original contribution to Irish agriculture without the approval of the Minister in detail in regard to its programme of work. That is what is happening under this section.

Ministers come and go, as I happen to know well, and basically what is involved here is the power of the administration that would be there day in day out. Some principal officers at some level will be handling these accounts, handling this programme of work, dealing with the powers and the duties of the new board, and in effect they will decide what will be done with the approval of the Minister and what will not. They will decide on the programme of work.

The whole idea behind setting up a body such as An Foras Talúntais was that it would be a creative, original body endowed originally by way of direct capital grant out of the American counterpart funds. Having been set up in that way, it was agreed between the Irish and the American Governments that an annual grant from the Irish Government would suffice to keep it going and to carry on the particular functions for which it was established and that there should be the minimum of interference.

This legislation runs right through the foundation Bill and I challenge anybody to go through it. I have gone through it line by line, and running right through it is the establishment of the independent and separate authority with a view to giving it the desired freedom to do a good job for Irish agriculture. That freedom is now being frustrated and stultified by this measure, and the figures I have quoted show that this operates right through the Bill. Nowhere is it more evident than in this section, which is one of the key sections in the Bill. It deals with the powers and the duties of the proposed executive agency. When that section is taken in conjunction with section 32 one sees how effectively, in fact, the administration in the Department of Agriculture, Finance and the Public Service have taken over this fine independent body that has done such magnificent work for Irish agriculture for over 20 years. It will now be effectively muzzled.

There is no point in the Minister for Agriculture standing up here and telling us that he does not intend to do this or does not intend to do that. In fact, the basic programme has to be approved by the Minister and the projected activities of the authority for the year have to be approved in detail by the Minister. That is the sort of situation that will exist as against the situation that exists currently where the council of the institute submit for an annual grant. The Minister may enquire into the operation of that grant from year to year with a view to making a decision the following year but the institute is not required to submit the sort of detailed programme of work that is envisaged under sections 30 and 32. If that in effect works out so that the authority is no more than an authority in name and is, in fact, totally subject to the administrations in the various Departments I have mentioned, well then everything is finished as far as the excellent work that has been done by the institute for 20 years is concerned.

We all know what happens when a creative institute or organisation of this kind gets totally within the ambit of civil service control. Now I am not decrying the civil service or anything of that kind. Administration is essential in any community. The job of administrations is to administer, to ensure that the law is carried out, to ensure that the basic administration of the State moves forward, but it is not an administration's job to put its fingers into research work. It is not an administration's job to put its fingers into basic matters concerned with development, concerned with organising new techniques and new developments for Irish agriculture. This is a highly specialist important business where there must be the maximum of specialist investigation at research and development level and the maximum communication from that through advisory and education channels. That is not the work of an administration. An administration has its own job to do, and a very important and fundamental job, but my view as to how society should be run in Ireland in this respect is that these educational, research and development associations, as far as possible, should be removed from the day-to-day administration of the civil service, should be given their annual grant to carry out their work in accordance with a certain mandate and that the basic administration is a separate matter altogether for the civil service.

We now have this Bill—and I think this was said earlier on—which is as much the thinking of the Devlin Report as it is of the administration. This report, by the way, was commissioned by the previous Government and it is a report with which I disagree. It will be disastrous for this small country of ours if we are to have a total takeover by civil service administration in every aspect of creative activity and so frustrate the sort of work that is being done by giving fine bodies in various areas of social and economic activity a reasonable degree of independence to carry out the necessary job. This section is a very real example of what I regard as a retreat back instead of a step forward in regard to public administration.

Dr. Martin

A Chathaoirleach, I will be more than brief. I would like simply to endorse everything that Senator Lenihan has said. With regard to the last section when a division was challenged I had intended this morning to vote against the issue because the whole thing had been so party-politicised in the course of the afternoon that I deliberately and pointedly absented myself from the Chamber so as not to be a party to that kind of in-fighting and rather indecorous treatment of what is very serious and important.

I wish to say that the distinction that Senator Lenihan has made between administrative and creative activity and the clash that may occur between them and the predominance given to the administrative as above the creative in this section of the Bill strikes me as most undesirable. That is all I wish to say.

Mr. Clinton

A Chathaoirleach, I do not know how Senator Lenihan felt that counting the number of times the Minister is mentioned in this legislation and counting the number of times the Minister is mentioned in the Foras Talúntais legislation helped to make his case. It was rather peculiar sort of research. He also quoted section 32 when making his case and I would remind him that earlier on one of the things that made the Opposition feel very happy was the fact that section 32 states:

The Board shall prepare, in respect of each financial year, a programme, in such form as the Minister may require,

giving him the power to say to the authority "Put your estimates up to us in such a way that we know what you are providing for research, what you are providing for education, what you are provivding for advisory services." That was applauded. Now Senator Lenihan seems to be quoting that to support an altogether different case. It is very difficult to follow what is really being said.

Senator Lenihan sort of half quoted section 12 of the 1958 Act and he did not make it quite clear—and it is made quite clear there—that each year the Foras had to come to look for their money and the programme was looked at to see whether the money that they wanted could be justified. I have been looking at these programmes for the last four years with the Minister for Finance and the people from An Foras Talúntais and there was never great difficulty and there was never any interference once the money was agreed. The size of the money is what they were concerned about and, of course, the Minister had to be concerned about it too. It is all right to have grandiose programmes, but if you have no money to carry them out, well, you just cannot go on with the programmes and if the Minister for Agriculture, for instance, is not interested in or concerned about the sort of work that is being done by any part of this new organisation, then I do not think he should be Minister for Agriculture, because almost all of the money is being provided by the Exchequer.

It is natural and normal that there should be reasonable accountability. I have said over and over again that after that annual look at what is being done and agreement on the amount of money that can be provided, that is the end, except where the authority come back and say to the Minister "We feel half way through the year that we would like to change this and we would like to use in a different way some of the money that we intended to use for something else." They look for agreement and invariably they get the agreement if it seems impossible to carry out the work that they thought at the beginning of the year they were capable of doing. The whole thing is totally reasonable, and I regret to say that the contents of this Bill are being totally misrepresented. The two speakers misrepresented it and go on misrepresenting it.

Mr. Garrett

I heard the Minister say that when An Foras Talúntais have come in in the past few years with their budget, they were examined by the Department and by the Minister and then the money was granted. Is that correct?

Mr. Clinton

Yes.

Mr. Garrett

When we came as a deputation last year about the closure of Creagh, the Foras Talúntais institute in Ballinrobe, he told us he knew nothing about it. He had no function in it and he could do nothing about it.

Mr. Clinton

That proves what I am saying.

Mr. Garrett

He did not accept the responsibility of saying that it was in their programme that it was to be closed and that he knew they were going to close it. The Minister deliberately refused to accept any responsibility for the closure of Creagh. He said he had nothing to do with it, that they were a corporate body that he could not disrupt, although he told us a few minutes ago that he knew every penny they were going to spend because they had to put the budget before him before he sanctioned the money. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He is either responsible or he is not.

Mr. Clinton

In fact, the Senator makes my case.

Mr. Garrett

No.

Mr. Clinton

They get a block sum and, in fact, the examination of the programme is not what would be called a detailed examination. It is a global examination and the question is asked "Have you not gone as far as it is advisable to go in this particular research? Are you going to get anything more out of it?" If they say "Yes, we feel we are not at the end of the road there, that we have more to explore here and it is worth going on." That is the sort of discussion that goes on. We cannot say day in day out, week in week out, month in month out, "You should not be doing this, you should be doing that and you should not be doing the other."

It is wrong for the people in any part of the country to feel when the institute go in to do a job and have done the job that it should be kept going regardless, simply because a little industry is set up and there are a certain number of people employed. The job of the institute is to go into as many areas as possible, show what can be done in those areas and demonstrate the findings of research in those areas and then move on, if possible. They should not encounter total opposition to moving on because that restricts the activities. I would not like to have any part in restricting the activities of An Foras Talúntais. They would know when they have done their job in a particular area. They felt they had done their job at that time in Creagh, and every public representative had the local people on his back simply because there was local employment. That is the answer there.

Mr. Garrett

I am sorry, the Minister is wrong. It is not because they were losing their employment. Perhaps the Minister will explain to me why a property that An Foras Talúntais owned completely was vacated and another property leased outside Tuam and all was transferred from Creagh to Tuam. Was it not because some of them wanted to live near Galway so that their children could go to university? Let us be straight about this. The Minister has no function at all, nothing to do with it or nothing to say in it, although he supplied the money. He could not keep Creagh open. We want it straight or we do not want it at all. It is not a little industry either.

Mr. Clinton

When the Minister appoints a board he leaves it to the board to conduct the business of the authority. I have just reappointed a board that was appointed by my predecessor. Anyone who criticises that board is criticising the board that was appointed by my predecessor.

Mr. Garrett

I am criticising the Minister for taking no action on the closure of Creagh.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 31.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 31 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Martin

I want to make one point. Section 31 provides that there will be a director of the authority. I would like to suggest that it might not be at all inappropriate if it could be provided that there would be a director of research, as a statutory requirement. Over and over the Minister has very sincerely reassured us that the research of the new authority will go and keep coming through. Would it not be a very nice gesture in terms of that reassurance if he were to say that a director of research as well as a director would be appointed in order to make sure that the essential element of research would not only continue but be seen to continue under the new authority?

Mr. Clinton

I have replied to this already. I have said that there was no mention in the 1958 Act of a deputy director but a deputy director was appointed. There was nothing to prevent the board appointing a deputy director, and there is nothing to prevent this new authority appointing a number of deputy directors. That is entirely with them. I do not want to start doing their job before they are set up. I am giving them more freedom. That will take care of itself, as it has taken care of itself before.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 32.

Question proposed: "That section 32 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lenihan

I will be very brief because I have made most of the case already on section 30. Concerning the principle of separateness or autonomy which is now being taken from the institute and the proposed executive agency. In this section the situation is even worse in terms of Ministerial control.

Section 32 (1) states:

The Board shall prepare, in respect of each financial year, a programme, in such form as the Minister may require, of the projected activities of the Authority in that year.

First of all, the programme of activities has to be referred to the Minister. This covers the whole area of research, education, advice and so on.

Subsection (3) states:

The programme as adopted by the Board shall be submitted to the Minister for his approval. The Minister may, in conveying approval, indicate such further amendments of the programme as he considers necessary. The Board may, however, with the approval of the Minister, make such alterations in the programme as it subsequently considers necessary.

That is the most gorgeous bit of gobbledegook I have ever read. In plain language, we have a situation in which the Board shall submit its programme of projected activities for the authority in that year. We understand that. This programme as adopted by the board is submitted to the Minister for his approval and the Minister then conveys his approval and then it is back to the board. However, "the board may make such alterations to the programme," in the final sentence of subsection (3), "with the approval of the Minister." What is it all about? Why give the board any power to make such alterations to the programme as are considered necessary if the making of those alterations again has to be with the approval of the Minister? We are right into total civil service control here. The programme of activity has to be submitted. It may come back to the board and they may make alterations, but they can only make alterations with the approval of the Minister. The file will be going from the board to the Minister for his approval with regard to their programme of activity. The Minister may amend that programme if he thinks fit. It goes back to the board and the board may alter that programme and send the file back to the Minister again and the Minister must approve of the alterations. The file goes back to the board and if they decide to alter it, it goes back to the Minister again, but the Minister may reject the alteration. That is what section 32 means, which, in my view, is the worst section of all in the Bill in regard to bureaucratic control.

I have made the case on Second Stage, and earlier on in another section, in section 30, that section 32 is the provision for which one should have reserved all one's contribution to this debate; that means the Agricultural Institute and its expanded areas in regard to advice and education, the whole area of research, advice and education within the Department.

That section makes it totally unnecessary to have an authority allegedly independent. That section carried to its logical conclusion makes redundant the whole notion of this creature called an executive agency. Effectively there is no need for a board at all if that sort of power as set out in section 32 exists in regard to the annual programme of activities of the board. It effectively stifles, frustrates and stultifies the board which the Minister is establishing. That is why I took no part in the earlier discussion on the composition of the board because I regard that as superfluous, that the fundamental idea of what the Minister is about is contained in that section and in section 30. It is all there in section 32. The whole principle of what is going to happen on the dissolution of the institute under section 10 is embodied in that.

Who is on the board or who is not on the board is, in my view, of very small significance compared to the sort of power held by the Department of Agriculture under section 32. Effectively that means that they will be running the bulk of activities of the new authority. That will, in effect, be, as envisaged in Devlin, who recommended strongly that these independent institutes—this is only one of them— be brought right back under the control of the civil service machine. That is what we have here in section 32.

Mr. Clinton

Fianna Fáil set up Devlin. Do not blame me.

Mr. Lenihan

We had sense enough to let it be and to ignore it. I am one of the people responsible for it being ignored, if I may say so, and very proud to be responsible for having it ignored. If the present Government are going to adopt holus bolus that ultra-bureaucratic document in regard to bringing all these independent institutes in under civil service control, the Minister is on a very dangerous road to total liquidation of these bodies that over the years have been effectively set up by successive Governments to do independent and effective work and take independent and effective action.

Mr. Clinton

Speaking on section 30 Senator Lenihan referred to the number of times the Minister had been referred to in these sections. It is simply because the Minister is pushing out a whole lot of services that he has personally under his control, under a board and under a new authority, simply and solely because he wants to get rid of them. He wants to give them to an outside body to operate because he thinks they can be done more effectively in that way.

Mr. Lenihan

This is not an outside body.

Mr. Clinton

But under this section the board will submit its programme annually to the Minister for approval. This section has been criticised on the basis that it will lead to undue interference by the Minister in the activities of the authority. That is the burden of complaint about it. Again, of course, this is misrepresentation of the provision. The Minister for Agriculture has overall responsibility for the development of the agricultural industry, and since the authority will have such a vital role to play in this development the Minister must be in a position to make sure that its programme is consistent with overall policy in the agricultural sector. I do not think that is unreasonable.

This section is not aimed at getting the Minister or his officials involved in other people's business. Once the programme is approved the authority will be completely free to carry it out without any further interference from the Minister. One of the things that has been commended by all is the fact that the programme can be amended, that they can come back to the Minister and get the programme amended. I think that is necessary, too, because a programme could be pursued that would require a sum of money vastly in excess of what was agreed at the beginning of the year. That is the sort of reason why it should come back, but I can foresee no difficulty whatever in relation to this type of accountability that is being sought. Nothing more, nothing less. There is going to be no interference, and it is not provided for in this legislation that there should be interference on a day-to-day basis, no more than there is interference with the day-to-day functions of any of the semi-State bodies.

Dr. Martin

It is very hard to reconcile that with subsection (3). It really is an astonishing piece of prose. I think Senator Lenihan is quite right. It rolls around upon itself: "The programme as adopted by the board shall be submitted to the Minister for his approval.""The Minister may, in conveying approval, indicate such further amendments of the programme as he considers necessary.""The board may, however, with the approval of the Minister, make such alterations ..." and on and on it goes. It is an astonishing piece of writing.

Mr. Clinton

It is all Exchequer money we are talking about.

Dr. Martin

It seems built into that that anything the board does comes back to the Minister and there is an incredible—almost incestuous—interaction between the Minister and board throughout the whole thing. When the Minister says that the whole purpose of this Bill is to push that thing away from him, it is very hard to accept that in the light of a paragraph such as that. It seems to create a kind of centrifugal force which will keep pulling it into him. I agree with Senator Lenihan when he said that most of the things we are discussing— and this is in fairness to the Minister as well as everybody else—have been discussed already. All the issues are coming back again inevitably. It is the same problems we are reiterating. I am probably as exhausted as the Minister is with regard to it.

However, I could not read that paragraph and at the same time hear the Minister saying that he wants to rid himself of all this difficulty and get it out into an autonomous world. I have no doubt at all that the main thrust of this Bill is to bring all that research activity far closer in under bureaucratic and ministerial control. At the end of the day I do not mind if the Bill wins, and it is going to win and it will come through, but I would hate it to succeed on the understanding that we all agreed that it was a gesture towards the greater autonomy of these services. It is certainly not that.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 33 agreed to.

SECTION 34.

Question proposed: "That section 34 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Harte

Before anybody tries to make a meal out of what I am going to say, I would appeal to them to understand that all I am standing up for is clarification on two specific points and nothing else. I hope nobody is going to attempt to take what I am saying into Disneyland. I would make a special appeal at this late hour of the day. The section provides for consultations between the associations and the trade unions with regard to the setting up of a scheme but does it cover negotiating machinery, disputes procedures and so on? That is the main part of my first point. I should like clarified the position of the Civil Service Staff Association with regard to representation of the civil servants who are responsible to the authority.

Mr. Clinton

We have not at this stage any clear or detailed ideas of what sort of scheme may be set up, but whatever sort of scheme is to be set up it must be agreed by the staff themselves. So that the unions representing the staff will have full play in trying to decide and agree on a scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 35 to 43, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 44.

Amendment No. 9 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 44 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lenihan

I could make the same sort of speech I made earlier but I will decline at this stage because I would be quoting the same arguments and there is no point in going into repetition.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 45 to 64, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 65.

Government amendment No. 10:

In page 26, subsection (4), line 25, after "section 34" to insert "and following consultation with the recognised staff associations and trade unions concerned".

Mr. Clinton

The amendment that I am proposing in this section has been suggested to me by representatives of some of the staff who will be transferred to the new authority. When this section was discussed in the Dáil I was pressed to give a guarantee that nobody would be transferred from their existing place of employment. I refused to give such a commitment because I was not prepared to straitjacket the authority in this way. I did say, however, that I would be surprised if the authority would be unreasonable in applying the provisions in this section and that transfers would not take place without prior consultation with the staff concerned. This amendment now formally binds the authority to consult with representatives of the staff concerned before any transfers take place, and I hope it will therefore allay any remaining fears of the staff in this regard.

Mr. Harte

First, I want to thank the Minister for introducing that particular amendment, which was very necessary. On one aspect I would like some clarification. The section provides that the conditions of service will not alter. Can I take it to mean that they will be no less favourable? My next point is an important one. Does it imply that, even though one retains one's previous conditions, one cannot improve on those conditions on transfer until such time as a scheme has been agreed? This is a little bit puzzling.

Mr. Clinton

No, it does not mean that at all, because a scheme might never be approved. There is no guarantee, so we could not hold up promotions on that.

Mr. Harte

That is all right.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 66 to 68, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 69.

Question proposed: "That section 69 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Harte

I should like to ask a question regarding the consultation machinery. The Minister has clarified the position for me in some of the pertinent sections. I am slightly puzzled with regard to section 69. With regard to the appeals procedure, for example, is a man debarred from going to a rights commissioner or to the Labour Court?

Mr. Clinton

No.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 70.

Question proposed: "That section 70 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Killilea

Section 70 could have repercussions concerning the deputy CAOs. As the Minister is aware, recently he appointed or gave instructions for us to appoint in each individual county committee of agriculture deputy CAOs with special responsibility in certain areas. We find in this Bill, after that deliberation by the Minister and his Department, that they are not mentioned at all in section 70. Some of them, particularly in the area of education, have undertaken a very onerous task, have set about the task in their own peculiar way and have these functions now working. What is the status of deputy CAOs throughout the country who have operated individually, if not directly, under the chief agricultural officer? I find this very low of the Department and the Minister not taking upon himself the responsibility of mentioning their positions in the Bill. I would like the Minister to clarify what his intentions are in this regard.

In Galway we have had classes for young farmers and educational symposiums that went on over an indefinite period of time, and they were a great success. Those deputy CAOs took it upon themselves to go about this task. There is a lot missing in this field. That is a very important point. There should be an assurance given here as to what the Minister's intentions are or what status they are to operate under. There is another question too which I think the Minister should consider, especially in regard to authority or known authority in An Foras Talúntais. In our constituency in east Galway and Clare there was the proposed renting of an estate in addition to the one the institute already operate in. The local people, through the Land Commission and through the farm advisory service for the CAOs, were anxious to acquire this estate and found resistance from An Foras Talúntais on it.

Questions were asked in the other House about it, but at least up to now the people responsible in this field were not faceless people. We knew who they were, what their functions were and how we could counter-attack any efforts they made. We had the deputy CAO, but the deputy CAO is not mentioned in the Bill. What relationship will this new board hold with the Land Commission? It is a thorny question in my parish. Nine hundred acres on top of five is a lot of land. As I said, we knew until now to whom we could talk but as from now to whom do we address ourselves? The Government should have used their influence in getting the Land Commission to move in and acquire this land and divide it among the tenants. This has been resisted by An Foras Talúntais, despite the fact that the people in the community about them are all people who attended those classes and who should qualify for land; and who if they had this land would be better off by it.

One organ of the State is going around educating the people under the deputy CAO, while another, this new board will be nullifying that activity. Would the Minister explain to me what propositions he has on either of those two important issues. The deputy CAO was always a respected person who did an enormous amount of work. There were two deputy CAOs, one looking after the farm modernisation scheme and the other looking after education, and both have done tremendous work, all probably under the county CAO but in many ways autonomous in themselves. There does not seem to be any autonomy for them under this Bill. The CAOs are mentioned ad lib, and I am speaking of a big county like my own which commands at least two deputy CAOs because in such a big county one deputy CAO could not do all the work, and he was relying totally on the deputy that was appointed to do much of the work. In many ways they probably had as much work to do as a CAO in a smaller county would have to do.

Should there not be some facility made for a man who found himself in that situation, not by his own wish or desire but out of necessity? The Minister seems to have forgotten, among other things, this particular aspect of the Bill. Even though their title might not be as strong as that of a CAO, they work just as hard as many CAOs throughout the country, and I am sure the Minister himself would be the first to admit that. If he would consider their situation I would appreciate it.

Mr. Clinton

I think Senator Killilea misread this section. This section has nothing to do with what he is talking about at all. In fact, what this section is doing is ensuring that the committee, for its retained functions, has a secretary and a clerical staff. What it is saying is, in fact, that in future the chief agricultural officer will also act as secretary to the committee for its retained functions and that sufficient clerical staff will be provided. All other staffs are being transferred to the new authority in their present capacities with a guarantee that there will be no worsening of their positions.

Mr. W. Ryan

As regards the clerical staff, this is something that committees of agriculture at the present time are not too happy about, because since our entry into the EEC the work of an agricultural instructor has changed quite a lot. In the old days he was able to visit maybe 14 or 20 farmers in a day, but now there is so much book work, accounts to be kept, farm modernisation along with everything else, that if an instructor gets around to two farmers in the day he is very lucky. As well as visiting the two farmers and discussing everything with them he also has to give hours in the office doing clerical work, work which I do not think an agricultural instructor should be doing. This is work that should be done by an office staff. I do not know what the position is in every county. In south Tipperary we are short of clerical staff. There was a girl on a temporary basis, and we wanted to keep on this girl when the permanent girl took office. That was refused by the Department of Agriculture, although the committee and the CAO and his deputy CAO had plenty of work for this girl. Now the work she should be doing has to be done by agricultural advisers who should be out instead with the farmers.

I hope that when this new authority take up office they will not be restricting committees of agriculture as to the number of staff they should have. We in south Tipperary have about 14 agricultural advisers. We would need two more to give the farmers in south Tipperary the service they need, but we have been told by the Department that we cannot have them.

Under the Bill the Committees will have to sit down once a year and draw up a programme for the following year. It is very hard to draw up an agricultural programme for a full year. If during the year they have to make changes, I hope they will not be told by this new authority, "Sorry, you will have to wait until next year. We have already given you so much money, and that is all you are going to get."

Mr. Clinton

The point raised about the possibility of amending the programme during the year was fully dealt with on the previous section. I said it was possible to amend the programme during the year. The House will appreciate that it is not possible for me to deal here with the individual situation of the number of clerical people required in each individual county. In a number of counties, temporary staff are employed to take care of a backlog of work that had built up because the advisory people we are arguing about had taken on certain responsibilities. We caught up on that backlog. Like all temporary staff, they get an establishment and there are local pressures to make them permanent.

It is unfair for Members of the House to raise under the section of a new Bill matters that are individual to each county committee, and make that a point to discuss under a section of a Bill. It would be impossible for any Minister to be au fait with the position in every county. There is one county referred to this evening by Deputy Ryan. I am sorry that I cannot——

Mr. W. Ryan

I am only speaking about one county, the county I know. I am quite sure the same applies in every other county.

Mr. Clinton

I cannot know the answer.

Mr. W. Ryan

I am not asking for the answer. I am just stating what I hope is happening now under the present system, under the Department. It is not An Foras Talúntais we have to blame for it but the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Clinton

That will be the responsibility of the new authority.

Mr. Killilea

It is like everything else this Minister has said today and yesterday. Pass the buck when it suits, twist it, shift it. The Minister for Agriculture is well aware that it was he and his Department—and his Department is under his control—that starved my county and my two neighbouring counties. On the other hand, he says that all the miracles happened while he was in office.

Mr. Clinton

It was the Senator who said——

Mr. Killilea

The Minister and his Party have consistently tried to infer that he was the man who was responsible for the improvements in the agricultural sector. They happened in spite of the Minister in many cases. There was little heard or seen of the Minister in October, 1974, when we were selling stripper cows for £1.50p.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That may be very interesting but it has no relevance to section 70 which deals with staff of the committees.

Mr. Killilea

Section 70 (2) is relevant here. Because of this Minister, who has been personified as the greatest thing ever to happen to Irish agriculture, we could not get enough people in the advisory service. His Department refused to sanction the recruitment of extra staff. We asked, not once but at least ten times, and the Minister was the person who refused us. The backlog is still there and will continue. The Minister will say that the advisory service has never been so good. I contradict that. If the Minister was sensible about the matter he would contradict it too and would do something about it. Section 70 (2) says:

Every committee of agriculture shall, in each financial year, pay to the Authority in respect of the services referred to in subsection (1) such sum as may be agreed between the committee and the Authority or, in default of agreement as may be determined by the Minister.

That is another very peculiar twist. The Minister refused to give us these services when we did not have to pay for them, when the Department of Agriculture were committed to pay the advisers, clerical work and so on in the county council and to make available a certain amount of money. We prepared our budget each year. When the Department of Agriculture were running the show they were not prepared to pay for these services. Now the Minister comes along and is putting the gun to the head of every county committee of agriculture. The Minister knows that now, I know it, and nearly everybody else knows it now. The committees did not get the service when the Department were supposed to be paying for it. They are not going to get it now and they are going to be asked an exorbitant price for the little they are getting. The cost of living index and the movement index will be used in arguments. The Minister is placing himself again in the onerous position of deciding who is in default.

Mr. Clinton

No better man.

Mr. Killilea

Without any doubt, the Minister is the finest ever to bluff his way as Minister for Agriculture. There is no question about it. I have proved that here unequivocally today. If Senator O'Toole was not here today to listen——

Mr. O'Toole

That is a scurrilous statement.

Mr. Killilea

It is just as scurrilous as the statements the Senator made. I have nothing against the Minister, Deputy Clinton——

Mr. O'Toole

I made them?

Mr. Killilea

Yes, in this House over the last three years. The Senator said the Minister was the greatest thing that ever happened to us since we went into agriculture. The Senator is a bit wet behind the ears in politics if he thinks that I am so naïve, or that his county committee of agriculture are so naïve as to believe that. How long have his county committee of agriculture been seeking to get extra advisory staff from the Minister? Would you tell me, Senator O'Toole, seeing that you know so much about your own county——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Killilea

In my opinion, when I hit the nail on the head concerning an individual who has been——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator cannot break the rules of debate in this House.

Mr. Killilea

I ask Senator O'Toole to tell the House how many letters have gone from the Mayo County Committee of Agriculture to the Minister for Agriculture in the last three years asking for extra staff to get rid of the backlog. He is not fit to answer it, or if he is, he dare not do it here because he will be giving in on the bluff that I talk about. He would be recognising the fact that it is a bluff, and nothing but a bluff.

Does he think that the county committees of agriculture will accept this proposal? Have they not lost all their authority? Are they not now naked? If this new board say to them, "you give us a certain amount of money" and they say "no, you cannot get it", the Minister will say, "by default I am the guy who decides this and you must pay up". This means that the committees no longer have any authority. It is the axe waving again.

The Minister and Senator O'Toole seem to know an awful lot about the situation. Could the Minister tell me how he proposes to tell the rural community that they are going to be by default decided upon by the Minister? Does he expect the rural community to take any more of this dictatorial attitude?

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 12.

Tá

• Barrett, Jack.
• Blennerhassett, John.
• Butler, Pierce.
• Codd, Patrick.
• Daly, Jack.
• Deasy, Austin.
• FitzGerald, Alexis.
• FitzGerald, Jack.
• Harte, John.
• Kennedy, Fintan.
• Kerrigan, Patrick.
• McAuliffe, Timothy.
• McCartin, John Joseph.
• McHugh, Vincent.
• Mannion, John M.
• Markey, Bernard.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• O'Brien, Andy.
• O'Toole, Patrick.
• Owens, Evelyn.
• Prendergast, Micheál A.
• Russell, George Edward.
• Sanfey, James W.
• Whyte, Liam.

Níl

• Browne, Patrick (Fad).
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
• Garrett, Jack.
• Hanafin, Des.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• McGlinchey, Bernard.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, William.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Sanfey and Harte; Níl, Senators E. Ryan and Garrett.

Question declared carried.

Sections 71 and 72 agreed to.

First Schedule agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. W. Ryan

I want to comment briefly on the term of office of members. It says:

Eight members of the Board to be established on the commencement of section 25 shall be appointed for a period of three years, a further eight members shall be appointed for a period of four years and the remaining members for a period of five years.

I agree with that because this means we will have continuity all the time. Paragraph (2) reads:

The members to be appointed for the several periods of three years, four years and five years shall be determined by lot.

If you adhere strictly to that, could it not happen that one sector, say the people representing agriculture, could be left off? Will a clause be included to ensure that every sector is represented in the three years, the four years and the five years?

Mr. Clinton

I am sorry I have not gone into the details of exactly how this could be most effectively done. I appreciate that it will present a difficulty but it is hard to find a fairer way than by lot. It is not going to be easy to have the various sectors reasonably represented. Whether there could be agreement on the sort of mix that would go into the hat for the drawing of each lot is something we could look at and try and reach agreement on. I do not know which would be the best way to deal with this.

Mr. Killilea

I accept that the Minister has problems in this area. To bring a Bill into the House in such a haphazard way is not usual. He has not any clear idea in what way he is going to run this board. It is lackadaisical, to say the least, for the Minister to have allowed himself get into such a situation. Here again we see the wielding hand of the Minister in action. The point that seems to flow freely from the Bill is that this board, as he described it this morning, is a body he has taken out of the Department of Agriculture and "put out there", to use his own words. In really every section of the Bill, the long arm of the Minister is there hovering over them, and in the Second Schedule it is quite blatantly and savagely stated:

The Minister may, at any time remove a member of the Board from office.

In almost every section of the Bill the Minister's power is the overriding factor. The Minister has the right to do this: the Minister has the right to do that. The board has no autonomy. This board is under the Minister for Agriculture from section 1 to section 72. I spent most of this day trying to clarify a point. Maybe I used some harsh words but I tried to the best of my ability. How will the Minister define which rural organisation is better than another. The Minister has the right to make that decision. Some moments ago I spoke on section 70 —the Minister has the right to intervene; the Minister has the right to make decisions. In the Second Schedule the Minister may at any time remove a member of the board from office. It is very clear to every Senator, no matter on which side of the House he is, that the staff of An Foras Talúntais are afraid of this board. I believe they were not afraid of the board but of the Minister. There is no autonomy in this Bill for this advisory board. In every page of this document they are mainly the puppets of the Minister.

It amazes me that the free thinking Senators on the Government side will walk into the lobby and vote for this Bill. In the last four years—with the exception of the revision of the Constituencies Bill which was a political Bill—we did not have even one Bill brought before this House with such brutal acts attached to it, and which the Minister has deliberately written into this Bill. I am of the opinion that this Bill was written for the Minister. I believe he is putting it through under duress. I remember his performance earlier today when I asked him a question about the chairman. He was unable to give me a reply.

Mr. Clinton

I was not unable.

Mr. Killilea

The Minister did not put a reply to my question on the record of this House.

Mr. Clinton

I did.

Mr. Killilea

I would like to hear it again——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are on the Second Schedule and we cannot go back on sections that have been already passed.

Mr. Killilea

That is the point. This is my third time mentioning it and I have not got a reply.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister is aware that we are on Committee Stage and we are discussing the Second Schedule.

Mr. Killilea

I know, and I am aware that the Minister dodged this issue and other issues all day. At one stage he sang dumb altogether; he had no answers for me. He knows that as well as I know, as well as this House knows and I hope as well as the people of the country will know if the press and the television are not satisfied. It is not beyond this Government to stifle the press and the national television network, as was seen as recently as last night. I am sure that it would not be beyond the Minister for Agriculture, seeing he has now put himself into the position where he can decide against elected representatives and for different rural organisations. Never in the history of the State have I seen this done in a democracy.

In case anybody is under any illusion, it is here again in the Second Schedule: "The Minister may at any time remove a member of the Board from office". Then he says in paragraph 6 (1):

A casual vacancy occurring among the members of the Board shall be filled by appointment by the Minister in accordance with an order under section 26.

There it is again, clear as a whistle. He tried to twist it and maybe he meant it himself, but that does not mean that every other Minister for Agriculture would take the same meaning from it. He would hand it back to the organisation that lost the seat. If I were a member of a rural organisation and I was sacked by the Minister I would think very poorly of the organisation that would nominate a person in my place. Rural organisations are voluntary bodies. There is no doubt in my mind that any rural organisation worth its salt would stand by a member who in the first instance, they recommended or elected—I think was the phrase the Minister used was elected for selection by him. Who then has the power when that organisation does not renominate? I know who has the power: the Minister for Agriculture and the cohorts in Government. They have the power and, as I said, if that organisation does not nominate some person—and I am sure it would not— who gets the job? When the Minister plucks one from the group and fires him, he eliminates an organisation and, as he himself rightly said, he would like to see a situation where we would have only one organisation representing farmers and rural organisations. So if he fires that member or those members, then we would have complete political hackery. This can happen; it would not be the first time it happened and it will not be the last time. What galls me is this idea that is being pumped through the country by all the media that the Minister's performance is above reproach. In actual fact, it is far from it. This is clear to me, and I do not care what the Press may say: the people will find out in their own time anyhow because this Minister, no more than any other Minister, is not infallible. This Minister has proved beyond all shadow of doubt by his performance in this House today that he has messed up this Bill. He has annihilated An Foras Talúntais and we are left with a political job lot to do the job that is necessary and so important and so crucial for the farming community of Ireland.

Mr. Dolan

I have already protested regarding the composition of the board and the method of selection. I notice now that the Minister may or will, when he establishes this board, select eight and some will be for a period of three years extending to five years. It seems these selections will be made by lot, which would remind me of a bingo session. In other words, a man's suitability or eligibility or his standing as a useful member of an agricultural committee will not be the criterion by which he will be selected. It will depend on whom the Minister draws out of his political hat. I do not think that is the best method of using the personnel that he will get for this board.

The people of rural Ireland will have to realise that the Minister for Agriculture is wiping out the agricultural committees and that any powers they have in future will mean very little. The power is being vested in this board and in these members and to ensure that, the Minister, even in the case of the material he gets from the voluntary organisations, is deciding that he will select them by lot and will decide which members will do three years and which members will do five years.

Mr. Clinton

No. Could I explain this? I think it was accepted by Senator Ryan that this was the fairest possible way to do it and that it was a way that would preserve the continuity he agreed with. The only way you can get continuity is to have people appointed for different periods. However, it does not at any time change the balance of the board, because if there is a certain number of them on for three years—that is the smallest period of time—it is people from the same organisations that will replace them at the end of the three years and you will have the same balance always. Whatever number is going out will be replaced by people from the same organisations when they nominate them. When Senator Dolan talks about me selecting, hand-picking and deciding, over and over again I have said that these are people nominated by bodies in rural Ireland but I have to formally appoint them. As they are formally appointed by the Minister, if there is one of them to be dismissed from the authority, he has to be formally dismissed by the Minister; and that is the same as it is in all other legislation. There is nothing new in this. There is nothing sinister in it, but the trouble with Senator Killilea is that he sees something sinister in every line of everything that is brought in by the present Government. That is the unfortunate state of mind that the man is in.

Mr. Dolan

The Minister may say that everything is all right as far as the committees of agriculture are concerned. But the fact of the matter is that he is setting up a board here and there are not elected representatives on it, people who will answer back to the electors. These people will be there for five years and will not have to answer to the people, whereas in ordinary politics they would have to go back to the electors and get a mandate in two, three or four years.

Mr. Garrett

I admire the courage and tenacity of the Minister in trying to force the Bill through the House because the support he has got from his own back benches on that side of the House has been very remarkable by its absence. The only little support he got was in the form of a few queries from the Labour Party. According to the Second Schedule of this Bill, the board shall hold at least three meetings in every year. Section 30 of the Bill says, in subsection 1 (a), that the board shall:

exercise general supervision over the work of the Authority and be responsible for the attainment of the objectives of the Authority and the completion and implementation of such educational, advisory and research programmes may, in accordance with section 32, be adopted with the approval of the Minister.

It lists seven or eight things here that the board shall do. Seeing that agriculture is our principal industry, a board of 24 meeting at least three times a year will not be able to supervise any actions or functions of the Authority whatsoever. It says that the board shall hold special meetings. I do not think the General Council or the Agricultural Committees can hold a special meeting to make sure that the expenses will be paid to the people who travel to it.

Sanction for a special meeting of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture was refused recently by the Minister, and if he refused them sanction to hold one in a year there will not be much probability of holding special meetings by this board. I wonder how any board can supervise the functioning or the operations or the running of any authority and see that the advisory staff in their local county committees of agriculture carry out their functions under the authority when they meet only three times a year. You would be as well off not to have the board there at all as to have it meeting three times a year. One of those meetings, I am sure, will take place during the Spring Show and the other during the Autumn Show and the meetings will last for a few hours and then they will be off to see the machinery. I think a board responsible for the largest industry within the country meeting three times a year is rather sad and ridiculous.

Mr. Killilea

Is the Minister replying?

Mr. Clinton

I have said all I want to say.

Mr. Killilea

This is more of it. This is what I cannot understand. This quietness is bad. I cannot understand why a query such as that made by Senator Garrett is not answered. This is on the Schedule but there is no answer. There is nothing sinister in my saying this. I am a bit more knowledgeable about and observant of the performance of this Government than perhaps many other people. Seeing the hold the Minister has on this board from A to Z, that is about all they will do—meet for the Spring Show and the Autumn Show and they might come up to visit Santa Claus. That could be the sum total of what this board would do because the Minister can say yea or nay to every single thing they propose.

The most beautiful part of this Bill —and this is where I thought the Minister might have made a statement— is paragraph 5 (1) and (2) of this Schedule. He spoke today about a Member of our Parliamentary Party in a sort of undercover type of remark, a Member who is entitled to be at this moment of time a member of the Wool Board. He made absolutely certain that no member of his party, of the Labour Party or any other party in this House or in the other House will ever be a member of this board. I think that is bad. In addition to what he has done to the county committees of agriculture he has now degraded the politicians to the level of stating emphatically that they would not be capable of serving on this board, that they are all biased and bigoted.

If I tend to be cynical, then the thinking behind those two particular subsections is very cynical. A man in public life is always responsible to the people, but the Minister would still turn to me and say "I cannot deal with anything Senator Killilea would say because I feel he is too cynical". But the cynicism that is in this Bill is cruel, and it is not at the whim of any politician that he included this in the Bill. I am not cynical in saying that to the Minister. I know where that came from: it is not the first time that I have seen it printed. I know the cynicism behind the Bill; I have seen it from the first day and yet the Minister would say that my thoughts are sinister.

The thinking behind that Schedule is not good for democracy. Every man in this land is a free man or, at least, every man in this land should be a free man until he is proved guilty. I despise this type of attitude by any Government. A man's profession is now against him if he wants to serve a section of the community. I think this should be deleted from the Second Schedule. Does the Minister think fit now to reply to that allegation as to why he included it? What have the politicians done wrong? Why are they not entitled to serve the community that have asked them to serve? The people ask the politicians to serve them. It is not all a gangland out in the constituencies. Members of every party do not have to wear the galoshes going around their constituencies. There is no need, no blood running down the road at all. Ninety per cent of the politicians are fine, respectable people who try to do their best under duress on many occasions.

Certainly in this Bill there is the hand of the Minister again. I wish that Senator O'Toole from Mayo were here to hear me say this: this sinister hand of the Minister is blocking a man selected and elected by the people from serving on a board that is and will have to be one of the most important boards in this country. The Minister in two short paragraphs eliminated that particular section of the community. I would like an explanation from the Minister on this point.

Mr. Dolan

I would like to support Senator Killilea in this. All through this Bill there seems to be an attitude of mind aimed at keeping the elected representative off the board. On any board or council, or in any House of the Oireachtas or in any county council or any other board of any kind where public money is involved, it is important that the elected representative would be there and free to voice his opinion and that he would not be inhibited in any way. A public representative is one who has to go before the electorate and seek a mandate in any election. He is a free agent going into these boards independent of any civil servant or anybody sitting around the table of that board. On health boards, regional development organisations and various other places where civil servants and elected representatives are present it is tremendously important for democracy that an elected representative is free to go into those gatherings and voice his opinion independently. Without being personal to the civil servants he can be critical of them knowing that he will not be demoted because of something he says at that board meeting.

This is the very type of thing that could happen on this board. Where somebody's superior is on the board he will be afraid to voice his opinion. That is wrong in such a situation. There is fear running through all this, fear of the public representative, no matter what his qualities are, being free to go in there and to voice his opinion and to say what he thinks and what he feels is best for his own area and for his constituents.

Mr. Clinton

One of the most recent boards set up by Fianna Fáil was Bord na gCapall and the same provision exactly as we have here operates.

Mr. Dolan

There is no comparison.

Mr. Killilea

The Minister has tried to use throughout this Bill comparisons between this and Fianna Fáil Bills. For 16 years we governed this country and we never said in any Bill that a member elected by the people is not entitled to serve on any board.

Mr. Clinton

You did.

Mr. Killilea

Which one?

Mr. Clinton

Bord na gCapall.

Mr. Killilea

No, certainly not.

Mr. Clinton

They are excluded from it.

Mr. Killilea

It was an awful pity that they were not on them. They would be doing very badly if they did not do a better performance than the shower that this Government put on CIE board with their £37 million or £42 million, almost a million a week loss. That is the performance we are talking about. That represents the cynicism in this Bill. Right through this Bill—Senator Dolan put his finger on it—there is a fear. It started in the first section of the Bill when it was obvious that those in An Foras Talúntais had a real fear about every single iota of it. It is obvious now, after we have teased it out that there is a good, logical reason for that fear because that hand of the Minister for Agriculture hangs over it. Far be it from him, but I believe he will rue the day when he sees the annihilation of agriculture as it should be, or as we should be making every effort to have it. He is now working positively and clearly against the rural community, and this is obvious in every word not alone in the Second Schedule but in every single line of this Bill.

After all of this day's performance he has failed to answer an important question. He has dodged that issue by trying to swing it against us in the debate. That is the issue concerning the chairmanship of this board. On that point, it amazes me that a paper which has great circulation amongst the farming community. The Farmers' Journal, has not made much comment on this Bill. They were great prophets of An Foras Talúntais. They were the people who had their pages full of photographs of this place and that place and the details worked out. If the first part of my so-called cynicism, as referred to by the Minister concerns my belief as to who will be chairman, the second part is very clear. I would lay any odds that I will name the two people, either privately or publicly, who are considered for this post and woe betide this country on the day that either of them get it. I wish good luck to the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Business suspended at 6.55 p.m. and resumed at 7.45 p.m.