I should like to ask the Minister a question on section 6 which provides for the dissolution of the National Agricultural Authority established under section 9 of the Act of 1977. I should like to know exactly what is the basic reasoning for this.
Private Business. - Agriculture (An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta) Bill, 1978: Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
The main reason for the abolition of the National Agricultural Authority was, as Senator Connaughton will know, because of the amalgamating of An Foras Talúntais with the authority. The Bill which we are discussing here at the moment restores autonomy to An Foras Talúntais. That is merely the reason why, as far as I can see, it is necessary to do this.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
There are a number of queries here. I notice it is decided to include a reference to basic veterinary research and that investigations, tests, and inquiries and trials arising out of the disease eradication schemes would be operated by the Minister. What exactly has the Minister in mind as far as veterinary research is concerned? Is it to be included in the work of the comhairle or is it to be treated as it has been treated in the past?
It will not be administered under the comhairle but will be handed back to An Foras Talúntais who will be responsible for basic veterinary research.
May we take it that the veterinary laboratories, for instance, will now be under the Agricultural Institute?
No. They will have to get their own premises.
What will be the tie-up between the veterinary laboratories as we now have them and the new research projects that will be carried out under the new comhairle? Where will the liaison be? Are we to have two major factories again?
There would be close liaison between the Department and An Foras Talúntais. We do not envisage any problem in relation to that.
Personally I see a problem and I see also a duplication.
Could the Minister tell the House who has been doing the veterinary research up to now? I take it that it was the Department of Agriculture. Is that correct?
It is done at Hacketstown.
Therefore, no veterinary research had been done by the Agricultural Institute up to now?
They were not allowed to do it.
And now that function is being transferred from the Department of Agriculture to An Foras Talúntais?
That is correct.
And all the facilities and the property that the Department of Agriculture had for this purpose are being transferred to the Agricultural Institute?
No. The property will not be transferred because the Department or the comhairle will need that property.
Does this mean that the various veterinary laboratories which we have in the regions will become part of An Foras Talúntais instead of the Department of Agriculture?
No, they will not. These laboratories carry out diagnostic tests and will continue to do that.
With the back-up facilities for veterinary research now gone from the Department of Agriculture, would it not be more reasonable that this whole function be handed over to the Agricultural Institute and that farmers with those problems should be able to go for diagnosis directly to the people who will have all the facilities for research and possibly offer solutions to the problems?
The Minister cannot hand over his statutory control in relation to these matters.
Surely there is nothing the Minister cannot do when he is introducing a Bill like this. He changes the statutory obligations and that is the purpose of legislation. Why leave such a small wing of veterinary facilities with the Department having taken the most important one from them? I am not against the transfer of veterinary research from the Department to the institute; it is probably the right thing to do.
I wish to offer an indication of my understanding of the position as it will emerge when this Bill is enacted and to offer a comment. This is an area in which I have been involved all my life.
One ought to make a distinction in the veterinary, as in any other area, between research on the one hand and administrative and control activities on the other. Veterinary research taken at its widest—like any other research—ought to exist in many places. You cannot properly restrict it to a single institution. One would be unwise to look for organisational simplicity. Veterinary research goes on, as it has always done, in the universities. Veterinary research goes on in the Department of Agriculture separately but intermeshed with the Department's control duties, such as the regional veterinary laboratories. Veterinary research goes on very properly in the Institute of Agriculture whatever the restrictions in the past, and there have been some unclarities about this. There have been veterinary personnel carrying out research in the institute which was veterinary research. And indeed the best practitioners have always carried on a little research themselves arising out of their practical work from day to day.
The control functions which are exceedingly important and becoming more so must reside in the Department of Agriculture and must be given all the powers of enforcement that a direct Government Department have. The regional veterinary laboratories must stay as part of the Department of Agriculture because their prime function is not a research function but a control function; it is an invigilation function; it is a testing and back-up function. They should certainly do some research as well.
Under this arrangement we will have extensive veterinary research in the Institute of Agriculture which is primarily a research body and that is a proper arrangement. Of course we will always have a large amount of research of a veterinary nature done in the only veterinary faculty now in the country, the faculty of veterinary medicine at UCD. My view about this is that we should never look for an excessive organisational simplicity because research workers are a particular sort of breed. They ought to be bloody-minded. They ought to be individualistic. They ought to be left alone and not be hassled by the considerations of public exigency or by the sort of things that give headaches to Ministers for Agriculture. A fairly complex arrangement as is envisaged is a perfectly reasonable one. For myself, having been involved in both veterinary teaching and administration and in research in veterinary practice all my life, I think that this will work quite well and that we can depend on the good sense of individuals to arrange liaison and not to try to structure too elaborate a liaison which would make the whole thing mechanical. I hope I am being helpful to the Minister. It happens to be an area with which I am familiar and I hope and believe two things: firstly, that research will continue in many different places and, secondly, that the control and administrative laboratories will remain as part of the Department of Agriculture.
I agree with Senator Keating in his observations as to the duties of the regional laboratories. He is a specialist in this field and he has made the case very clear. The laboratories we have at the moment, the regional laboratories, are of a diagnostic nature. They undertake ordinary day-to-day diagnoses of the various diseases. They also have the responsibility for our eradication scheme and they undertake blood sampling. They also provide facilities for shipping our live cattle. I would not like to see, as Senator Keating said, these services being brought into the area of An Foras Talúntais. What I would like to see is a more geographical distribution of regional laboratories. Speaking from the point of view of the west, there is one such laboratory in Athlone and one in Sligo. In Athlone there is only one technician dealing with the laboratory there. I would welcome additional laboratories to meet the everdemanding increase in blood samples that will be forthcoming as a result of the accelerated bovine TB and brucellosis eradication schemes.
I agree with the Senator regarding the importance of the day-to-day diagnostic facilities. These schemes are operated directly by the Department and not by An Foras Talúntais. So it is only reasonable to expect that the necessary facilities would be provided by the Department.
As a farmer I often find it necessary to visit the laboratory in Athlone. While the laboratory performs a very important function from the point of view of giving a wide-ranging service it leaves a lot to be desired. A case in point was a case involving lead poisoning in cattle. The personnel in Athlone were not in a position to deal with it and, consequently, it had to be transferred to Dublin. Three or four days elapsed before the vet and myself were able to get the information we wanted. Whatever the change may be it is very important that vital information be made available as soon as possible in the local area. Therefore, the whole question of those veterinary laboratories at local level is vitally important.
I would also mention that with regard to the whole question of bloodtesting it might well be possible, because of the introduction of the 30-day test, that local centres, certainly more local than Dublin, should be made available for the speedy delivery of the results of those tests to the veterinary surgeon and to farmers. While the laboratories themselves provide an excellent service there are black spots in the scheme. I trust the Minister will take this opportunity to ensure that under the new Bill there will be a better service.
I am not quite clear as to what exactly is being transferred and for that reason I want to address a question to the Minister. My understanding of his reply to Senator Connaughton was that with regard to the transfer of veterinary research from the Department to the Agricultural Institute the research was being transferred but the property was not being transferred. That left the other element—the personnel. Are these being transferred or are some of them being transferred? I felt if a transfer was being made that in the interests of organisational tidiness it would be desirable that the entire responsibility should be under the one control. But then Senator Keating said he thought that the complex situation that would emerge from all this would, perhaps, be the best in the circumstances. My question basically is this: Is the research in its totality being transferred? The property is not being transferred. Are any or all of the personnel at present engaged in veterinary research being transferred?
The Senators seem to be at one in their interpretation of this section. Indeed, Senator Keating in particular, from his vast experience in this area, has been very clear. I only wish I had his experience and vast knowledge in that area and I might be able to explain the position far more easily to the other Senators. The functions of An Foras Talúntais relate to research only. They have no power, nor should they be given power, to operate day-to-day administration of disease law. This is the point that Senator Keating made. Regarding the transfer of buildings and staff, any decision in this regard can be made administratively. That is the position provided for in this section. Any arrangements necessary in respect of the transfer to an foras of departmental staff engaged in veterinary research can be effected administratively without special legislation and the transfer of property, as I say, can be done in the same way.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."
I should like some clarification from the Minister on how he envisages the operations of the Agricultural Institute being financed in the future. I understand that at the moment there is a serious shortage of finance there. The director of the Agricultural Institute has clearly stated that staff will have to be laid off and important work discontinued. What is the policy of the Minister in regard to how the operations of the institute are to be financed in the future? To what extent does the Minister envisage contributions from the industry? I understand that, even from the Department of Agriculture, statements have been made that funds for the financing of work for prosperous sections of agriculture are scarce. What is the view of the Minister on this whole area?
The answer is, of course, that the foras will be financed from the Agriculture Vote as is normal. In fact, they have got more money this year than they did last year. I am sure that that position will continue as the need arises. As well as that, they will be able to collect voluntary contributions from the industry; this has been the position all along and it will continue under this scheme.
Yes, so there is no clear policy as to whether we are to have an extended and strengthened programme of research. The fact that we do not have any more money does not impress anybody. I know the Minister has problems in this area but we should be talking about the level of activity and the numbers employed rather than the question of money. I know that the institute regard themselves as being in serious financial difficulty. We have, at the moment, a haphazard policy in which we have officers in the Agricultural Institute who do not know whether they will be able to finish the experiments they have started, and we have people in employment who do not know whether there is another job coming up when they have finished the one they are doing. I have direct experience of people who say, "I am there for a month but I do not know if there will be any work after that".
We should have a different approach to the whole programme of research and the Department should say, "This is the level of activity we expect from the Agricultural Institute over the next two years and this is the sort of money that will be available", so that programmes can be planned in advance and a proper financing programme can be planned by the institute. We should know what percentage is expected from the various industries. I know that they are being financed by different interest groups. On the one hand, the institute is giving a service which should go through the Department of Agriculture to the advisory services; on the other hand, the various branches of the industry are giving a service and farmers involved in their voluntary organisations are saying to the institute, "I am chairman of this committee, or that, and we are paying so much money". Where does the institute stand? To whom is it answerable? I know the Minister will say that the situation is as it was; that there is no change. There is an extremely hazy area there as to the obligations of the institute to the people who finance them and the intention of the Department for the financing of the services that the institute gives in the long term.
My impression is that the attitude in the Department of Agriculture is that the dairying industry and the pigs and bacon industry are now sufficiently prosperous to finance the research. This leads to the situation where the institute can prepare for themselves a proper plan for the future. A plan for the next year is no use, we must be talking about a plan for the next five years.
An Foras have been given £8 million this year plus the income from the industry. If it can be shown that there is a need for additional funds to allow them to continue their research then that money will have to be found. However, we have no control over the contributions that the industry will make to the institute. It is up to the institute to fight their own case and try to get as much as they can from the industry. The Department of Agriculture give the institute a grant every year; this year it amounts to £8 million. As I said, if the institute can show that they need additional funds next year, or whatever year, then that will have to be found for them.
Could the Minister please tell us how much it was last year and how much he expects it to be next year?
Before the Minister answers, I want to say that there is provision made under the Bill for borrowing facilities. That can be done on the deeds of the various properties and assets in the hands of An Foras Talúntais. I do not think there is any reason to believe, as the Senator has said, that any experimental programme carried out to date by An Foras Talúntais had to be abandoned as a result of financial embarrassment. I wonder if the Senator has in mind any particular research programme that had to be abandoned as a result of moneys not being forthcoming. The Bill will give, under section 21, more power to borrow than An Foras Talúntais had heretofore. They have the power to borrow and will be able to carry out any programme. I do not think that research programmes will be interrupted as a result of financial embarrassment.
First of all, regarding the ability of An Foras Talúntais to borrow on the strength of its assets as here in the Bill, I could not see any financial institution falling over backwards to get involved in that.
The Senator would agree though——
I do not think that is an important factor at all. I do not think that will add one iota of finance to the project, one way or the other. I know a certain research station in the west where many of the projects that they have been working on would not have been possible were it not for the involvement of local commercial enterprise by way of financial grants and so on to the institute at that particular time. That, indeed, is not a bad thing but if that particular finance had not been made available we would be lacking in that particular development now. So, as far as the overall finance is concerned, my reading of it is that the Agricultural Institute is not financed nearly enough. It is not a problem related to this Government at all, indeed it goes back for years. I would say from what I can gather that, in the future, the greater share of financial responsibility for research will rest with farmers themselves.
Senator McCartin asked me what was last year's Exchequer grant to An Foras Talúntais. The amount was £7,354,000. This year, as I said, it is £8 million. Of course, that will have to be increased next year, to take account of the national wages understanding, if that is adopted. That is the position as far as the capital grant to An Foras Talúntais are concerned.
I can see there that we are carrying on basically the same level of research, assuming that the institute get the same amount of money, or a similar increase from the industry. I am not interested in a percentage or two here or there. What I am interested in is whether or not the Minister envisages the same procedure for the future financing of the institute. In some cases where the industry has offered funds and applications were made for money to match these, this money was not given and the answer was that the industry could finance whatever research they wished to have undertaken.
I think it would be much better if the Minister would give a clear commitment. After all, the turn-over of money and the approach of the industry change from year to year and it would be better if the Minister would be prepared to give an undertaking that he would match, at a particular level, the money being made available by the industry, that whatever the various sections of the agricultural industry made available would be matched in particular proportions by the Department of Agriculture. I do not see much relief coming except perhaps in the short-term, or to get over an immediate crisis where an important experiment is hung up for want of funds that it might be possible to borrow. In the end, people borrow money if they can project their cash flows and their profits and they pay it back according to a particular timetable.
It is different with the Agricultural Institute. They are not going to be making any profit. They are not going to project any increased income as a result of money borrowed, so their facility to borrow money will not improve their position much except, as I say, in the shortterm, or in an emergency situation. I think the Minister should have clearly in his mind some policy for the financing of research. The institute, the agricultural industry and the Department should know for the years ahead what is the position.
The present position is that nobody honestly knows what is the commitment of the Department of Agriculture, or the Minister for Finance, in relation to the carrying out of this important research. I should like to see a situation develop where everybody knew, for the years ahead, where he stood and the institute could sit down with the representatives of farmers' organisations and people involved and say, "This is our programme; this is what we are getting from the Department of Finance and the Minister for Agriculture and this is what we want from you." Until we work out something along these lines the best use, in the first place, will not be made of the money available because we are leaving out an important element of programming and planning and, in the second place, the industry will not know what amount of money it must find and provide to carry out the programme of research that is necessary to meet the needs of the industry. All these things which have been hazy over a number of years should be clarified at the moment. I am not blaming the present Minister of State, or the Minister for Agriculture, but at a time like this, when legislation is being prepared and the Minister has made some provision in the Bill for financing, we should clarify the whole position for the benefit of the three elements involved—the Department, the farmers and the people doing the research work.
I rise to add my voice to that of Senator McCartin. I do not think we can expect clarification now in detail, but this is an appropriate place, on this Bill and on a section of the Bill that at least indirectly relates to money, to put the following plea. Nobody asks the State to commit moneys open-endedly to veterinary research, or any other research. Veterinary research can be horrendously expensive; those doing it believe, very naturally and properly, that it is exceedingly important and they would like to have endless moneys but looking at it from the taxpayers' and the State's point of view it cannot be unlimited. It is important, first, to fund it well and, secondly, to fund it efficiently; in other words, that you get the largest possible returns.
You cannot make a balance sheet about research but, nonetheless, you should get very efficient use of the money. I think there are three things that can be looked at as sources of money. First, I believe the plea that we heard just now for some open public long-term planning is very important. Perhaps at another stage, possibly on annual Estimates, the Minister should take the opportunity to discuss the long-term financing of the Institute of Agriculture and to discuss the different components of it. It is important for the institute and for their users to know what their budget is going to be like. Their users are not just farmers but are the ever more important agricultural processing industries whose interests are not quite identical with those of the farmers. We must, therefore, legitimately ask for some longer than annual projections, perhaps five-year projections, of what the State could reasonably expect to give.
Also—and this coming from me may surprise people—I believe farmers, like anybody else, value what they pay for. Certainly when I was responsible for the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards I encouraged the IIRS to get part of their funding from selling services to industry at cost price and not make a profit out of them, but where you have certain very sophisticated measurement and testing mechanisms and nobody else can do the work, do it and charge for it. I should like to see the Institute for Agriculture charging for certain things in quite an organised way and getting some revenue that way.
I should like to see the idea of matching £ for £ with industry. I think that industry needs specific research —the food industry, the dairy industry. We could elaborate on that. They would like to see it done; they would be willing to make a financial contribution to it but, perhaps, the full charge would be too much to ask them to pay. Since we are currently paying something like £100 per farmer to veterinary research in Ireland we cannot ask the State for open-ended finance and we cannot ask industry to carry the whole bill. I think the £ for £ idea over a five-year profile is a very good one. If we are to encourage some contribution from farmers—and I believe there ought to be, through a charging system—and if we are to encourage a strong contribution from the State of a planned or detailed kind, forward arrangements can be made and if we are to encourage a reasonable contribution from the agricultural industry, or the food processing industry—and that we ought to do as well—then the debate has to be carried on in public and it has to be carried on over more than on a one-year basis—it ought to be a five-year basis, or something like that.
I do not expect the Minister to answer me now, but this seems an appropriate place to say it and to put it on to the record of the Oireachtas. I believe that sort of thing is necessary and that the people in the institute would like it. I believe it would improve the cash return for the moneys we spend in the research area and would improve the openness and democracy of it. I think it was time it was faced up to.
I would love to be able to give the commitment asked for by Senator McCartin but, indeed, as Senator Keating has so rightly pointed out, it would be impossible for me to do that on an occasion like this because there is the involvement of another Minister, the Minister for Finance. For that reason it would be impossible for the Minister for Agriculture to give any commitment as regards the financing of An Foras Talúntais. Everybody is fully aware now of the need for the very important research that is being carried out by An Foras Talúntais and certainly if it is shown that they are in need of additional funds to continue this research I am sure whichever Minister is here will be only too glad to make that money available to them. I think it is very important that they would have that finance available. That is as far as I can go on this occasion; these things have to be vetted at budget time and the Minister for Finance is really the man who will be paying for the lot of it in the long-term.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 22 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Question proposed: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."
Whilst I agree with the Minister that the rural organisations are entitled to representation on committees of agriculture, I feel that we are being a bit generous in allocating this percentage of seats to those bodies. They would have been doing very well if they had got 25 per cent of the seats and let the elected members have the remainder.
Many people in rural Ireland would love to become county councillors and members of committees of agriculture if they could do so without having to go before the public. It is becoming more difficult for all political parties to get people to stand for election. You approach people who you feel would be very good councillors or members of a committee of agriculture and if you ask them to stand for election they will tell you, "Ah, we would love to, but we would not have time to go around for a month canvassing for that purpose". The people who stick their necks out, put their names forward for election as county councillors and go around for a month or six weeks canvassing, are entitled to a greater share of the seats on the committees of agriculture.
The Minister is much more generous to the voluntary organisations than the voluntary organisations are to the politicians. There is a very old organisation in this country which is known as The Beet and Vegetable Growers' Association and which was established, I think, away back in 1930. From its formation up to the present day, politicians were members of the four different boards and of the council of the association. Elections are now taking place for new boards and under their new rules politicians at all levels, from Oireachtas level down to members of urban councils and town commissioners, are no longer eligible to be members of the association. By bringing in that rule they have automatically debarred people who have been members of the Dáil and the Seanad for many years and also people who were ordinary members of county councils. If they expect to get people on to the committees of agriculture politicians should also be allowed to remain on those boards.
In the past, county councils have abused their privilege of selecting people for the committees of agriculture. In several counties we have seen people appointed as members of committees of agriculture who knew little or nothing about farming. At least under the new Bill this may not occur again. I do not know whether or not the Minister could write this into his Bill; it is the problem of the winner taking all, where one political party get the majority on a county council, say by one vote, by one extra member, and they automatically take all the seats on the committee of agriculture. I want to make it clear that I am not blaming Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, because both parties are equally guilty. I could name half a dozen counties where this has happened in the past.
In some counties you have no Fianna Fáil people on the committee of agriculture; in other counties it is the reverse, you have no Fine Gael. I do not think that is right or proper. The number of seats on a committee of agriculture should be allocated in proportion to the number of seats that party won on the county council. Even at this late stage if something like that could be brought into the Bill we would be doing a good day's work for agriculture.
I certainly find myself in agreement with the Opposition Senator on his last point. There is no doubt that the type of activity that has been indulged in in the past and the type of personnel who have found themselves to be members of certain committees of agriculture—people who knew little about agriculture because some of them had not hand, act or part in it—has been notorious. It is a good thing for agriculture, generally, that people who are involved in rural organisations are people who earn their livelihood from the day-to-day business of farming; they have to provide for themselves and their families from the land. They are in the best position, most of the time at least, to ordain what might happen to the future of agriculture in their respective counties. This Part of the Bill is correct in giving them that opportunity.
On the question of the information of committees of agriculture and the proportion of Fine Gael to Fianna Fáil people, one would hope that, while it is not written in the Bill, there would be an unwritten rule from the local elections of this year forward, that all parties, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Labour, would be represented on the various committees in proportion to the seats they got. In so far as the Bill is concerned, and in so far as the per cent of people from the IFA, Macra na Feirme, creamery suppliers associations and so on, is concerned, I certainly think it is a step in the right direction.
I feel, also, that there is a place for rural organisations on the committees of agriculture. On the other hand, I know that this presents a difficulty for the Minister. There is no guarantee in this section that we are going to get on the committees of agriculture people with any wider knowledge or experience of agriculture than we got under the old system. The definition, under the Bill, of a person who may be eligible, does not satisfy me that it guarantees the appointment of a suitable person. It says:
by reason of his attainment in the practice of farming, the development of agriculture, the promotion of agricultural or rural home advice or education or by reason of a practical, commercial or technical knowledge of agriculture or a special local knowledge of agriculture matters.
That is so broad that no person who ever lived in rural Ireland could be excluded from membership of a committee of agriculture on the grounds that he or she did not qualify under one of those descriptions. It is far too open.
I do not know who, eventually, will say, "This person is not qualified". Will there be a returning officer? Is the CAO the person who will advise the Minister or say to him "This person qualifies or does not qualify"? Seeing that we are changing the situation we should seek to ensure that the representatives on the committees of agriculture will be people with practical knowledge and experience of agriculture. We all know what that means. I do not think you will find anybody excluded from the committee of agriculture on the grounds that he did not qualify under this section. I could not imagine any person who ever lived in this country failing to qualify. I think substantial experience or substantial knowledge of agriculture should be demanded. I do not profess to know how to draft a legal document in such a way that it will stand up, but we should require a substantial knowledge of agriculture; such people are to be found within the voluntary organisations. Do not forget, we have politicians and manoeuvrers in those organisations, too, finding their way into chairs and representing their organisations, who have very little of the sort of expertise that we are looking for on a committee of agriculture. I would ask the Minister to have a look at how this section could be improved with a view to ensuring that we get some guarantees under the section which we did not have in the past.
I am totally in agreement with the sentiments expressed by Senator W. Ryan in connection with the appointment of the personnel of the committees. I do not agree with him that there is any discrimination down in Mayo. While we in Mayo have a majority on my side of the House we have given equal representation according to the elected members of the political parties, Independents and otherwise——
It is a pity the Senator did not come to Galway.
——on the committee of agriculture. The old system in Mayo has worked very well over the years and we regard ourselves as one of the top committees of agriculture in Ireland. We have proved that on many an occasion in the way we have researched the various Bills and modernisation schemes as they came to us. If elected members of a council who have a mandate from the people do not go on to a committee of agriculture themselves and recommend to their political party a nominee to represent them on that committee, it behoves those representatives to select a very responsible member who will make a contribution.
Senator McCartin mentioned qualification but qualification really means nothing. The contribution made by a member of the committee is very essential. It may be a good or a bad thing that 40 per cent will now be allocated, but I can assure the House that there are a lot of self-appointed jumped-up individuals in rural organisations. This has been referred to on the other side of the House. If they ever get into the committees of agriculture they will take control, but I have no doubt that there are sufficient heavy gang men in there elected by the people who will be able to take care of that.
One is not only debarred from the Beet Growers' Association. Many years ago I attended a meeting of the IFA. It was mostly a reconnaisance flight to see what was happening there, but I was politely told I could not attend the next meeting because I was a member of a political party and had political affiliations. I could not get in to the next meeting to listen or even to make a contribution. Senator Ryan is right when he says that we are debarred as politicians from attending meetings of rural organisations and making any contributions to the working of such organisations as the IFA, the Beet Growers' Association, the ICMSA and various others. We are offering them 40 per cent. All I can hope is that they will be selective in the people they will be nominating to our committees in the future. We have only to wait and see what contribution they will make to the running of the committees of agriculture.
While there may be people who got on to committees in the past through various forms of political selection, in our county at any rate I am quite satisfied with the calibre of members, and they are drawn from every rural organisation throughout the county. If one has the opportunity of selecting a member, one must try to select a responsible citizen who will make some contribution to agricultural development in this county. He need not be a member of a rural organisation to make a worthwhile contribution to a committee of agriculture. There are good farmers who have proved themselves on very poor land in various areas and that type of individual is eligible and should make a good contribution. I hope that the rural organisation will measure up to that standard in the future.
All I can say is that it would be impossible to go any further than this section goes at present. The figure given for the composition of the county committees of agriculture is the same as in the 1977 Act. When Deputy Clinton, then Minister for Agriculture, was bringing in the Bill in 1977 he proposed a 50:50 representation. It was only after representations from the various political parties, including strong representations from his own party, that he changed that to 60:40. That is what is happening in this Bill. It would be impossible to go any further. The section as outlined is merely tidying up and making the section easier to administer. I know there are great discrepancies from county to county, and that will continue as long as there are political organisations and political persons involved in the running and in the composition of those committees of agriculture. As has been pointed out this evening, all political parties are guilty of this; it is not just from one county. Where the Fianna Fáil representatives have a majority they take a majority of the seats on that committee; and vice versa where Fine Gael have the majority. We are all guilty of misconduct in that regard. The section as outlined here is adequate and it should be accepted.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment. Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.