I gave notice that I was opposing this entire section. On the Second Reading, the Minister gave three reasons for the introduction of this measure. I readily admit that the Minister's accommodating attitude right through would almost disarm many of the objections to the Bill. Deputy O'Reilly, in his speech on the Second Reading, said that he was against centralising power and giving too much power to the Minister, unless it was absolutely necessary. Deputy Allen, too, to-day said it was only a bad mind which would read suspicion into the actions under the Bill. The three sub-sections involved are (1), (2) and (3), which read:—
(1) If and whenever—
the Minister may by Order dissolve such committee and, as he may think fit, either order a new appointment to be made, by the council of such county, of members of such committee or transfer the property and the several powers and duties of such committee to any body or person or persons.
(2) Whenever the Minister makes an Order under this section dissolving a committee of agriculture, he may appoint such and so many persons as he shall think fit to perform the duties of such committee, and may from time to time remove all or any such persons and appoint others in their place, and may fix the tenure of office, duties and remuneration (if any) of all such persons.
(3) The remuneration of all persons appointed under the foregoing sub-section to perform the duties of a committee of agriculture for a county shall be paid out of the moneys raised by means of the agricultural rate by the council of that county.
In other words, the county must find the money to pay the newly-appointed commissioner, or whatever title will be applied to him, who is to carry out the committee's functions. There are some Deputies who may not regard those as dictatorial powers, and who may think they are necessary, but, if they take up that attitude, they will have to give a much better reason that has been advanced here.
I do not like to use strong language, but I must say that the three points set out by the Minister are to me simply nonsensical. His first point was that something similar is incorporated in the Local Government Act. I think I should apologise for using the term "local government," because in this connection it is a travesty of language —but that is by the way. There is no analogy between the functions under the Local Government Act and the functions of a committee of agriculture. You must remember that the Minister for Local Government is responsible for the welfare of the afflicted, the upkeep of mental hospitals, for boards of assistance, and for hospital treatment. No sane man will deny the Minister for Local Government the power necessary to deal with local authorities that do not provide adequately for the services for which they are primarily responsible. I agree that the Minister for Local Government should have that power.
The second point mentioned by the Minister was that a committee of agriculture might refuse to obey a mandamus order or any court order. Is there any substance in that? Anything the Minister said in that respect was not very convincing. I do not know how an order of the court would be necessary, or in what way the committee could transgress so as to invite court action. Even if it were possible that the court might intervene, the committee could be held up for contempt of court.
The third reason advanced by the Minister was that the committee might not submit accounts for audits. Has the Minister forgotten that the secretaries of county committees are in responsible positions, and what official will jeopardise his position by refusing to carry out an order? There is no substance in the Minister's arguments.
The Minister stated that he had come to an arrangement with other Ministers so that they might co-ordinate services and have the administration running smoothly. What analogy is there? Has the Minister ascertained what a committee of agriculture is? Listening to the debate, I frequently wondered if Deputies realised that these committees are created by local authorities and are financed to the extent of 50 per cent. from local and 50 per cent. from national funds. Their one object is to increase productivity, and they never bother their heads about political conflicts. Their main anxiety is to put our premier industry, agriculture, on the map; to do the best they can for it, and to see that there is immediate benefit in their own localities. What man would be prepared to face the odium and contempt of his fellows in his own area by trying to deprive them of the expenditure of £50,000 or £70,000?
This whole debate is unreal, and there is absolutely no justification for arbitrary powers to deal with committees of agriculture. All the arguments put forward here by the Minister and his supporters are hypothetical. Those things may never arise. He said to-day:
"I know of no committee that is not deserving of commendation; every one of them is functioning perfectly."
In such circumstances, what is the meaning of this proposal? There is no body of men in Ireland to-day, whether we take the Government, the county councils, or professional men, to whom the welfare of the country means more than the committees of agriculture. They are the backbone, the spearhead, of the national food drive. They are the men who see that the Government's schemes are carried out. The Government create the schemes, and high technical officials may lay down the plans, but the men who put them into operation, who breathe life into them, are the members of the committees.
In the crisis through which we are passing it is not so difficult to conceive a scheme calculated to benefit the community. The really difficult part is putting that scheme into operation. In this critical period of our country's history, instead of casting reflections, indirect though they may be, on those committees, they should be entitled to our greatest consideration and latitude. You are suggesting in this section that they will take up a certain attitude. I have an intimate association with members of these committees and I have asked myself time and again in what way can they offend. The Minister cannot give any indication. These committees are created by the county councils, they are composed of people representing all sections, and they include the best brains of each county. The outstanding citizens are co-opted on them. Various schemes are given to them to administer and these schemes are financed by the Government and the county councils. In what way can they offend? If they are not carrying out schemes in accordance with the wishes of those who promote them, an inspector can make investigations; the Government's 50 per cent. contribution is always conditional on the scheme being fully availed of, and the Minister has power to withdraw the grant. The same applies to the county council. Our experience is that we are never able to give those committees sufficient money to operate schemes to the extent that might be desired.
I have studied this matter closely, and I cannot see any justification for this measure. I suggest it is an unwarranted and provocative attack on a most important body of men. These men are not taking advantages of their position to carry on political activities. They are mainly interested in their own areas, in horse schemes, bull schemes, pig schemes, wheat and rye schemes. There is no digression into anything of a nature that could be considered political. The Minister has been challenged to indicate in what direction could the committees offend. I ask him to point to any committee that has done anything other than devote its attention to furthering schemes for the benefit of the people. They are looking after the best interests of their areas.
Undoubtedly, when there was an effort to force some schemes on the country, the local committees, with a perfect knowledge of their own interests, and exercising a better judgment than the technical experts, ventured to give their opinions and to criticise Ministerial action. Their attitude in relation to certain schemes has since been justified. Some of the schemes that they criticised have failed. In criticising those schemes they were, I suggest, merely exercising their functions. The Minister has his technical experts on whom he can rely for advice, but I suggest that he is very fortunate in having on those committees intelligent men who have a perfect knowledge of their areas and who know what they are talking about. They have to operate the schemes and it is a good thing for the Minister to have those men in a position to criticise and offer helpful suggestions. I know that, possibly, something was said that might not have been said, but I am not dealing with that.
The Minister gave a very weak reason for the inclusion of this power when he said that he was relying on the fact that a similar power was taken in the Local Government Act. There is no analogy at all between the Local Government Act and these committees. Every sensible man is prepared to support the Minister in seeing that necessary public services are properly looked after. Here we have an entirely different position. The county committee of agriculture is a voluntary body created by the local authority and financed by the National Government and out of the rates. Its only function is to help to improve agricultural productivity, to encourage and develop schemes that possibly have been conceived by the experts in the Minister's Department. The Minister, in his speeches on the previous occasion as well as to night, said nothing that could justify the inclusion of these mandatory sections in the Bill. It is all very well for him to say that he will not use this power and to give an assurance to that effect, but as a general principle I am not in favour of giving power to a Government that it is not absolutely necessary for it to have. To give a Government unnecessary powers is bad for the Government and worse for the people because in extreme cases it may be used. If you ever use it you will regret it more than any of the committees that you suppress. You have given no reason whatever for the inclusion of these mandatory sections.