Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Dec 1943

Vol. 92 No. 4

Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1943—Committee.

Section 1 put and agreed to.
SECTION 2

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), line 15, after the word "locomotion" to insert the words "and subsistence".

My reasons for this amendment were given by me on the Second Stage and I have not much to add to what I said then. Under the sub-section as it stands, no subsistence allowance could be granted to a member of a committee. Cork is a very big county and, in order to attend a meeting of the committee, some members have to leave their homes the day before. In addition to that, I am anxious, and I am sure the Minister is also anxious, that the members of a committee of agriculture should be experienced agriculturists, and we do not want to have men travelling 40 miles to a meeting and 40 miles home after attending a meeting all day without even getting a meal. Therefore I think it is reasonable that they should be allowed subsistence allowance and that is why I move the amendment.

I think the case made by Deputy Corry arises out of the emergency, because I take it that, in normal times and with normal travelling facilities, a member of any committee would be able to get to the county town and back on the same day, and there would not, therefore, be the same point in looking for subsistence allowance. In regard to this point and other points raised in connection with this Bill, I am not prepared to put into the Bill anything that would be substantially different from the Local Government Act or the Vocational Education Bill. In other words, the members of a county committee of agriculture will have to get the same treatment that county councillors and members of vocational education committees are getting. I think that Deputy Corry's point would be met better if he were to put it to the Minister for Local Government. The Minister for Local Government might consider the making of a regulation of some sort to cover the case of people who have to stay out at night owing to inadequate travelling facilities at the moment; but I would not consent to put it into a Bill and make it a permanent provision.

The position is that when the Local Government Bill was introduced here we were not fully aware of the provisions of the Bill, and I admit that we did not make the provision that should be made. If we have to wait for new legislation to be brought in, or something of that kind, we may have to wait for years. We are going to have a committee of agriculture which some of our most valued members will not attend. After all, there is very little use in having a committee of agriculture if it is not a good committee. I think the Minister will also admit that. I do not think I am looking for anything unreasonable. I wonder could the Minister see his way to meet the amendment in regard to that point.

I am not opposed to the idea, but I think it is a matter that should come, in the first instance, from the Minister for Local Government. If the Minister for Local Government were to consider an Emergency Powers Order to cover this, I would certainly see no objection to it. As far as I have examined it, I would agree with the Minister for Local Government in making such an Order.

If it was inserted here it would help in getting the matter rectified by the Minister for Local Government.

I do not think it ought to be inserted here. If it were tried for the emergency it could then be considered whether it would be made a permanent provision or not.

What would be the objection to making it a permanent provision? I am taking the position of men who have to travel 40 or 50 miles to attend a meeting of perhaps four or five hours' duration. It is enough for them to lose their day in the service of the State without having to provide for themselves.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 4 goes with it, because the same point arises.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (1), line 15, to delete all words after the word "incurred" to the end of the sub-section and substitute the following:—

(a) by each of its members in travelling to and from meetings of such committee held after the 30th day of June, 1943, and

(b) by a member of a sub-committee of such committee in travelling to and from meetings of such sub-committee held after the 30th day of June, 1943.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 go together. Amendment No. 2 was to cover an omission in the original Bill, that is, to provide for travelling expenses on the same scales for attendance at subcommittees of the committee of agriculture. There are such sub-committees at times and, unless this amendment were inserted, no travelling expenses could be allowed. It is on the same lines, of course, as the expenses paid to members attending the full committee, the only difference being that the sub-committee must be appointed by the committee of agriculture and be approved by the Minister for this particular purpose, in regard to expenses.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:—

To delete sub-section (2).

I see no reason whatever for this sub-section. I have examined it carefully since the Second Reading and I find that civil servants are getting locomotion expenses. I see no reason to expect anybody to travel five miles to a meeting or five miles back, entirely at his own expense.

As I already mentioned, there are many provisions in this Bill that are already in the Local Government Act and that Act, of course, contains something like 40 to 50 sections which were very fully discussed in the Dáil. The Minister for Education and I are introducing Bills to bring our legislation into line with Local Government legislation on this matter of expenses, retiring ages, and so on, of officials and members of county committees of agriculture. This is another thing that I think it unwise to change or to make different from the provisions in the Local Government Act. If we were to delete this sub-section, the position would be that a man who is a member of the county council and also a member of the county committee of agriculture, who lives, say, four miles from the town, would be paid his expenses in attending the committee of agriculture, but would have to attend the county council without getting any expenses. It is very hard to justify that. My experience of the country is that persons living within six or seven miles of a town visit that town very frequently; they go to fairs and markets and have some means of locomotion that they are accustomed to using, either their own pony and trap or a bus passing the door, or a bicycle. Whatever it may be, they get there very frequently, and without very much expense. Even if they travel by bus, the amount is very small, probably about 1/- there and back, if the distance is four miles. I think it is unreasonable to move to have this sub-section deleted.

There is no use in referring to the Local Government Act in this connection. Two wrongs never made a right. The fact that the House at that time, when they were fighting larger issues, did not realise the importance of these things, is no reason why we should allow them to remain for ever. If they travel by bus, they have to pay for the bus; if they travel by bicycle, they wear tyres that they cannot replace; if they travel by pony and trap, they wear shoes that are very dear at present. No matter what locomotion they use, it is at their own expense, and I think that is wrong on the face of it. As I stated already, the officials are paid for distances under five miles. I see no reason why the same thing should not apply to the members.

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Question:—"That the sub-section stand"—put and declared carried.

Amendment No. 4 depends on amendment No. 1. Subsistence allowance again arises.

I move amendment No. 4:—

To add at the end of sub-section (3), line 25, the words "together with reasonable subsistence allowance and shall not in any case be less than the travelling and subsistence allowance granted to higher grade civil servants".

In moving this amendment, I wish to point out, as I pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill, that I can see no reason whatever for the degrading of the elected representatives of the people. I do not think I am looking for too much in asking to have the self-same conditions applied as regards the members, the elected representatives of the people, as are applied to their servants, the officials. The sole hesitation I have in moving these amendments at all is that my views in that matter were supported by a Deputy who is not like us poor mortals of common earth at all, who, I may say, is the champion windbag of this House. I freely admit that in his support of my proposals he interlarded any amount of offensive adjectives about me, but I do not expect anything better——

This is not the time to reply to something said by another Deputy on another occasion.

It is a reply to a speech made on the Second Reading of this Bill.

And therefore not in order in Committee.

I did not expect anything better from a well-educated, scurrilous buffoon like Deputy James Dillon.

The Deputy will have to resume his seat for using such language as "scurrilous buffoon".

I ask the Ceann Comhairle what word I used which is not parliamentary?

"Buffoon" is unparliamentary.

With all respect to the Ceann Comhairle, "buffoon" was used in this House on two occasions towards me by the two so-called gentlemen on the Front Benches and they were not asked to withdraw. Do I understand from the Ceann Comhairle now that there are certain expressions that can be used towards one Deputy in this House that cannot be used towards another?

There are no exceptions.

Very well. I am not withdrawing anything.

The Deputy must now resume his seat. Is he pressing his amendment?

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 54.

  • Beirne, John.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Cafferky, Dominick.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Connolly, Roderick J.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Heskin, Denis.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Hughes, James.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • Meighan, John J.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donnell, William F.
  • O'Driscoll, Patrick F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Spring, Daniel.
  • Stapleton, Richard.
  • Tunney, James.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard S.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnach, Cormao.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Byrne, Christopher M.
  • Cole, John J.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Kilroy, Seamus.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Cléirigh, Mícheál.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Crowley, Fred H.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Daly, Francis J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Fitzgerald, Séamus.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Friel, John.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Healy, John B.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Skinner, Leo B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Cogan and Corry; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 5:—

To insert before sub-section (4) the following sub-section:—

(4) No person shall be paid under this section expenses in respect of a meeting of a sub-committee of a committee of agriculture unless the Minister, on the application of that committee, authorises the payment, under this section, of expenses to members of that sub-committee.

Is this amendment not consequential on amendment No. 2?

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 6, to Section 3.

Before we pass on to that, Sir, might I ask the Minister what was his reason for putting in amendment No. 5?

The meaning is obvious. Sub-committees are appointed by the county committees for this purpose. It is only where expenses are claimed that sanction of the Minister is required.

SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. 6:—

In sub-section (3), page 3—

(a) in line 27, to delete the words "to the public";

(b) in lines 29 and 30 to delete the words "members of committees of agriculture" and substitute the word "his".

When this issue was raised Deputy Hughes referred to it. I am going in one direction and he is going in an opposite direction. I am making it clear that an exception can be made for an individual. Deputy Hughes wants to copper-fasten the section so that exception can only be made where it is of general application. In my opening statement on Second Reading I went into this matter in some detail, and also at the conclusion I explained that we have two types of cases in mind. Number one case is of general application, where there is no competition whatever between one applicant and another. I could give no better example than the lime scheme, under which every farmer is supplied under ordinary conditions. There were places where lime was scarce, but generally speaking, every farmer got the quantity that he applied for. Therefore, no favour was shown to any particular person. If a member of a county committee applied for lime he did not deprive anybody else of it. In a case like that, there is no point at all in depriving a member of a county committee of the benefit of the scheme. An order would, therefore, be made granting exemption in the lime scheme. On the other hand, where-ever there is competition amongst farmers, it is not my intention—and I am sure it is not the intention of any other Minister—to make members eligible for benefit, as in the premium bull scheme, where very often there are four or five applicants in an area, only one of whom can get the bull. In that case it would be unfair to the area if a member of the county committee should get it. Even though he might be considered by the Department, by the committee and by the county council to be the best applicant, yet his opponents would believe that he had an unfair advantage on the committee. We have also had cases in the Department from time to time, where a member had a premium bull for a year, and expected to get three more premiums. That man paid a fair price for the animal. He borrowed the money from the Department, expecting to be able to pay back the loan by getting further premiums. He was considered to be a very desirable person to be a member of the county committee of agriculture and was asked by the county council to go on that committee. He is prepared to do so but cannot afford to lose the premiums. That is a case where exception might be granted. That would not be the general intention but would concern a particular exemption.

Take a case where a wife or daughter had a poultry station, and where the husband or father is asked to go on the county committee of agriculture. It may be in the middle of the hatching season or in the production season for eggs, and the person concerned may not be willing to lose any benefit that might accrue to the station for that particular year. If the amendment were to be accepted, it would be a question whether, in a case like that, we should say: "Well, the Minister is prepared to grant exemptions for this year, or for this year and next year." I do not think any Minister would say that exemption would apply for all time, and neither would he say that when the term came to an end that particular member should get another bull. It would only apply to the animal that he already had, or, in the case of a poultry station, to the season. These are the cases I have in mind. That is the idea behind these amendments.

The first part of the amendment, to delete the words "to the public", is put in because it is not altogether correct to say that every scheme applies to the public. There are certain schemes administered by county committees of agriculture in which they confine benefit to people making their living by agriculture. For instance, demonstration plots is one case in which committees make it a condition that they will be given only to agricultural labourers or to farmers who make a living by agriculture. That is not the public. That is a class. If you like, this is a drafting amendment. The second part (b) moving to delete the words "members of committees of agriculture" and to substitute the word "his" might be held to mean, as the section stands, that if I were to make exemption, a man elected to the county committee of agriculture would continue to get a premium for a bull. I am not sure, but it might be held in the courts that every holder of a premium was entitled to be a member of a county committee of agriculture, or that every member of such a committee was entitled to have a premium bull. The wording is to make sure that if an exception is made it will have a restricted application.

I just want to ask one question with regard to scholarship schemes operated by county committees. Will the sons and daughters of members of county committees of agriculture be entitled to apply for scholarships?

I think that even under the present law they could qualify for scholarships, and if this amendment were passed it would be perfectly clear that they could. There is just one point that I should like to mention. Deputies will notice a reference in the section to a member "or his partner". "Partner" includes his wife or dependent relative. If his daughter had a poultry station, in that case she would come under the definition of "partner".

Suppose the daughter were married and had a station of her own?

That is different. In the same way a brother or sister, if they are not living with him, would not come under this at all.

Are we discussing the two amendments together?

They hang together.

I think it would be of advantage to the House if they were taken together. My amendment reads:

In sub-section (3) (a), line 28, before the word "if" to insert the following words: "the application of which is of general benefit and not particular to individuals".

I agree with the Minister up to a point, as I stated on the Second Reading. There may be hardships involved for members of a committee in regard to schemes which are of general benefit or of general application. We would, I think, be quite safe in granting a member the right to benefit by schemes whose application is general and where no question of favouritism is involved but we should guard against any danger that a suspicion of corruption might arise in the public mind. I think that, even at the risk of keeping a good member from coming on the committee, we should guard against any suspicion of that kind. If we are concerned about clean administration in the country, I think we should maintain the present safeguards even if it means keeping a man who has a premium for a bull off the committee. There is always the danger of the public being suspicious about exemptions of this sort. I do not think the Minister has made a case for the amendment because there is no question of real hardship involved. It is quite a different matter where you have a committee in existence and where a member is allowed to participate in schemes such as the lime scheme, which is of universal application.

Where, however, there is a scheme which has a particular application, even where a member is coming on the committee for the time being and may be debarred because he happens to hold a premium for a bull, we should remember that in all probability he will be an applicant for the renewal of that premium for the purchase of a new animal. I do not see that any great purpose will be served by exempting him for a year or so. The same remarks would apply in the case of a person who has a poultry station. Where there is a poultry station in existence, it is likely to be continued in existence for a much longer period than a year or two, which is the period the Minister mentioned. That is not a type of exemption that is going to serve any useful purpose in the long run. There is always the risk that the public will become suspicious about such schemes and in our legislation we ought to place all public schemes above suspicion of any kind. There may, as I say, be certain hardships involved but I think we shall have to endure these in order to ensure clean local administration. You will get plenty of men who are prepared to forgo any benefits in order to serve on county committees. In order to preserve clean administration, in my opinion we should not make any exceptions and I am opposed to the Minister's amendment.

The one thing that we should try to preserve is the confidence of the public in local administration. I think that we would place an extraordinarily high value on the services of any individual if, in order to secure preferential treatment for him, we were to jeopardise public confidence in local administration. I think there is only one scheme in which members of these committees should be allowed to participate, and that is the lime scheme, as there is plenty of that commodity for everybody. In regard to all other schemes, I would not agree to any exception being made in the existing procedure. No matter how right things may be, they must always appear to be right in the public mind, and I would suggest, in order to safeguard against any misunderstanding as to the integrity of these committees in the administration of public affairs, that no exemptions of the kind suggested should be made.

There are undoubtedly exceptional cases where the provisions suggested by the Minister should be allowed to operate. For instance, a county council may find itself in the position that a member of the county committee of agriculture may resign or die and it may find great difficulty in getting any of the remaining members of the council to accept nomination for the committee. I have known an instance in recent years where the county council experienced a great difficulty of that kind. There might be one man on the county council who happened to hold a premium for a bull at that particular moment and he would perhaps be the only member available or prepared to accept nomination on the committee of agriculture. The amendment suggested by the Minister would get over that. That difficulty could arise and has arisen in the past.

Are we not frequently told that legislation is for the general good and that we should not legislate for particular cases? I think it is going out of the way to pass an enactment to facilitate an individual at the expense of public confidence in the just administration of committees of agriculture.

I have not any particular individual in mind at the present moment, but a case such as I have instanced arose in the past ten years in County Wexford. I have no individual in mind at the moment.

Unfortunately, the Deputy's remarks give that impression.

Evil minds will always think like that.

I must agree with Deputy Hughes in this matter. I have been for a great many years a member of a county committee of agriculture. I have earned prizes under various schemes but I was never eligible for any one of these prizes and I was very glad of that because, as Deputy Broderick said, if I were given one of these prizes it would definitely reduce public confidence in the administration of these schemes.

I think the aspect of the problem which I have mentioned is too valuable to overlook, merely to facilitate a few exceptional cases. Even if there are cases of hardship, other considerations outweigh them, and I think the House should not agree to any proposal where there is any risk to public confidence involved. We have heard enough about corruption without opening the door for any further criticism.

I desire to support the amendment of Deputy Hughes. I think the Minister would do well to consider even putting in a provision to the effect that a member could resign from a county committee of agriculture and be reappointed in the following year if he ceased to hold a premium for a bull. That is a particular example. If a person had a premium for a bull year after year and if there were a number of applicants, if it is known that he got it while he was a member of the county committee for agriculture, no matter how you may excuse it, the general public opinion will be that that particular person, because he was a member of the committee, was able to influence either the Department or the inspector in securing the premium.

I infer from Deputy Cosgrave's speech that he believes we had the intention to give the benefit of premiums in respect of bulls to members of the committees. There was no such intention. There was the intention to allow a person who joined a committee and who might be in receipt of such a benefit to continue to receive that benefit until its expiration.

You would not allow him to re-apply?

He can resign if he likes and apply the following day for a premium bull. The county committee can give it to him if they think fit.

If his year was up and he had to re-apply, would you permit him to receive the benefit?

If there were two or three years to run, we would allow him to finish out the premium, but we would not allow him to get another bull. A person may pay £100 or £120 for a bull. He may borrow three-fourths of that and depend on his premium to pay back the loan. He cannot afford, perhaps, to be left out of his money. Therefore, we have to let him finish up his premium. The alternative is not to allow him to join the committee. I do not want to press this amendment too hard if members are afraid that it would shake public confidence. I do not think that it is so serious as all that, but I do not want to have the appearance of forcing the amendment if the Dáil does not want it. I make an exception in regard to paragraph (a), which relates to a different point. Some schemes of county committees are not open to the public; they are only open to certain persons. If you leave out the words "to the public", it will not alter the section so far as this point about benefits is concerned.

On the other hand, with the section as it is, there is no necessity for Deputy Hughes' amendment because Deputies will find that towards the end of sub-section (3) (a) there are the words—

"...if the consent of the Minister to members of committees of agriculture receiving such benefits or advantages has been given."

That means, according to the legal advice I have received, that it is of general application because it must be applied to members of committees of agriculture and cannot be made to apply to an individual. Therefore, the position would be, if both amendments were left out, with the exception of that referring to the words "to the public," that the Minister could exempt certain schemes of general application but could do nothing more.

What would be the position if these amendments were inserted?

They are contradictory.

I cannot see that they are really contradictory. The case the Minister has mentioned—that of an expiring premium—would be of general application. It could be applied to all persons similarly circumstanced.

The Deputy is right there. Legally, the Minister could make an Order stating that any person holding a benefit from the county committee could be a member of the committee and continue in receipt of the benefit until its period had expired.

The Minister understands what I mean by "general application." I refer to lime schemes and schemes of that sort. You could scarcely so describe schemes for premium bulls, because you would not have enough bulls to go around.

From my discussion with the lawyers, I gather that, even with Deputy Hughes' amendment included, I could make an Order stating that a person in receipt of a benefit from the committee may become a member of the committee but cannot get any further benefit.

Doubtless, the drafting could be improved and I should be satisfied if the Minister would alter it. But I think some clause of that sort is necessary to make clear that members of a committee can get benefit only from schemes of general application. I do not think that a scheme for premium bulls could be described as of general application, as a lime scheme could.

I do not think that the lawyers could cover the point Deputy Hughes has in mind without putting in a sub-section stating: "The following schemes are exempt..." It would be hard to get words to cover all the things the Deputy has in mind. On the whole, I think that the best thing is to leave the section as it is.

What about the words "to the public"?

That is a drafting amendment.

Then the position is that paragraph (a) of amendment No. 6 is agreed to; that paragraph (b) of the same amendment is withdrawn, and that amendment No. 7 is not formally moved.

Does that mean that the Minister intends to meet us on it?

It means that I am accepting the principle that we should only exempt schemes of which everybody could avail.

Amendment No. 6, paragraph (a), agreed to, and paragraph (b) withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Section 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 8:—

In sub-section (1) (b), lines 50 and 51, to delete the words "lawful order, direction, or regulation of the Minister" and substitute therefor the words "statutory order or statutory regulation".

We are opposed to the whole section. I have merely put down those amendments to reduce the objectionable and arbitrary powers which the Minister seeks. It may be that, in a different set of circumstances some years ago, subversive organisations opposed to majority government influenced certain local authorities to oppose the Central Government. For that reason, drastic legislation was necessary in that period. The time has arrived when all our people recognise majority government and when the Constitution is generally recognised. Therefore, we feel that drastic legislation of this sort is undesirable, and that we should completely change our outlook in that respect. On the whole, committees have performed their duties efficiently and properly. There is no example of impropriety in discharge of its duties by a committee. Therefore, I propose to substitute "statutory order or statutory regulation" for the words in the Bill, "lawful order, direction or regulation of the Minister".

You may find a situation where the Minister may give a direction on a matter that is at issue between himself and a local authority on the question of, say, good farming methods. He may hold one view and the committee may hold quite a different one. In that case, if it is not a statutory duty of the committee, I feel that the Minister should not be empowered to compel a committee against their proper judgment to obey a direction given to them—that is, if it is not a statutory duty as far as the committee is concerned. That is the reason I have asked in this amendment to delete that power. The amendment is put down to reduce the objectionable powers which the Minister is seeking. We object to the section as a whole.

There is not a lot of difference, as far as I can find out, between the words in the Bill and the words proposed by Deputy Hughes—"lawful order, direction, or regulation of the Minister" and "statutory order or statutory regulation". If a Minister had some dispute with the committee about the best form of agriculture—which hardly could arise —and the Minister were foolish or mad enough to dissolve the committee on that account, he would be standing on very poor ground. As regards the difference between lawful and statutory, in some of the laws passed it is laid down that a committee must do so and so, but it is not laid down what is to happen if they do not do so. In such a particular case, if it were a serious matter, the Minister could make a lawful order but not a statutory order, as there is no statutory way open to him. For instance, under Section 33 of the Act of 1931, the county committees are asked to draw up a scheme for the year, which is a statutory duty, and submit it to the Minister; but the clause does not say what will happen if they do not do so.

It is obvious that the Dáil, when passing that Bill, intended that the Minister should enforce it, but they did not tell him how. If the Minister told such a committee that, if they did not draw up the scheme he would put someone in their place, that would be a lawful order, but not a statutory order. As far as covering the case Deputy Hughes has in mind, of a Minister dissolving the committee for some disagreement on policy, I think the one word is as good as the other. The Minister would be on very shaky ground in dissolving a committee for a matter of that kind, but he would at least be on the same shaky ground if the amendment were adopted.

The difference I am trying to bring out is, that under whatever provision the Minister gets the power, it should be a provision of this House, and not a matter for the Minister himself.

"Lawful order" means an order that can be given by law.

I may not be right, but the point I want to make is the difference between a statutory order and a lawful order.

Does the Deputy mean a purely arbitrary order?

A statutory order is an order that has been considered by this House. The other is not.

I do not think the Deputy is right in that, but this is a legal point, and I do not like dealing with such things. A lawful order means that there must be some law behind the Minister, while a statutory order means that the permission for the order is actually in the statute. The law has laid down what should be done in a certain case, but has omitted for some reason to state what will be done if it is not carried out: in pursuing that, the Minister may say that the committee has not carried out the statute and that he will get rid of them and appoint someone else. That would be a lawful order, but not a statutory one.

If the Bill gave authority to the Minister to dissolve a committee by way of a regulation which would be tabled here in the ordinary way, that would appear to meet the difficulty. The Minister would have his powers by regulation to dissolve the board, and interested Deputies would have their way of challenging that order.

In every Bill brought in here, I have always thought it desirable to put in the ordinary clause saying that every regulation must be laid on the Table of the House. In fact, I think it is becoming the practice of all Departments to lay such regulations on the Table of the House. Members looking at the Order-Paper will see all the non-statutory orders that are mentioned. I am quite prepared to meet the Deputy by bringing in the clause that such regulations be laid on the Table of the House.

The point is that we should be able to consider the powers we give the Minister here. A lawful order would be one made under regulation and the House may not be aware of the implication of the order at all. I may be wrong in my interpretation of "lawful order" and "statutory order." One is a power that has been considered carefully by legislation here, while the other may be a power that has not been considered at all and which the Minister gets by regulation.

It is not exactly that, he gets it by law.

The regulation is provided for in the law. The Minister is empowered to bring in a regulation under the Bill.

I am willing to bring in an amendment on the Report Stage, to insert a clause providing that the regulations be laid on the Table of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 9:—

In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (c).

The Minister has not made a case for this at all. If there is a question of complying with any judgment, surely the court is there to compel the committee to comply with the judgment. What is the necessity to take a power of this sort? When the Minister seeks the power of the court, why cannot he let the court function?

There is an objection. If a committee becomes very difficult to deal with in that way and there is a lot against them, the only way out of it is to get a mandamus, which would be a very expensive form of procedure. I think there are circumstances where it would be better for the finances of the county to dissolve the committee if they are not reasonable about meeting a court order, rather than go through all the stages of mandamus, with the committee spending its funds on such legal proceedings.

Will the court not see that the order is enforced?

Not always.

Why should mandamus proceedings be necessary? Would the Minister cite a particular case or give us an example where the court would not function and see that its order is carried out?

I could not give one at the moment, but I think Deputies here know that some of these things have to be finished by mandamus.

I am not aware of any case where legal proceedings were instituted and a court decision obtained, and a mandamus was necessary afterwards.

Probably the Deputy has never known a case where the local authority did not obey the decision of the court.

What is the reason for putting in this provision—is it necessary?

It may never be required, but suppose it is required——

The Minister appears to have a very bad opinion of county committees.

Oh, no.

Why does the Minister consider it necessary to anticipate a committee behaving in this manner?

We do anticipate it.

Has the Minister any experience of a committee behaving in such a manner?

What is wrong with the provision?

It is wrong from this aspect that, if you go into court, why not let the court function?

This is not stopping it.

Will the court not see that its decision is carried out? That is our case.

If they comply, that is all right.

The Minister says it may be necessary to take mandamus proceedings, but he cannot give the House one example of where such procedure would be necessary. Surely, we are entitled to get some information in that connection? In what type of case does the Minister visualise mandamus proceedings?

The very same wording is in the Local Government Act.

There is no purpose served by talking about that.

Presumably the section was not inserted merely for the sake of having so many words on a green paper. It was inserted with reason behind it, or without reason. Perhaps the Minister will help the House by indicating what reason there was behind the section. Are there precedents for such a section in other legislation?

Oh, yes. A similar section can be found in other Acts.

Apparently it was lifted wholesale out of another Act, and the Minister does not know the reason why.

I have already mentioned that several of these provisions were taken out of the Local Government Act. As regards this particular section, the position was contemplated that there might be prolonged, expensive proceedings, possibly involving a mandamus, if a committee failed to obey the order of the court. It might be that a very ridiculous point was involved, but still money might be spent on it. I do not think that any committee could have a grievance over the section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 10:—

In sub-section (1), page 4, to delete all words after the word "committee" in line 4 to the end of the sub-section and substitute therefor the words "and order a new appointment to be made by the council of such county of members of such committees".

Under Section 5 the Minister, after dissolving a committee, may order a new appointment to be made, by the council, 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. I want the Minister to ask the county council to give him a new committee if the old committee is dissolved. I am opposed to giving the Minister any power to appoint a man on a salary basis to carry out the work of a county committee for a period of two years. If a committee has not performed its duties, it must go, but in this case also the Minister has not given us any example where the duties of a committee have been carried out in such an improper manner as to render it desirable to get rid of the committee.

The only answer the Minister can make is that he has to get certain powers to enable him, in the event of a committee behaving in an unruly manner, to dissolve that committee. If a new committee is necessary, there is no reason why he should not ask the county council to appoint one. If there are not sufficient members on a county council to constitute a new committee, the Minister should empower the local authority to appoint persons outside its own members. The Minister should not appoint an individual on a salary basis. Surely in any county there is enough material among the farming community to appoint 16 members on a county committee.

I am very definitely opposed to the application of a principle which really means further bureaucratic administration. That is really what the Minister is asking the House to agree to. He wants us to give him power to appoint a man for two years on a salary basis to perform the functions of a county committee. There is, I suggest, ample material in any county from which to select a new committee. The section is undesirable from every point of view. It is in order to reduce to a minimum the arbitrary powers sought by the Minister that I suggest, where a committee is dissolved, the Minister should ask the parent body to give him a new committee.

I should like to support this amendment, which I consider very reasonable. As Deputy Hughes said, this is carrying the policy of dissolution a bit too far. The Minister is seeking power to dissolve county committees. Let us take it that the parent body is functioning to the satisfaction of everyone. It might be that the county council, that appoints the members of the committee of agriculture, might happen to appoint, once in the blue moon, some person or persons who might not act properly. The Minister, under this section, gives himself power to dissolve that committee over the heads of the county council. I suggest that power ought not to be given to the Minister. If the Minister is not satisfied with the committee appointed by the county council, then the reasonable course would be to refer the appointment back to the county council and point out that the committee was not functioning properly and the county council should be asked to appoint a new committee. I daresay the county council would do so.

It may appear strange that the members of the Farmers' Party are taking no part in the discussion on these amendments. It is our view that this section should be deleted entirely and we intend to oppose it when the time comes.

Deputy Donnellan says that the members of his Party will vote against the section. That can be tested when the time comes. Surely there is a good case for the Minister having some discretion in relation to the affairs of the council or the committee.

If the position arises, a position which has not, as Deputy Hughes has pointed out, arisen so far, in which the members of a county committee are not satisfactory, we all know that about half the members of the county committee are members of the county council. If any trouble were to arise which would induce the Minister to get rid of them, they are likely to have the county council on their side, and the county council would not be likely to appoint a more accommodating committee in their place. Therefore, if the necessity ever arises under this section to get rid of a committee, I think that it is unlikely—it is possible all right—that any Minister would ask a county council to appoint another committee. The power we are taking here is to appoint another person or persons to run the affairs of the committee.

With regard to this section, when the Minister for Local Government was bringing in the 1941 Act, it was agreed between the three Departments concerned—the Department of Local Government, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Education—that each of the three Ministers would bring legislation up to date in regard to the particular local authorities that he had to deal with. This section is somewhat similar to what is in the Local Government Act of 1941. There is a similar section in the Vocational Education Act. I suggest to Deputy Hughes that if the section stands, it is not going to be of very much use if his amendment is carried.

Why? Would not acceptance of the amendment mean at least this: that a new group of men could be got?

I do not know if the Deputy was following what I have been saying. The Minister, say, has trouble with a county committee of agriculture. If the trouble is so serious as, in his opinion, to warrant the dissolution of the committee, the fact that half the members of the county committee are members of the county council will mean that the county council is likely to be on the side of the county committee. It may not in all cases, but in the case that I take the Minister is not going to be very much better off by getting the county council to appoint another county committee. Therefore, he may require to appoint another person or persons to run the affairs of the committee. I can understand Deputies being against the section in the interests of democracy, although on that very general question of democracy I would like to say that probably what has finished democracy in some countries is the giving of too much powers to them. There is no way of preventing them running riot altogether. I do not know whether the Minister can stop them or not. He may be able to stop them from doing wrong things.

So far as this power is concerned, the time ought to have long since passed when it should be used.

Is the Deputy talking about the whole section or the amendment?

The amendment is an effort to take the sting out of the section. Someone wrote a letter to the newspapers recently stating that there was criticism of this power from this Party although we were responsible, it was said, for these abolition proposals and for the wiping out of county councils. I think that on an earlier stage of the Bill I made it clear, even to persons of very weak intellect, and the persons with a very poor memory as well as persons not anxious to hear the truth, that the reason for the proposals, introduced in 1926 was that we were just after a rebellion. We had not perhaps finished with it. We had 40 seats empty in this Dáil at that time. The county councils at that time afforded an opportunity for political propaganda and political interference of one sort or another. Now, 20 years after the setting up of this State, and 15 years after the filling of every seat in this Dáil, with not a single person remaining outside, we are being asked to give this power. The giving of it is a very small thing. I would prefer to hear the Minister say that he did not think it likely, or possible, that he would have to exercise it. Assuming that he has to ask for co-operation, is it likely that there will be co-operation, in a county if he has two or three civil servants carrying out the business of the county committee of agriculture there? I have my doubts. It may be that during the last ten or 12 years county committees of agriculture have annoyed the Government when the Government were engaged in the maddest escapade that any political Party ever engaged in— the economic war. I dismiss that particular subject in a single sentence.

Is it going to be held that, while that nonsense was going on, a member of a county committee of agriculture had not the right to voice his opinions? If so, the usual interpretation of what democracy means to most men's minds must have disappeared altogether— that is, if the real meaning of it is that members of local authorities throughout the country are not entitled to criticise Government. I do not mind criticism of a Government. I never minded it myself when I was in office. They were mostly duds who criticised the Government at that time, and many of them have since seen the error of their ways. In this section we are being asked, in regard to the most important industry in the country, to resurrect a power that has been falling into disuse, and that at a time when the policy ought to be to secure all the co-operation possible.

In this case, assuming there is criticism, why should not the Minister for Agriculture go down and meet the county committee for agriculture and thrash out with them whatever matter is in dispute? If necessary, let him bring down some agriculturists who agree with his policy. Let them deal with it, and leave out the politicians altogether. In that way perhaps a working arrangement might be arrived at with the county committee. If these county committees are to be of service to the State and to the counties in which they are operating, they must derive their usefulness from the fact that they are composed of men who are the very bone and sinew of the county, of men who are in touch with all the agricultural problems that affect its welfare. They will be men who will be familiar with the circumstances prevailing in the county, and will be the best qualified to pronounce upon the agricultural policy that will be pursued there. What are civil servants going to do if appointed to administer the affairs of the county committees? Their position will be an anomalous one.

In dealing with this matter, the House is in the weak position that it does not know whether this is the Minister's policy, or whether it is Government policy or whether the section is simply being put in in order that it may be on parallel lines with what is in the Local Government code. During our term of office there was never any period in which we abolished a local authority when we were not fully aware of the drawbacks there were in that policy. The policy was put into operation to meet a situation that existed at a certain time. Have we such a situation now or anything approaching the dire opposition to Government policy that there was at that time? Will not the Minister himself admit that there is no comparison whatever between the position to-day and what it was in 1932 as regards Government policy towards agriculture? If people on these committees down the country want to let off steam, why should they not be allowed to do so? Why should that be regarded as a reason for their abolition?

Going through the section and examining all the provisions which lead to abolition of one of these committees, one is amazed to find how Draconian they are. "If a committee wilfully neglects to comply with any lawful order, direction or regulation of the Minister..."—I can quite appreciate the Minister's difficulty in explaining to the House that he had had such cases.

We are dealing with the sub-section. We shall come to the section afterwards.

Mr. Cosgrave

The amendment to the sub-section seeks to diminish the awful effects of the section. I want the committee of agriculture to be retained, but even its retention would not satisfy me with regard to these other matters. However, I expect that you, Sir, would prefer that we should deal with this matter when the amendment has been disposed of, but I do say that a committee of agriculture, even functioning feebly, would function better than a committee appointed by the Minister of the ablest civil servants in the State.

Is this not really a question of control, of how a committee is to be controlled? I think Deputy Hughes has to some extent agreed with these peculiar statutory rules and regulations—I am not sure what term to apply to them—which give the Minister power to do certain things, to dismiss a committee which, in his opinion, is not carrying out these lawful orders. The proposition made from the Opposition Benches is that the county council should appoint the new committee. Is that not correct?

There are roughly 16 members on a committee of agriculture, and in some of the counties, there are only 27 members on the county council, and, therefore, if the whole committee of agriculture were to be composed of members of the county council—and it seldom is—there would not be many members to select from. I do not see how, at this or any other stage, you could do anything but allow the Minister to appoint the committee. The Minister for Agriculture controls the committee once it is set up; the Minister for Education, the vocational committee; and the Minister for Local Government, the county council. I take it that the Minister for Local Government has the same control over the county council as that which the Minister is asking for here, and I take it that the Vocational Education Act has something the same enshrined in it. It is just a question of what is the best form of control. No matter how good a committee which is in existence is, it is necessary to have some form of control over it. I wonder what form of control exactly would Deputy Hughes propose to have. Is it proposed to take control completely out of the Minister's hands or to have a control which he cannot properly exercise!

How short Deputy O'Reilly's memory is. Does he remember his own salad days, when he was in here thundering about the iniquity of control, analogous to that proposed, in the case of the Minister for Local Government, in respect of county councils, when he and his colleagues were persuading county councils to stop functioning altogether? In face of that threat, and only in face of that threat, did the Cumann na nGaedheal Government consider itself justified in asking Dáil Eireann to give it the right to suspend popularly-elected local government. This House must ask itself this question: Is it in itself desirable that the Executive shall have the right to wipe out locally-elected committees or not? I venture to say that every Deputy will agree with me that, in itself, that is not a desirable thing.

If, however, the Minister comes in here and says: "The maintenance of all precautions for public health, the protection of the destitute poor, the carrying on of the county hospitals and the maintenance of the department of the medical officer of health depend on the local authority functioning and certain local authorities have announced that they will not function because they do not like the Government. In those circumstances, and in those circumstances only, we claim that, for the protection of the essential and vital interests of the people, the Executive has the right to ask Dáil Eireann to give it the power to suspend the defaulting local authority and carry on its essential services through a commissioner or person who will take the place of a local authority", the matter can be examined; but it was only after the most protracted reflection that the Executive, 15 years ago, dared to come to Dáil Eireann and ask for such powers, when Fianna Fáil, as a deliberate policy, was trying to smash local administration in order to make it impossible for Deputy Cosgrave to carry on the Government.

When, in that situation, Deputy Cosgrave came to the House seeking these essential powers, he was met by a tornado of abuse from the Fianna Fáil Party, on the ground that he was anti-democratic, and wanted to establish a dictatorship in this country. He faced that tornado of abuse and explained his difficulty—that the only alternative which lay before him was to get these powers or to allow the social services in rural Ireland to break down, to allow the hospitals to be closed, outdoor relief to be suspended and all the other services founded on the county councils and boards of health to be disbanded.

The Deputy has a very short memory if he does not remember when that happened—when it first became necessary to introduce a system of installing commissioners in the place of county councils and boards of health which would not do their work. The reason the Cumann na nGaedheal Government did so was that Fianna Fáil wanted to make it impossible for Deputy Cosgrave to function as head of the legitimate Government. He foiled that object, but he foiled it by desperate measures. It was an extreme step and he knew it was an extreme step. I have no doubt that he came to the House, looking for these Draconian powers, after considerable heart searchings. They had to be used and they were successfully used, and local government was carried on in spite of Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil came in, and their first announcement was that they were going to abolish this whole system as a detestable intrusion on the rights of the people. They were not very long in office when they proceeded to use these powers, right, left and centre, and now they are asking for similar powers in respect of county committees of agriculture.

What danger does the Minister allege? Has the Minister any single case in respect of which he can come to the House and say that essential services broke down because a county committee of agriculture would not do its work? Has he a single case in mind in which that was threatened? Has he a single justifying argument for the introduction of this proposal into the House except that Deputy Cosgrave sought similar powers in respect of county councils and boards of health during his administration, and that his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, enjoy such powers in regard to local authorities at present? Surely the House must see the distinction between bodies which carry on essential functions, the suspension of which for one week might create chaos in their administrative areas, and a county committee of agriculture? Surely Deputies must see that the only justification for seeking these powers in regard to local authorities was the appalling gravity of the possible consequences of local authorities not doing their work?

What has this to do with the amendment?

The amendment is designed to whittle down the Minister's desire to have the power to suspend these bodies.

Would the Deputy's speech not be more appropriate on the section?

The Minister may say that, but I propose to fight every stage of this proposal, to seek to minimise it and to defeat it, if I can; but surely the Minister ought to intervene and make a case, ought to say that, if there is a clash, a head-on collision and a deadlock extending over a week, a fortnight, or three weeks between himself and a county committee of agriculture, he foresees that irreparable damage might be done and, therefore, he requires to be forearmed with powers of this character.

I made my point on the amendment before the Deputy came in.

There is not any possible contingency that can arise now or hereafter which could create a situation in which it would be necessary for the Minister to act within 24 hours. A situation could arise in regard to a county council or a board of health which would make it essential to put somebody in to carry on the essential services at 24 hours' notice, if the local authority refused to function. Supposing a county committee of agriculture refused to discharge its functions, has not the Minister ample time to come to the House and say: "Here is a case where I must have power to deal with a specific evil"? But no such case can be made and no such contingency can arise. The only justification the Minister's supporter, Deputy O'Reilly, makes for this is that analogous powers are contained in the Local Government Act and in the Vocational Education Act. Deputy O'Reilly does not attempt to suggest that there is any urgency about possible difficulties which might arise between a county committee of agriculture and the Minister.

What I want to direct the attention of the House to is, that this is all part of a general scheme gradually to centralise all authority in Merrion Street, to deprive the local elected representatives of the people of any authority. Mind you, I was in favour of the County Management Act. But some Deputies forecast that if we assented to the principle in that measure it would be the first step on the slippery slope. I am still in favour of that Act and this ought not to be a slippery slope. There is no analogy between the principle underlying the County Management Act or the emergency legislation brought in by Deputy Cosgrave, when Prime Minister, and this proposal. In both these cases an entirely different set of circumstances obtained and, in my judgment, the circumstances there obtaining justified the measures introduced then. But here is quite a different story. Here, the precedents there created, with special circumstances surrounding them, are used as a justification for analogous powers where no such circumstances obtain.

The Minister replies that it is highly unlikely that these powers will be ever used. I want to warn Deputies that I heard that pledge repeated in this House 40 times in the last ten years. There never was a proposal brought into this House designed to take away from the elected representatives of the people part of their powers that some Minister did not get up and say: "Come, now. What is all this fuss about? It is highly unlikely that this will ever be used." But, as certain as these powers were given to the Minister, and as Dáil Eireann was lulled into a sense of false security by that undertaking, within 12 months these powers were used, and when you point out that the Minister gave a solemn pledge that these powers would be rarely if ever used, you are met with hilarious laughter from the Fianna Fáil Benches. It is quite conceivable that the powers given will not be used in the early future, but I want to warn Deputies that powers of this character —given here under an undertaking such as the Minister is giving to us at present—are rarely used until the feeling of apprehension engendered by the debate in this House has time to subside, and everybody is lulled into a sense of security because the powers are not used. Then, by the time they are used, people have forgotten the source of the particular powers. They have forgotten the undertakings given when they were passed, and, when representations are made about the honouring of the Minister's undertaking not to use the powers except in the most extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, they are laughed at.

I urge Deputies to view this proposal with the utmost possible suspicion, and to withhold these powers on the section. But, knowing the power of the Fianna Fáil majority, I ask them to vote for the amendment, because, if we carry the amendment, it will in some measure mitigate the evil of the Minister's proposal. The proposal, even as amended by the amendment, is very bad, but it is not as bad as the original proposal. We should carry the amendment as the first step in the campaign to delete the power, and then we should do our level best, when the section comes before the House, to delete the section from the Bill. I venture to swear that, if we take that section out of the Bill, at no stage of the present Minister's period of administration will he ever experience the slightest real inconvenience as a result of his having to forgo the power. I am certain that the Minister himself never put that section in the Bill. I am perfectly certain that that section was put in in the Draftsman's office on the grounds that there is a similar power in the Local Government Act and in the Vocational Education Bill.

The Minister has found himself suddenly confronted in the House with a strong volume of feeling with regard to a section that he himself does not give two tuppeny damns about. He does not feel that he wants it. He has no experience which suggests that he will ever have to use it. In that position, I commend to him the attitude of the present Minister for Finance. That Minister is not afraid, if he finds something in a Bill which people strongly react against and to which he does not attach very much importance, to meet the House halfway. These powers are utterly unnecessary. If, on some future occasion, the the Minister can satisfy the House that, for some ulterior motive, a county committee of agriculture is trying to thwart the Minister, trying to use its position to prevent him from doing that which he has a legitimate right to do, I will vote for giving him ad hoc powers to suspend the committee. That is different from giving general powers to suspend any committee which happens to have a collision with him. I have no desire to enable any body in this country to prevent the legitimate Government ruling the country in accordance with the law. I may not agree with the laws they make but, being the Government of the people, they have the right to rule. If any other body seeks to thwart them, albeit I agree with the policy of the other body, I will support the elected Government in carrying out the mandate the people's majority gave them. It is not in any desire to set up the local body as a rival authority to the Minister that I am against this section. It is in order to prevent the bureaucracy denying to elected representatives their legitimate rights. I am for these legitimate rights and I am against the bureaucracy's attempt to destroy them.

I appeal to the Minister, in his own interest and in the interest of decent democratic principles in this country, to get up at this stage and say: "I do not think this section is really necessary. I have never known of an occasion on which I would have to use it. If everybody feels so strongly about it, let it go. "If a situation arises when these powers become necessary. I will come back and tell the House the situation in which I find myself embarrassed." If he does that, I can assure the Minister that he will find on all sides of the House, even amongst his own implacable opponents, a willingness to give the powers necessary to carry out whatever he is legitimately entitled to do as a member of the elected Government of the country.

This section, in my opinion, is very drastic and, in so far as its application removes the control of the elected representatives of the people over the very important business they are appointed to transact, and which they know most about, I think it is too drastic. I was very glad to hear the criticism so strongly offered from the Opposition Benches to the proposal. However, in the course of the discussion, a viewpoint occurred to me to which I feel I am in duty bound to give expression. The amendment proposed by Deputy Hughes has quite a lot of reason behind it. It is a reasoned proposal, in so far as it admits of the possibility which the Minister has in view, in the powers which he seeks to deal with such committees. Deputy Hughes' contention is that if the committee appointed fails to discharge its duty, then, the parent body that created it should have the right to have the matter referred back to them with a view to remedying the weakness of their committee. That is true. I think that should the council, the parent body, fail to discharge its duty or, having discharged its duty to the best of their ability, find that their new committee is not carrying out the regulations of the Department and the regulations under which they serve, it might be possible for the Minister then to adopt the powers which he now seeks.

It has been asked in the course of the debate here, why does this necessity now arise; has any occasion occurred in recent times that would justify the Minister in seeking additional powers of this sort? I do not know whether there has or has not but I do see reasons why the Minister should seek to entrench himself and the Department more strongly as regards committees of agriculture than they have hitherto, for this reason, that the powers of committees of agriculture have gradually grown over the years and they have now reached a stage where they perform a very important function in the life of the agricultural community. To the extent that their responsibilities have grown, the interests that they serve must be correspondingly protected. Therefore, I can see a justification there for the Minister seeking to ensure that these interests are more efficiently served now, having regard to the increased responsibility of these committees, than was necessary hitherto.

As regards Deputy Dillon's point that as soon as the necessity arises for the abolition of a committee and the substitution of civil servants or some other official, this House should be prepared to give that power, I wish to say that the moment you admit that that contingency might arise, the necessity for the provision which the Minister is now seeking is admitted. What is the difference between making provision in advance for a contingency that might arise in the future, as it has arisen in the past under local government administration, and waiting until the contingency has arisen?

I consider the proposal good in so far as it provides for a contingency which we know has occurred in the past in similar bodies but I do submit to the Minister that he should meet the case somewhere in between. The amendment proposed by Deputy Hughes to refer the matter back to the parent body, the county council, for rectification, before he applies the drastic measure which he seeks is, in my opinion, the solution and, to that extent, I favour the amendment, if the amendment could be amended now to meet the position that Deputy Hughes will admit. I agree that the powers sought may be necessary but should only be put into effect if, having referred the matter back to the county council, they in turn fail to supply a committee to discharge the duties.

This particular sub-section gives power to the Minister, where a committee is dissolved, either to ask the county council to appoint a new committee or to pass over the county council and nominate a person or persons to carry on the work of the committee. The next sub-section then gives power to fix the remuneration of such person or persons. Deputy Hughes' amendment seeks to limit the Minister, that is, that where a committee is abolished, the Minister shall ask the county council to nominate another committee. The main opposition, I would say, to this particular sub-section is the suggestion at the end of the sub-section that it will be utilised in order to nominate paid officials to do the work that at the moment is being done by the agricultural committee. The Minister, as Deputy Dillon pointed out, may say: "Oh, a Minister is not likely to do that." In this House, the Minister is the individual who is in charge of a Bill. Once the Bill becomes an Act "the Minister" is 200 civil servants working in a Department. We all know that there are many things done every week in the name of a Minister and that the Minister himself is not aware of 1 per cent. of the things done in his name. There is a very marked tendency, in recent years, for Departmental officials to get more and more powers through legislation of this House on the plea that it is unlikely that those powers will ever be used and, the month after those powers are given in the name of the Minister, legislation is examined by hundreds of individuals. To find out what? To find out to the nth degree what powers there are in Departments in Dublin to interfere with local officials and local bodies.

Now, I am slow to make that statement, but I make it with conviction. As I say, the offensive portion of this sub-section is where it is left to the discretion of the Minister, or, in other words, to the discretion of his Department, to require a county council to appoint a new committee of agriculture, or to nominate a person or persons to carry on that work. I would suggest that the Minister might consider the advisability of altering the sub-section to this extent: that where such a committee is abolished, the Minister should call on the county council to appoint a new committee, and that, if the county council refuses to do so, then he would exercise the powers that are claimed here, but that at least the county council should be consulted beforehand. If the Minister's arguments, to the effect that portion of the powers of these county committees are closely associated with the powers of the county council, are sincerely advanced, then I think that he cannot expect to have co-operation from the county councils unless he is prepared to consult them before taking action in this matter. I suggest that the Minister might see the advantage of consulting the county councils beforehand on this matter and that, by doing so, he would be able to meet the reasonable fears of the House in regard to this particular sub-section. Now, in regard to the appointment of people who are paid to do work, as against those who have been doing the work voluntarily, I can quite see, in the case of more Departments than one, that if any legal opportunity is given to wipe out any voluntary committee or body connected with a county council, and to appoint fulltime paid officials to do the work, it will not take very much provocation to have a great number of agricultural committees abolished under this section.

I am very much afraid that we have spent too much time in discussing the proposed amendment to this section instead of discussing the section itself. One reason why we are opposing the Minister in connection with the giving of these powers is that these county committees of agriculture, generally, are made up of farmers who voluntarily elect to serve on them. They are not people who are elected by the ordinary voting system: as a matter of fact, the county council, generally, co-opts members of these committees. In my opinion, the average county committee of agriculture is the one type of committee in this country that is not made up of political wrigglers. Therefore, I think that it is the one type of committee about which the Minister need not worry. I do not think that the Minister, during his period of office, ever had to dissolve a county committee of agriculture. Neither do I think that Deputy Cosgrave, during his period of office—and we have been told how he had to go through so much fire in this country in the matter of the abolition of local bodies—had to abolish any of these county committees of agriculture.

I think that the real reason for that is that these committees of agriculture are not made up of people who are elected because of their political opinions: that they are taken on by the county council as being really representative of the agricultural community. They are co-opted by the county councils because of their out standing ability in their profession. That is the chief reason why we oppose this section because we do not believe that there is any reason for the Minister being given this power.

In listening to this debate, I must say that we were brought back to a period of 20 or 23 years ago, when, as we have been told, law and order were smashed as a result of the activities of various people in this country, and, as a result, certain county councils had to be abolished. I do not think, however, that there is any advantage in discussing these matters now, and I do not believe that it is in the best interests of our country to discuss them now. If certain county councils had to be abolished, whether under Fine Gael or the Fianna Fáil régimes, worse things were also done, and I do not think it is of any benefit for us to go back and discuss these things now. However, I would ask the Minister to withdraw this section, because the people concerned here are not selected for any political purpose; they are brought in to serve on these committees merely on account of their professional abilities. I think the Minister himself is aware of that, and that is the only reason that we are opposing his section.

I am supporting the amendment, but in doing so I submit that my reason for supporting the amendment is that this section is not diplomatic so far as the Minister is concerned. For the past three or four years, every member of the Government, at some stage or another, has been received by various committees of agriculture, down through the country, in connection with the matter of production of food for the community as a whole, and I have yet to learn of a single case of a county committee of agriculture being found at fault or not willing to do its duty in that regard. On the contrary, as far as I am aware, every county committee of agriculture set out to do its best to meet the demands made by various Ministers in the interests of the country as a whole. Accordingly, I think that at a time like this, when agriculturists have been doing their best to meet the requirements of the country, it is a very poor return for the efforts of these people for the Government of the day to include a sub-section such as this in the Bill, whilst expecting these people, at the same time, to continue doing their best. I think that the inclusion of this sub-section is a reflection on the county committees of agriculture. For these reasons, and for what one might call diplomatic reasons, such as getting the best that one can out of the work of these committees, I think the Minister should withdraw this sub-section or, if not, that he should accept the amendment.

I have attended a great many meetings of these committees of agriculture, at which the Minister or higher civil servants of his Department were present, and I can say that at every meeting at which I was present the highest tributes were paid to the members of these committees. Now, the Minister comes in here and says that, although these committees have been doing very well, he thinks he should be put in the position to exercise powers of abolition in regard to them. I think that that is bad business, if only from the diplomatic point of view, and if for no other reason, I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

I have already tried to explain my attitude with regard to this amendment, but, perhaps, for the benefit of Deputies who have arrived in the House since I spoke last, it might be well to point out again that if this amendment were to be passed it would take away any good that may be in the section. Now, I do not know why it should be assumed that civil servants, inevitably, will be appointed in these cases. They may or may not be appointed.

But the Minister is asking for power to appoint them?

Well, that is what we are objecting to.

Yes, but if this section goes through, the Minister will have to have discretion to appoint a new committee, which would probably consist of local farmers or, if that is not possible, to appoint an official, on a salaried basis, to undertake the work. There is no use in any Deputy getting up here and saying that any of these committees will be abolished because they do not agree with the views of the present Government. That has never been done by this Government; it was not done by the previous Government, and I do not think it is likely to be done by any future Government. I was asked why this power was necessary, if no fault was to be found with the administration of these committees. I do not know if there is any local government authority with which there is any fault to be found, but it is a fact that when the Local Government Act of 1941 was being drawn up, it was agreed between the three Ministers concerned—the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the Minister for Education—that we should in future stick to our own particular code of legislation instead of having the whole matter under the Local Government code of administration, as had been the practice up to that time. Therefore, we started off by re-enacting the code, with a view to having the Minister for Education dealing with the matter of vocational education, and the other Ministers dealing with their particular branches.

With regard to the question of the dissolution of local bodies, where they were found to be unsatisfactory, it was felt that this would be a quicker method of dissolving them than had been the case originally—at least, so far as the county committees of agriculture were concerned—because in order to dissolve the county committees of agriculture, as things stand at the moment, you would first have to dissolve the county council. These powers may never be used.

If you do not want the powers, why are you seeking them?

At any rate, I do not see why Deputies should be so much worked up over this matter, or why we should have all these speeches on democracy and on the merits of agriculture, and the terrible things that would result to those county committees of agriculture as a result of the passing of this section. Deputy Cosgrave suggested going down and talking to these committees, but I wonder did Deputy Cosgrave go down, in 1926, and consult the various county councils which he abolished in or about that time.

Is not that very foolish?

Well, at least, we have had the courage to go down and talk to them, whereas Deputy Cosgrave did not have the courage to do so in 1926.

That is very good.

Deputy Cosgrave made a very sanctimonious speech about how they had to do it, and why we should not. He said they had to do it because there was a civil war, but that there is no necessity for us to do it. We will no go into that now.

The Minister had not a civil war.

No, but I felt the brunt of it. Somebody is wrong in history. Deputy Cosgrave said that when we were asking for power to abolish a committee there were several benches empty. Deputy Dillon went so far as to quote Fianna Fáil speeches against the Bill.

They were bawling it at every chapel gate.

The Deputy gave us the words used by Fianna Fáil Deputies when speaking against the Bill. I am just saying that somebody is wrong. Deputy Dillon has a fertile imagination. I am sure he could reconstruct speeches against the Bill made by Fianna Fáil Deputies, that Deputy Cosgrave described as being absent.

Absent from this House.

Let the Deputy read his own speech and the speeches made in this House against it. I agree with Deputies when they say that naturally a Minister cannot attend to everything that goes on in his Department. He cannot personally see what every civil servant is doing, because there may be 600 or 700 civil servants in a Department. Many letters go out in the name of the Minister which he does not see, but, at least, in a well-run Department these letters are in line with the policy laid down by the Minister. There may be civil servants who want to take powers from local authorities. I do not know of any. Every Deputy knows that in a big matter, like that of a county committee of agriculture being abolished, the Minister would have a say, and would also have a say as to who was going to take the place of that county committee of agriculture; whether the appointment should be made by the county council, whether local people should be called in or whether people should be sent from headquarters. That would be a matter of importance. I do not think Deputy MacEoin meant to create any friction between county committees and the Department of Agriculture. It would be a great pity if this particular section were to create any friction of that sort, or drag this question of the abolition of county committees of agriculture across the food campaign we are carrying on. I suppose we will have to discuss the section afterwards but, as long as the section remains, that particular sub-section will have to remain. If the necessity arises for a Minister to abolish a county committee of agriculture the circumstances will be such that he will need to have a great deal of discretion in the appointment of a committee to take the place of the one abolished.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 45.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Byrne, Christopher M.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Fred H.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Daly, Francis J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Fitzgerald, Séamus.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Healy, John B.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Kilroy, Seamus.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Cléirigh, Mícheál.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Skinner, Leo B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Anthony, Richard S.
  • Beirne, John.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Broderick, William J.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Esmonde, Sir John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Heskin, Denis.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Larkin, James (Junior).
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Cafferky, Dominick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Cole, John J.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Meighan, John J.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Driscoll, Patrick F.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Jeremiah.
  • Spring, Daniel.
  • Stapleton, Richard.
  • Tunney, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Bennett and MacEoin.
Question declared carried.
Amendment accordingly lost.

I move amendment No. 11:—

To delete sub-section (3) and substitute therefor the following sub-section:—

(3) Where travelling expenses are incurred by persons appointed under the foregoing sub-section, Section 2 of this Act shall apply.

I want to make it clear again that we intend to oppose this section and to oppose anything that tends to extend bureaucratic control in this country. This amendment is designed to reduce the objectionable and arbitrary powers for which the Minister is asking. In the event of the House agreeing to give the Minister power to dissolve a body, I want the House to ensure that the Minister is not in a position to appoint a civil servant to carry out the duties of a county committee for a period of two years. For that reason I have put down this amendment. In sub-section (3) of this section, the Minister makes provision for the payment of remuneration. This amendment, if the Minister agrees to it, would make provision only for the payment of travelling expenses that may be incurred by a voluntary committee. I think it is a reasonable amendment and that the Minister should be prepared to meet us on it. If a committee has to be dissolved and a new committee set up, surely there should be sufficient material among the farming community in that county to get a committee of 16 farmers who would be prepared to carry on on a voluntary basis. If they do that they are entitled to get the travelling allowances provided for in Section 2.

What effect will the amendment have?

The effect it will have is that the Minister cannot pay anyone a salary.

It is unlikely that he will accept that amendment.

It has not that effect, in any case.

I am supporting the amendment on the assumption that it has that effect and, as far as I can see, it would have that effect. It is not likely that any official would be prepared to perform the work of a county committee of agriculture without remuneration.

The Minister has stated that he might be prepared to consider the appointment of farmers to carry out this work but that, on the other hand, he might be prepared to appoint an official to do the work. I think that the Minister should not be provided with that alternative. The work of a committee of agriculture is mainly that of people with a practical knowledge of agriculture who, by reason of that knowledge, can give to the permanent officials of the Department an insight into work on the land: It would be absolutely absurd to appoint an official to carry out the work of a committee of agriculture. Whatever chance an official might have of carrying out the work of a county council or a board of health, he would not be competent to carry out the work of a committee of agriculture.

Deputy Hughes' amendment does not carry out the idea he has in mind.

That is so.

It is merely a gesture. I do not see the point of rubbing the Minister's nose in this business. Whatever satisfaction we may get out of that operation, we are not likely to get much reform. I am as certain as that I am standing in this House that the Minister does not believe in this section. If he would make any concession designed to distinguish what he, as Minister for Agriculture, thinks is the appropriate means of dealing with a recalcitrant county committee of agriculture from what his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, or his colleague, the Minister for Education, conceive to be the appropriate means of dealing with recalcitrant bodies in their respective spheres, I am perfectly sure the House would give it a hearty welcome. Surely the Minister, in making the case for himself on the last amendment, suggested he was simply following in the footsteps of two other Ministers in pursuance of an undertaking given when the Local Government Act was introduced. That seemed to me to be the lamest of excuses.

I mention this matter on the amendment, because if the Minister would indicate his readiness to go any distance to meet the House on this section, the House would not be unreasonable. It is for that reason that I deprecate this amendment by Deputy Hughes. It seems to me to be rather a nose-rubbing amendment, not designed to achieve anything but rather to put the Minister on the defensive. I want to get the substance of Deputy Hughes' other amendments accepted and a real concession given. If necessary a distinction should be made between county committees of agriculture and the other bodies to which the Minister has referred. Instead of standing pat and meeting one amendment after another with a non possumus, I suggest that the Minister should come forward with some via media by which the House could reach agreement. It is manifest from the last division that the House is very uneasy in its mind on this matter and what is the use of stirring up a storm when it is quite possible to reach reasonable agreement?

The amendment has no effect.

Has it not the effect that you will have to pay the person appointed out of the Exchequer?

He is well able to do it.

The amendment does not prevent the Minister remunerating the services of such people.

You will have to pay them yourself. The particular sub-section which Deputy Hughes seeks to delete is one which provides that payment be raised from the agricultural rate of the county.

That is so but it does not serve the purpose Deputy Hughes had in mind, which was to prevent them from being paid at all.

The Minister will have to pay them out of his own Vote.

Will the Minister come any distance to meet the House?

If Deputies are against the section, that is all right. But if the section is to stand, it is obvious that it must have all the provisions contained in it because, if a Minister has to dissolve a committee, it will create a serious position. There will be a good deal of opposition from members of the committee and, as half the members are members of the county council, it is more than likely that there will be opposition by the county council. If the Minister has to operate this section, he cannot depend on the county council to appoint another committee. If the occasion arose, I should be inclined to look for local farmers to man the committee. There may be circumstances where that would not be advisable and where it would be necessary to put in some one person as a sort of commissioner. If such a necessity arose, that person would have to be remunerated. It follows that he should be remunerated out of funds available to the county committee.

To that might be added what Euclid puts in some of his propositions: "Which is absurd".

That may be so.

Does the Deputy propose to press his amendment?

I put it down because I am opposed to the appointment of any civil servant to a position of that sort. I overlooked the provision contained in sub-section (2). As has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, even as my amendment stands, the person appointed could not be paid out of local funds. The Minister would have to make provision for payment out of his own Vote. We are trying to meet the Minister but he, evidently, is not prepared to meet us.

Would the Minister consider a compromise which would not be at all satisfactory to me but which would be better than the situation with which we are confronted? Would he undertake, in the event of dissolving a county committee of agriculture, to nominate another committee from the members of the county council? Surely we do not envisage a situation in which a county council will refuse to carry out its function and be immune from action by the Minister for Local Government? We must assume that, if a whole county council goes "loco" and refuses to carry out its duties, the Minister for Local Government will abolish it—and more power to his elbow if he does.

Supposing a county council is functioning reasonably and regularly and a county committee comes into a head-on collision, with the Minister, as a result of which he says that he will abolish the committee, will he undertake that out of that portion of the county council not on the committee he will choose another committee or give the county council an opportunity to do so before appointing a commissioner? That is a via media which he might consider. He could make that concession with perfect safety and it would be an indication of his desire to arrive at accommodation.

That does not arise on the amendment; it would arise on the section.

If there is difficulty in appointing a voluntary committee, the schemes may fall through and the benefit of 50 per cent. which the county gets may be lost. The Minister, therefore, has the whip-hand.

That would have been relevant to amendment No. 10.

Even here, so far as getting a voluntary committee is concerned, the Minister anticipates that he will not get sufficient people in a particular county to function without remuneration where the committee is dissolved. I suggest that the result to the county council would be obvious, and that it is up to the farming community as a whole in any particular county where that situation may arise, to see that a committee is provided. Otherwise, they will incur a substantial loss, as the Minister will withhold the grants and they will not endure the loss of the grants for any considerable time.

With regard to Deputy Dillon's point, most county councils are composed of 21 members and the county council can put 16 of those members on the first committee of agriculture, under the law as it stands, and that would leave only five to form a new committee, under this scheme.

How many are on the total committee?

Sixteen. Half of the 16 must be county councillors.

Eight from 21 leaves 13.

But the council may put on the whole 16.

The council may nominate members from outside, from the farming community.

On the amendment——

On the section?

Do you wish to postpone all this discussion?

It would be better on the section.

If the Minister makes an announcement that he would be prepared to do anything, that would smooth the path. We have now reached the stage when the Fianna Fáil Party are beginning to envisage a situation where the county council, the subsidiary bodies of the county council, and everybody else, enter into a dark conspiracy to obstruct the Minister. If that situation should arise, the local body will be abolished in toto. It is true in theory that a county council can put the whole 16 on the county committee, but in practice the invariable rule has been that they nominate half and bring in half from outside.

You will probably find that eight are appointed, which leaves 13 other members of the council from which to select a fresh committee. If, however, the Minister finds that this effort to get a second committee from the elected representatives of the people is abortive too, then let him fall back on this power. I would sooner not give him this power at all, but I am suggesting to him to make some gesture of compromise, instead of sticking his heels in the ground and saying there will be no compromise. Would it not be reasonable to say that, if he has to abolish an existing committee, he will constitute another from the county council, and only in the case of the council or the new committee refusing to function will he fall back on the power to appoint a commissioner or administrator? That would be giving an indication to meet Deputy Hughes in some degree, rather than sitting back and saying he will not do anything.

I think I repeated several times that, if it were my case, I would try to get the county council to form a new committee. I want to explain the difficulties. The case the Deputy has just outlined may arise, where the whole county council is giving trouble, or where there is no county council there to do it. That trouble may arise.

Then the powers follow to the commissioner. If the county council is abolished, the commissioner would appoint a new committee.

I do not agree with Deputy Dillon that the appointing of an official is the only alternative to appointment by the county council. There would still be the alternative of appointing practical farmers.

Deputy Dillon's point was that that committee would be there in lieu of the county council.

But he said if it was impossible to select a committee from the county council—he suggested selecting it from the county council— the alternative was to appoint a paid official to carry on the work. He definitely suggested that. I say that there is still the alternative of appointing farmers, as Deputy Hughes has pointed out.

Will the Minister consider that alternative proposal?

It requires consideration.

That may be. Will he consider it?

In the meantime, I think this amendment is not an effective one.

I admit that.

Then let the amendment go; it is not very important.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 12:—

In sub-section (4), page 4—

(a) to delete lines 19, 20 and 21 and to substitute the following—

"(4) Where the Minister has, under sub-section (1) of this section, dissolved a committee of agriculture for a county and transferred the property, powers and duties of such committee to any body, person or persons, the Minister shall, in the first or second election year after such dissolution, by Order cause a new appointment to";

(b) to delete lines 25, 26 and 27 and substitute the words "in the committee so appointed, notwithstanding such transfer".

This is not as formidable as it looks. As the section was being drafted, the draftsman, when he had passed on from sub-section (1), which gives the Minister an option of asking the county council to do one thing or the other, came down to sub-section (4), and that sub-section was drafted entirely on the assumption that other than the county council nominees would be acting. To bring sub-section (4), therefore, in line with sub-section (1), and in case the county council had been asked to nominate the committee, this amendment is necessary. That is all that is involved in it. I do not wish to deceive Deputies opposite or let them think that we are going any further in this amendment. If sub-section (4) is read, Deputies will see that it is inconsistent with having asked a county council to appoint another committee. This brings it into proper relation.

May I make a suggestion to the Minister? This is an example of some of those publications which are giving rise to a good deal of criticism outside. Why did the Minister not withdraw that sub-section (4) altogether and bring in a new sub-section on the amendments sheet? This is largely like legislation by reference. It takes time to write it out, it takes time to examine it after it is written, and I am quite sure the draftsmen could have drafted it the other way.

Except that the first three lines are amended, the sub-section is the same.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

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.

The Deputy should address the Chair. He has a fairly long experience of Parliamentary proceedings.

I am sorry. I oppose this section for three reasons, and when the time comes I intend to challenge a division on it. In the first place, the reasons given by the Minister are entirely unconvincing. They have absolutely no substance in them. He says that in doing this he is simply bringing the Bill into conformity with an undertaking given to other Departments. I submit that the powers given to other Departments were given in entirely different circumstances, and should never be applied to a body such as a committee of agriculture. In the second place, the powers that are being sought here are to be applied to a body of men who, in my opinion, are rendering far more valuable service to the country in the present crisis, in administering the schemes entrusted to them, than either the Government or the county councils. That is a very big claim to make for them, but I am making it because their function is to give effect to schemes which help to increase agricultural productivity. So far as I can help it, I am not going to allow any reflecttion to be cast upon them. In the third place, the Minister already has ample power to deal with these bodies if they are not functioning as successfully as he would like, or if they show any inclination to go too far. He always has the grip over them that he need not supply them with finance. The controlling power that he has in that way should be sufficient. Why should any suspicion be thrown on those bodies? The Taoiseach has thought them good enough to meet them. He has an appointment with the Cork County Committee of Agriculture in the courthouse there, on Tuesday next. Would it not be an extraordinary thing if, when he meets the members of that committee, he were to hold up this Bill to them and say: "My Minister can suppress you any time he likes"? I think that what is being proposed here is very unfair, and that these mandatory sections ought to be withdrawn altogether. The Minister spoke of democracy, but I am not going to touch on that. I think that the proposal in the Bill is entirely undemocratic, and for the reasons I have given I intend to oppose the section.

I opposed this section on the Second Reading of the Bill on the grounds that these local committees of agriculture represent one of the last independent bodies that we have in the country. They are in close touch with agriculture and in a position to direct agricultural policy locally. I was astonished that the Minister, when replying to the Second Reading debate, did not take the opposition that was voiced to this particular section very seriously. He asked, in effect, if he looked like a person who would suppress those county committees of agriculture lightly. I know quite well that the Minister would not be unjust or unfair to any committee of agriculture, but I wonder why he is seeking power to wipe out those bodies which, over a long period of our history, have given very useful service. They are all locally elected or locally selected, and I think it can be said that there is no local body which is held in higher esteem by the general community than the committees of agriculture. Very little, if any, criticism could ever have been directed against them for the way in which they have carried out their functions. They have always sought to advance the interests of agriculture, even at times when the Minister for Agriculture was proceeding in an opposite direction. They have sought to ensure that every possible advantage that could be given to the farming community, either by way of the promotion of schemes for the improvement of the industry or of increased technical knowledge for farmers, should accrue to the agricultural community through the machinery at their disposal. I hope that the Minister in his own charming way will accept the opposition that has been expressed to this section as being genuine and well-founded, and that since there is really no strong reason why it should be included in the Bill he will simply say to the House: "I am withdrawing it" and leave it at that.

I am sorry that I cannot agree with my colleague, Deputy Broderick, or with his statements about what happened at the Cork County Committee of Agriculture. The Deputy, unfortunately, is not a member of that body, but over the last four or five years a member of that committee has adopted a practice of putting down a motion at every meeting, the object of which was to endeavour to prevent the farmers of Cork County from doing their tillage quota. That particular county committee of agriculture was used as a platform to propagate the policy not to grow wheat in the County Cork. On account of the harm that the committee was doing I appealed to the Minister on several occasions to dissolve it. I make no bones about that, because undoubtedly that committee was doing harm to the country at a period when the country could not afford to have harm done to it. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until Thursday, the 2nd December, 1943, at 3 p.m.
Barr
Roinn