Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Jan 1944

Vol. 28 No. 6

Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1943—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

This is an amending Bill, dealing with a number of matters. The question of travelling expenses is the first matter dealt with. Provision for travelling expenses for county councillors was made in the Local Government Act that was passed in 1941. At that time it was intended that Bills should be brought forward by the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Education making provision for the payment of travelling expenses to the members of county committees of agriculture and to the members of vocational education committees. Provision is being made in this Bill for the payment of reasonable travelling expenses to members of county committees of agriculture when attending meetings of the committee or meetings of sub-committees.

The next point that the Bill deals with is the disqualification of members of county committees of agriculture from the benefit of certain schemes administered by these committees. The position on this matter as it stands is considered to be too rigid. No member of a county committee of agriculture can benefit by way of bargain or contract from any of the committees' schemes. I think everybody will agree that it is a good principle, where there is competition for a certain thing, that a committee member should not benefit, such, for example, as in the placing of a premium bull or the placing of a poultry station, for either of which there might be many applicants. It would be unfair, or at least it would be considered unfair, if in such matters county committee members were to benefit. On the other hand, where the county committee is distributing something that every farmer can benefit from, such, for example, as lime — and there is enough lime for everybody — there is no reason whatever why a member of a county committee of agriculture should not get that benefit. We are dealing with a position of that kind and providing that certain things may be exempted, to the extent of their being available to the members of the county committee of agriculture if the Minister thinks that is desirable.

Sections 4 and 5 deal with the dissolution of county committees of agriculture. Under the present law, if one of these committees is not doing its duty, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health has to take action first by dissolving the county council. In that way the county committee of agriculture is automatically dissolved. The Minister for Local Government can reconstitute the county council, leaving the county committee of agriculture dissolved. There is no reason why that round-about method should have to be employed if a county committee of agriculture has to be dissolved. Under this Bill, a county committee of agriculture can be dissolved in the same way as a county council or any other public authority.

We next deal with the staffs of the county committees. Under this Bill the officers of county committees will attend any conferences that may be called by the Minister for Agriculture, or any educational functions that he may ask them to attend. Some time ago there was some difference of opinion about this matter between some of the county committees and the Department of Agriculture as to whether a county committee had the right to prevent its officers from attending such functions.

Section 8 deals with the retiring age of officials, and brings this question of retiring age into line with the legislation already passed dealing with local authorities which are under control of the Department of Local Government. This Bill will enable the Minister for Agriculture to declare a certain age to be the retiring age, so that officials belonging to a particular class must retire at the age declared. Section 9 deals with the suspension of officers, but that is only a reenactment of what has already been the law—bringing into the code of legislation dealing with the county committees of agriculture what has at all times been in the local government code. These are the various matters dealt with in this Bill. As I have said it is an amending Bill. Its purpose is to bring into line, so far as county committees of agriculture are concerned, all those matters that have already been dealt with by the Minister for Local Government in regard to county councils, and that are at present being dealt with by the Minister for Education so far as vocational education committees are concerned.

Mr. Baxter

It is not often that I find myself opposing measures introduced by the Minister for Agriculture. He is not quite so gracious to me, because I often find him opposing proposals which I put before the House. That is, probably, an error of judgment on his part and, doubtless, he will grow wiser. In this measure, the Minister has contrived to introduce quite commendable propositions and very unacceptable ones. That places the House in a difficulty. I shall deal, in the first instance, with the part of the Bill to which I take exception. The Minister is taking power to dissolve county committees of agriculture. I am astonished at that decision on the part of a man like the Minister for Agriculture. Temperamentally and otherwise, he is not the type of Minister one associates with dissolutions of such bodies or suspensions of their officers. I cannot understand why he seeks power to dissolve county committees of agriculture and I want more information on that point. What are his reasons? He indicates to the House that, owing to the legal position, if he wants to dissolve a county committee of agriculture, he has to go to the Minister for Local Government and get him to suspend the county council. It is only in that way that a county committee of agriculture can be dissolved.

Has a county committee of agriculture ever been dissolved for failing to do its work? Will the Minister, from his own experience or the experience of his Department, tell us of a county committee of agriculture which has failed to do its job? We have had dissolutions of committees of agriculture in certain counties but those were due to the fact that the county councils had to be dissolved. The county committees of agriculture, being composed largely of members of the county council, had to be dissolved in those circumstances. Even where a county council had failed to do its duty, I do not think that any similar charge was levelled against the county committee of agriculture. I have no knowledge of any such failure on the part of a committee and I have been interested in county committees of agriculture for a long time. I do not know what the Minister is trying to protect himself against in seeking power to dissolve these committees. It is not the proper method of getting done the work that county committees of agriculture are called upon to do. It is true that the function of a county committee of agriculture to-day is mainly administrative. These committees come together month after month doing rather routine business—the allocation of the money they get to spend, the number of premiums to be awarded to bulls and boards, the number of poultry stations to be established and the amount to be spent on a line scheme. The work of a county committee of agriculture and, indeed, the work of the technical head or executive officer of such a committee, is mainly administrative. I think that the work of the technical officer is too much administrative and that more of his time should be devoted to technical planning and advice, which is his proper function. Nobody with experience of the work of these committees will be convinced that they have done their work in such an inefficient way as to call for the granting of this power to the Minister.

My objection to the powers which are sought is that this is the wrong approach to the problem of getting done the work which county committees are required to do. It is wrong to have inspectors of the Minister's Department visiting the committees every few months to see whether or not they are carrying out their job of work. I avoided reading the debates on this matter in the other House because I wanted to give expression to my own thoughts. I have had experience of the work of a number of these committees and I do not think that there is any case for the granting of the powers which are sought. Even if the Minister got the powers, I should be astonished if he were to use them. If a county committee was not doing the work it was appointed to do, to hold the big stick over them would not serve the Minister's purpose. It would have the opposite effect. Instead of the farmers and ratepayers having greater interest in the schemes and more confidence in the administration of the officers, the opposite would be the case. I cannot contemplate the powers being used even if the Minister be granted them.

When I look at the reasons why a county committee may be dissolved, I am not at all convinced. One reason, as set out in the Bill, is that "the duties of a committee of agriculture are not being duly and effectively discharged by such committee." There is no use in pretending that every committee of agriculture is doing its job well. But if any number of farmers be asked their opinion about the Department of Agriculture, Senators know the opinion that will be expressed. The Minister himself has heard it. We have all made our contribution in that respect, though some of us have not gone far in that direction. There may be a difference of opinion between the Minister's Department and a committee of agriculture as to whether or not the work is being efficiently done. I recollect coming, as a member of a deputation from Cavan County Committee of Agriculture, to the Department some time ago. That was at the time when grants were first being made for the distribution of lime. We pleaded that we should be permitted to utilise this money not in the distribution of lime but in the purchase of artificial manures. We spent the greater part of an hour discussing the matter with the Minister's most representative executive officials but we failed to convince them that we should be permitted to utilise that money for the purchase of artificial manures. As Cavan farmers, we were convinced that our lands would be the better for the spending of that money on artificial manures, but we failed to convince the executive officers of the Department of Agriculture on the point. We know now that that money would have been much better spent on artificial manures than on lime not only in Cavan but in every other county of the State. We knew we were right and that the land would be stronger and in better heart if we were permitted to purchase artificial manures with the money. You have there a case in point, where I raised a question as to the efficiency of the work being carried on. I remember that when the committee returned the members were considering whether they would spend the money on lime or not. They decided to do so, but they were not convinced. That is one reason why the Minister may dissolve a committee. Another reason is where:—

"A committee of agriculture for a county wilfully neglects to comply with any lawful order, direction, or regulation of the Minister..."

All I say is that if we are going to initiate a policy of that kind in an Act of the Oireachtas, and if we are going from Merrion Street to dictate to a county committee what it has to do when it has a different point of view from that of the Department, or if farming is to be conducted from Merrion Street, it is a bad principle, and one that I do not think is going to commend itself to intelligent farmers. It will not be good for committees of agriculture or for the creation of confidence on the part of the people in decisions of the Department. When I read that sub-section I wondered if the Minister would be advised by the Department to avail of it. I have experience of inspectors coming to meetings of committees of agriculture for many years. They were level-headed men who understood the problems of counties in which they were stationed for the time being. If there are different points of view I feel that the way to get common understanding is by discussion between these inspectors and members of committees, instead of the Minister taking power to dissolve committees because they are not carrying out some Order that may be really nonsensical. That is not a principle that will commend itself to members of committees. I suggest that an Order could be made in the Department that would not suit a county in which it was to operate. That is my experience. The Minister will not contradict me when I say that decisions of that kind may have been made in the past, and that after some years it was not found easy to stand over them. Another sub-section reads:

"Where a committee of agriculture for a county fails to comply with any judgment, order, or decree of any court"

it may be dissolved. I have no recollection of a committee of agriculture being brought into court and judgment being given against it. It may have happened. If judgment were given against it, I take it that the members had to pay up. I do not think that there is any ground for dissolving a committee for having refused to respect the judgment of a court.

Another sub-section reads:—

"Where a committee of agriculture for a county refuses after due notice to allow its accounts to be audited by a local government auditor ..."

Did any committee of agriculture ever do so? I think that considerable exception is taken to the action of the Minister in asking for this power. The Minister has given no explanation for asking for it. He has been a fairly long time in office, and during a really difficult period from the point of view of administration, when there were reasons why committees could be rebellious. They were rebellious, perhaps more than they demonstrated. Nevertheless, in difficult times they attended meetings, and did their work loyally and with goodwill. Except he has reasons which he did not disclose to the House, I wish the Minister would reconsider this matter. I am at a loss to know why the Bill contains such a provision. He has nonplussed farmers with it. They are examining their consciences to know what the Minister is getting at, or who has been guilty. The Minister will have some explaining to do on this Bill. I object very strongly to that section. There is not in it the kind of relationship that should be established in an Act of the Oireachtas between the Department and committees of agriculture. There is no reason why the Minister should ask for these powers, or why he should ever have to exercise them. If a committee was incompetent, negligent, or as bad as it could be, I prefer to leave it to the tender mercies of the people of the county to deal with it.

Another section deals with the payment of travelling expenses of members of committees. There was never a more vague and indefinite section in any Bill. A similar section was introduced into an Act passed recently dealing with vocational education, empowering members of committees to collect travelling expenses. We are just repeating in this Bill what was in that section. While I do not know what is happening in other counties in regard to travelling expenses, I am aware of what occurred at a meeting of the vocational committee in Cavan after the passing of the amending Act. A number of members of the vocational committee are also members of the county council, and we contrived to have the meetings of the two bodies on the same day. As a result of the passing of the new Vocational Education Act travelling expenses that members can claim are actually lower now than in the past. One member had to cycle 12 miles over bad roads to attend the meetings, and all he could claim was 1½d. a mile. It was dark before he started to cycle home. I suggest that when the Minister and I started cycling a great many years ago there was a regulation in another Department fixing the scale of expenses for those who cycled at 1½d. a mile. It would not be possible to buy many smuggled tyres for a bicycle at the rate of 1½d. a mile now allowed for travelling expenses. If that is the best the Minister for Agriculture is going to do for members of committees, I suggest that the position needs looking into.

There was considerable discussion at this meeting of the vocational committee about the question of travelling expenses and the members obviously had a considerable grievance. The Department of Agriculture should have some plan which would enable members of committees to get in by hiring a motor car which would travel a wide circuit and take members in from different districts. There should be some plan which would enable the members to attend without being put in the invidious position of having to travel considerable distances on bad roads on winter days and then getting only 1½d. per mile as expenses. I am satisfied that in Section 2 the Minister is doing what he believes will clarify the position and make it more satisfactory for the committees, but I suggest that it needs examination as when some of the members went to the manager to claim their expenses they found they were worse off than they were in the days before the manager determined the amount of travelling expenses.

I find no fault with the liberty that is extended to certain members to benefit to a certain extent in the distribution of the funds which come under the administration of the committees. It is well to know that they can benefit only to a very limited extent. Quite clearly, if it were possible for members to claim that they had the right to get a premium bull or a poultry station, the position would be very unsatisfactory. Perhaps the Minister would even now decide that Sections 4 and 5—and 5 especially —should have no place in this Bill at all and that, in his riper judgment, he does not want those powers and would not use them if he had them. He should decide that the reasons he has given for asking for these powers are not reasons which justify the House in passing the Bill in its present form.

Mr. Brennan

I gather from Senator Baxter's remarks that he suggested that the county managers had powers to decide the expenses.

Mr. Baxter

I did not say that. I was discussing vocational committees and county councils meeting on the same day.

Mr. Brennan

On the question of transport, I understand it is quite in order for members of county committees to travel by motor car and be paid for doing so, provided that there is no other means of public transport. I do not think there is any need to make an Order regarding that, as it is the law at the present moment.

With regard to the provisions for the abolition of the county committees, I feel it is better that they should be abolished independently rather than that county councils should be abolished in order to abolish the committees. In the Act of 1934, provision was made to abolish boards of health without abolishing the county councils, so there is nothing very novel in the provisions of this Bill in that respect. The practice up to the present has been entirely undemocratic as, if it were necessary to get rid of a county committee, one first had to get rid of the county council. In many cases, the members of the county committee would be almost identical with those of the county council. It is true that the work of these committees is, in the main, of an administrative character. Once we admit this principle of abolition as being right—I am not arguing in favour of it, but we have had it in previous legislation in regard to county councils and boards of health— in regard to a larger body with wider scope, how can we argue it as wrong in the case of a subsidiary body?

If there is any case made by the Senator, it is that, whereas county councils, boards of health and other local authorities might be remiss in discharging their duties, in no circumstances would that ever occur in the case of a county committee of agriculture. I feel that the Senator went to great pains—to too great pains —to make a case that it would have been possible to make for county councils and other local authorities. I think it is preferable to retain these provisions rather than have the law stand as it is at present. I feel that the Bill as submitted to the House is better in its present form and I hope the Minister will not agree to delete these proposals.

Mr. O'Donnell

I do not know much about county committees of agriculture as such, but it seems extraordinary to me that in this Bill, under the payment of travelling expenses, definition is made as to the lesser quantity of miles these committee members may travel, but there is no limit, and nothing to prevent them from coming up to Dublin for a week-end. I know that that seems frivolous, but it is possible. I suggest that the radius of the meeting should be circumscribed, as also should be the maximum number of miles, if that is possible. I know it sounds rather ridiculous to say that a committee might decide to hold its meeting on the day of an all-Ireland football final but that is possible under the Bill as it stands.

Section 3, sub-section (3) (a), allows a person to become a member of a committee in certain circumstances. With all respect to the present Minister, I submit that the time may arrive when certain people may be made members of committees even though they hold contracts. I say that this is a rather dangerous principle to adopt, as the time may arrive when we would not have Ministers in office with the probity of the present Ministers. I can see the danger of people being appointed on public committees dealing with the payment of public funds and utilising them for their private benefit. That would have a dangerous effect on the probity of the State.

I think that the reference in sub-section (4) of Section 9 is a little bit harsh. Here is a man on trial, out on bail, suffering a suspensory sentence, and during that time the State says that he may go hungry, as his pay will be withheld. The sub-section does not say that, if the man is found not guilty, the amount of salary—assuming that we have a corrupt Minister—will not be withheld. That seems to be creating an autocracy of Ministerial omniscience which is against all the fundamental principles of democracy.

Again, Section 10 (1) is an extremely dangerous one. I can envisage—and I am sure this is not beyond the bounds of imagination of other members—the Minister saying, because of the political persuasions of a man who is employed in a particular capacity: "I will not have that fellow there" and simply suspending him. Such a man does not seem to have any rights under the Bill. It leaves the individual open to the private vendetta of the Minister. I am not saying that the Ministers will not be of the calibre of the present Minister, but in matters of this sort which have some perpetuity value, we should be careful to insert all safeguards for the individual.

That brings me back to the section to which Senator Baxter referred, where the Minister asks for power to dissolve county committees of agriculture. I am not going to deal with it from the same point of view as Senator Baxter, but Section 5 says that

"... if and whenever the Minister is satisfied, after the holding of a local inquiry under Section 24, of the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, that the duties of a committee of agriculture for a county are not being duly and effectively discharged by such committee,"

and so on, he can dissolve it. Now, I can realise that the argument put forward by Senator Brennan is correct and that it is a very good argument: that where you have obstreperous or unruly members of a committee of agriculture, to such extent as to make the committee unworkable, the Minister would have to dissolve the whole council; but look at the whole principle underlying this whole thing. Mind you, although the principle has been accepted by this House before, as Senator Brennan pointed out, the fact that it has been accepted does not make it right, and I, personally, abhor the whole idea underlying this thing because it may mean that a form of Government might arrive in this country when we might have to base ourselves upon the American model.

Under the power that is sought for here, we are giving to Ministers powers affecting whole sections of the community, whether committees of agriculture, county councils, civil servants, or any other kind of public officials. It means that any or all of these people or bodies can be automatically dissolved at the discretion of the Minister, and we may yet reach the stage when all public officials, whether servants of the local authorities or civil servants, will go out with a particular Government or a particular Party, and we may develop, as I have said, along American lines, where certain public officials go out with each Government. That is the principle to which I object.

As things are at the moment, I am not aware of any reason why the Minister should want this power, any more than Senator Baxter knows. The Minister probably has a very good reason for asking for this power, but I am against the principle of the thing, because I hold that if it is to be accepted in this case, it can be extended to such a degree that all our so-called democratic institutions and the so-called democratic status of our people will become a mere farce. That is my objection to this.

Mr. Counihan

Senator Baxter has had great experience of county committees of agriculture, and I think the Minister would be wise to pay attention to his remarks, and to look into the grievances he put forward. I know nothing about committees of agriculture, but I understood that the purpose of this Bill was to make better provisions and to remove certain restrictions from members of the committees of agriculture, and to make certain regulations in connection with agricultural instructors. It would seem, however, from Senator Baxter's remarks, that there are several things in the Bill which are objectionable. I am not competent to discuss those objectionable features to which Senator Baxter referred, but I am sure there must be something in his point of view when he put forward all these objections.

We have in this country very competent agricultural instructors, but in very many cases there is no possibility of these instructors being able to give lectures or impart their knowledge to agricultural workers or farmers in the country because of the lack of parish halls. I am not going to discuss that matter further, Sir, because I know that you would rule me out of order, but perhaps you will allow me to make an appeal to the Minister to use his influence with the Government, and particularly with his colleague, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, with a view to seeing that parish halls are erected in the villages throughout the country where, at the moment, there is no accommodation for giving those lectures. If the Minister would do that, he would be doing a great service to the country, because it would give us an opportunity of hearing lectures by these agricultural instructors.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I hope that that will satisfy the Senator, so far as that matter is concerned.

Mr. Counihan

Yes, Sir. I only wanted to make that point.

Mr. MacCabe

In connection with this matter of the dissolution of the committees of agriculture, I should like to say a few words. I feel that the farmers of the country owe a deep debt of gratitude to the men who represented them in the troubled times in this country. These people attended the meetings of the county committees at great risk to themselves during the troubled times, and they discharged their duties remarkably well. That is a tribute that we should pay to them to-day, and we are proud to know that a good number of them are still alive. Since our own Government came into office the best men in the country were selected and appointed to sit on these boards and, as Senator Baxter has said, I have not heard of a single case in which they did not discharge their duties faithfully and honestly. They are the only bodies in the country which, to my mind, should be encouraged because, after all, they represent the farming industry in this country and, as I have said, the farmers are keen enough and wise enough to select the best men, and these men have discharged their duties well.

Now, I do not believe for a moment that the Minister has the slightest intention of dissolving a board that is giving fairly good satisfaction, but I do say that it is a terrible reflection on the members of the committees of agriculture that this power should be taken, because they will feel that it means that they are not doing their duty well and that there is no place for them. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter and to give to these committees of agriculture at least the honour that is due to them. I do not want to refer to the question of travelling expenses, because I think it is a disgrace to feel that a man, as Senator Baxter said, travelled for 1½d. a mile to do his duty to the farmers and his neighbours—often travelling 40 and 50 miles. I happen to be a member of a committee of agriculture, and I know the distance that some unfortunate people had to travel, and travelled willingly, in order to do their duty and serve their country.

Mr. O'Connell

I should like to say that I agree entirely with the point made by the last speaker, that the county committees of agriculture, generally, throughout the country will see in this proposal of the Minister something to be resented. I do not think it is a good thing to make provision to deal with an abuse unless there is some evidence that that abuse has existed or is likely to exist in the near future. I agree thoroughly with what Senator MacCabe has said in that connection. It will create a bad impression in the country to see the Minister bringing in this regulation, in a time like this especially, when the Government has a lot of much more important things to attend to. That we should spend time bringing in legislation of this kind to deal with an abuse which we know has not existed and is not likely to exist in the future, will certainly not make a good impression.

There is one point upon which I should like to be clear. I think that the Minister, in his opening statement, said that if it should become necessary to suspend a county committee of agriculture, that could only be done by first suspending the county council. As I understand it, when a county council is suspended its subsidiary bodies are also suspended; they cease to operate after the county council is suspended. Now, the Minister proposes to short circuit the operation and suspend the county committee, if he thinks that is necessary. Will that cut both ways? Will it mean that, if it becomes necessary for the Minister for Local Government to suspend a county council, the county committee may still continue, if it has not done something for which it could be suspended? Will that be the effect of the new provision?

I do not like to give the Minister the powers he proposes to take under Section 8. They seem to me to be very vague:—

"The Minister may declare any specified age to be the age limit for all offices or for such offices as belong to a specified class, description or grade, or for one or more specified offices."

That seems to give very wide power to the Minister with regard to the officials of county committees of agriculture. There ought to be a more definite provision for fixing the age of retirement for public officials of this kind than simply indicating that the Minister may at any time declare any specified age to be the age for retirement. So far as I can see, that Order may be made without any reference to the Oireachtas, without placing it before the Dáil or Seanad.

As Senator Baxter pointed out, Senators are put in a rather difficult position because one cannot really determine what is the principle of the Bill, or what one is expected to vote for on the Second Reading. Some of the provisions are quite satisfactory, but there are others rather objectionable and one finds it difficult to make up one's mind how one should vote on the Second Reading, it is so difficult to determine the principle enshrined in the measure.

Sir John Keane

I was rather puzzled about Senator Baxter's reference to the 1½d. a mile cycling allowance. The Senator drew a great picture of the hardship involved in having to cycle for 1½d. a mile. Does he suggest that that is inadequate? The principle of payment for time is not admitted under the Act. The principle relates to the amount of travelling expenses and, if that is merely the figure to be determined, I do feel that 1½d. is sufficient for the wear and tear of a cycle.

Mr. McGee

I find it desirable to register my opposition to the Bill. I take much the same line on it as I did with reference to the abolition of county councils. I regret very much that it has been found necessary to do these things. I regret that the Government believe that sufficient patriotism cannot be found amongst our people. I regret that our county councils and our county committees are treated in this manner. I think the Government are ill-advised to take such drastic steps as they have taken all along the line. They are really ostracising the rural community and are acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the State. That is the view of many thinking people. They are not giving the rural elements the voice to which they are entitled. If the Minister asked my opinion, I would suggest that every parish council should have at least two or three representatives on county committees of agriculture, if not on the county councils.

I think the House would be unanimous in granting the Minister such power that, when members of a county council or a county committee would gravely misconduct themselves, they would forthwith be debarred from taking part in the local life of the country and a fresh election would be held. Even so far as colleagues of mine are concerned, taking, for example, a leader of mine such as Senator Mulcahy—I would speak with affection of anything that would come from him—if it is put up to me that he and others take this line with reference to the abolition of the county councils, I would differ from him and them with the greatest regret. As experience has come to me through the operation of various Acts, the difference becomes wider. I would be almost inclined to join any political Party that would favour the restoration to the people of full local authority, because I believe that responsibility would be the making of the people. Responsibility thrown on the men who will be elected will, to my mind, produce the highest form of patriotic action. I believe the abolition of county committees of agriculture will do very great harm.

I recollect two young Senators spending an hour in Committee elaborating a certain scheme. I will not mention their names; they belong to very honoured political Parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. They spent an hour one evening elaborating some scheme with reference to the carrying out of a job on a county committee or a county council. When jobs are to be carried out, they will not be carried out in the county councils or the county committees. Go higher up and you will get them professionalised. What will a county committee do if it has any idea of patriotism, common sense or common law? Will it not administer a scheme in the best interests of the people? If it does not do so, then kick them out and debar them from being elected to any other local authority. Do not take away the sense of responsibility from the people in the remote country districts.

It makes no difference to me that I give my opinion to the Government that is now in office. I will give it to this Government just as earnestly as I would give it to a Government that would be elected as I would like to have it elected. I think it is a mistake to proceed along the lines of urbanising the entire nation. The officials who go down the country, fully trained in the ways of the city, whether they be auditors or anything else, will obviously see things through urban eyes, and I suggest that is detrimental to the conduct of affairs in the rural areas. The words of Ministers, when they are pleading for greater food production, are not treated with all the respect they deserve. Possibly the reason is that in some instances they take professional advice, they accept the views offered them in the city, and they go against the men who, for many years, have done their best to carry on public administration. If those men were encouraged, and if more power were given them, I believe the position would be much more satisfactory. Difficulties should not be placed across their path. If they were properly encouraged, these men would gladly offer themselves for election in the future. It is perfectly true that the best citizens are not offering themselves for election to public boards, and it is perfectly true that some people do not vote as perhaps they ought to, but that is applicable to more elections than local elections.

I think every encouragement should be given to parish councils to carry out representative functions in these matters. I do not want to question anything Senator Baxter has said in regard to expenses, because some poor men will need expenses. Personally, I have never made a claim for travelling allowances, because I was never entitled to them. In conclusion, I think the Government should hesitate before completely abolishing local representation in the manner proposed.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. Sweetman

There are only a few remarks I want to make in regard to this Bill, and I shall deal with the various sections upon which I wish to comment as they appear in the Bill. To begin with Section 2, we have had already some discussion on the question of expenses and the word "reasonably". The particular phraseology is "would reasonably have been incurred by him". It is not clear from the Bill who is to be the interpreter of what is reasonable and what is not, and I should be glad to have that point cleared up. So far as Section 3 is concerned, Senator O'Donnell, in discussing the danger of members of committees being interested in contracts, I think, overlooked the fact that committees of agriculture do not engage so much in the ordinary business contracts to which he is accustomed, but more usually carry out larger schemes which are not so much for the benefit of any particular individual as for the benefit of all the farmers in the area. It would be unfortunate if a member of a committee of agriculture, simply because of that membership, found himself in the position of not being able, for example, to get a load of lime, because, without some such enactment as this, that would be the position. At the same time, it is, as Senator O'Donnell said, very necessary to ensure the maintenance of public confidence, and that there can be no possible suggestion that any member of a committee is enabled in any shape or form to benefit by any contract given by that committee. Though I think a general provision is in some shape necessary, I dislike a particular exception.

I am not certain whether the matter could be provided for in any other way but, if it could, I think it would be better for the Minister to define in the section itself the type of scheme in which a member of a committee of agriculture could engage or, perhaps, to put it the other way round, the type of scheme in which he could not engage. If it is felt that that cannot be done, I do think it necessary to have some such saving exception.

It seems to me that the real purpose of introducing this Bill, from the discussion at any rate, is contained in Section 5. From any information that I have been able to gather I cannot find any county committee of agriculture that has failed to carry out its duties. I have not had much experience myself; it has not been sufficiently long to justify my relying upon it; but I have gone to a good deal of pains to find out what is the position for other members of my own county council in Kildare who have been members for a long time, and none of them can remind me of any clash between the Department and their committee. When one cannot find any such clash and when the Minister does not tell us of specific clashes which render the introduction of such a clause necessary, I think we ought to be very slow to go further in the matter of concentrating the whole local government of the country, as well as the central government, in, as it were, the centre of a net of officials of various Government Departments, because that is what it amounts to.

I think the House is entitled to hear from the Minister why exactly he visualises any committee of agriculture refusing or neglecting to comply, for example, with an order of the court or with any lawful Order, if that Order is reasonable. As the section stands, so long as the Order is lawful, no matter how daft it may be in relation to a particular area, the county committee must be fired out by the Minister if it refuses to carry out his direction. Surely the members of a county committee know what will suit their area. I think every Senator will agree with me when I say that county committees are probably the best local bodies which exist in local government and it does not seem to me reasonable to expect these powers to be given without dire necessity and without that necessity being explained to us.

Under Section 9, the officers of a county committee are to be put in a rather invidious position. They are not to know whether their boss is the committee or the Minister, and I think it would be far more satisfactory if the Minister, instead of taking power himself to suspend an instructor, took power to make the county committee suspend him, so that a particular agricultural instructor in any area would know that he was working under one boss and only one boss. I should like also to subscribe to the statement—I forget who it was who mentioned the matter—that it does seem unfair that where a man is suspended, his pay should automatically cease. If a man is charged in the District Court and returned for trial to the Circuit Court, his emoluments from any employment do not cease until he is convicted. This, in effect, means that the conviction takes place at the time of suspension and not at the time of removal.

I also find it difficult to appreciate the necessity for including in the Bill the same point as I referred to on the Appropriation Bill, that is, the changing of the status of any person's employment half way through his contract. In Section 11, the Minister takes power specifically and deliberately to ensure that the powers in the Bill shall apply to existing officers. I do not think we shall get into the service of the State the type of people the service of the State demands and will benefit from, if we are to continue to set up precedents half way through the period of service of these people, chopping and changing, perhaps to the detriment of these people, the terms of service on which they took up their profession or way of life. I do not think that will encourage others to enter the service, and the effect of it, in the long run, will be that we shall get a gradually worse type into the service of local authorities as well as into the service of the central Government. I earnestly ask the Minister to consider the position from that angle, and, regardless of what he may do in respect of fixing specific age limits or anything else for any new person coming into the service, leave these people, who came in on specific terms, on a contract of service, to carry out their duties, as I hope, properly—if not, he can take action—according to the terms of service under which they were engaged.

Liam O Buachalla

I have listened very carefully since the discussion on this Bill began, in the hope that I would hear something which would convince me that there is some substance in the objections made against it, but so far I must confess that I have not heard anything which would give me even the slightest idea that there is substance in the objections being made. The discussion seems to centre mainly around Section 5. I should like to know in what way that section worsens the position of agricultural committees. Is it not possible at present to have an agricultural committee dissolved? The difference between this and the existing legislation is that under existing legislation, a committee could be dissolved only in a very roundabout way, whereas, under Section 5 of this Bill, the procedure is simple and direct.

Objection has been taken to the power of the Minister to stop the payment of salaries and to withhold emoluments in the case of a person who has been suspended. The only point which occurs to me in that regard is that if a private employer, in the event of one of his servants being summoned for any particular reason, decides to retain the services of that employee until such time as the matter is settled, he is paying out his own money. He is dealing with money, with property, which is his own and which he is free to dispose of in any way he thinks fit. There is a very great difference between that and continuing to pay public moneys to a person who has been suspended. I cannot conceive of any Minister or any Department dreaming of suspending any official without very serious grounds for such suspension, so that I think we are simply raising a bogey in trying to base an objection on either of these two matters, that is, the right of the Minister to dissolve committees and his right to withhold payment of salaries until such time as the cause of suspension has been investigated. I do not think that there is really anything whatever in the objections made this evening.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Two very small points occur to me in regard to this Bill, small in words, but one of them involves, I think, an important principle. First of all, in Section 2, sub-section (3), the last two lines convey to me no meaning whatsoever. They seem to me a most unmerciful bit of English and a most unmerciful bit of drafting. The words are: "...expenses which would reasonably have been incurred by him in travelling from and to his ordinary place of residence to and from the place of that meeting". Now, if that means in travelling from his ordinary place of residence to the place of meeting and back again, which would be the ordinary thing you would expect, why not say it? I cannot understand the English of that. I believe it to be a nonsensical sentence, and if the interpretation it is meant to have is the interpretation which I would suggest, I would very respectfully suggest that it might be put into plain English and, of course, in translation, into plain Irish.

The other point arises on Section 9. We are all familiar with the necessity of sometimes giving powers to a Minister which might seem rather arbitrary. There are very grave objections to that, but I do not want to embark on that wide and troubled sea at the present moment. However, I do wish to call the attention of this House to the wording, which probably gives wider powers to a Minister and committee than have ever been given before. I do not say there is no precedent for it, but I cannot recall one during comparatively recent months. In respect of any holder of any office— that is to say, a man who is doing his ordinary work for pay and emoluments—he would expect to be treated on reasonable lines, know what is charged against him and know who is charging him and have an opportunity of meeting any charge that is made. He is liable to be suspended not merely if his employers or the Minister have reason to believe that he has neglected his duty in some way, not merely if in the opinion of the employer or the Minister he has neglected his duty, but if in the opinion of the Minister there is "reason to believe".

There, again, is a combination of English words which produces such a vague and general sentence that it is very difficult to translate them into any clear idea. If a person has an opinion that he has reason to believe that somebody has done something, is the effect of the sentence. I do respectfully suggest that if it is considered necessary—which I deprecate —some plain phrase should be put in, in respect of the holder of an office, to cover a case where the committee or the Minister considers that he has failed to perform his duties satisfactorily. That is something which we can understand. It may be right or wrong, but it is intelligible, and if it comes before the court you may be able to give a meaning to it. But how anyone can get a meaning from the present phrase is a problem which defeats me.

I have a certain liking, in the drafting of an Act, for words which convey a meaning both to the ordinary person and to the lawyer, but these words, I submit, convey no meaning either to the ordinary person or the lawyer, and I suggest that if it is a formula which has been approved in previous Bills, it is one which should be immediately abandoned. I end my remarks with the proviso that, in conveying them, I should not be taken as accepting the principle that a Minister or anybody else should have this arbitrary power of suspending or dismissing an officer in their employment. Professionally, I have seen much evil come from it. I have seen people acting with all the best possible intentions, earnestly and honestly, which have turned out to be grossly unfair, and, while confining my remarks to the particular wording, I would like to make it clear that I am not accepting the principle.

Mr. Ruane

I want to raise two small points. Section 2, sub-section (2), says:—

"No person shall be paid under this section expenses in respect of a meeting held at a place less than five miles by any route from his ordinary place of residence."

I hold that the wording of that particular sub-section would operate adversely against some of the most useful members of agricultural committees. During my short experience on agricultural committees, I was associated with people who gave very practical assistance but who could not use bicycles. I believe you will always find such people on progressive committees, and if it is laid down here that a farmer who lives four and a half miles from the place in which the committee meeting is held cannot receive expenses he will, in order to attend the committee, have to incur the expense of hiring a motor car for nine times 1/6 per mile for every meeting he attends. For the sake of improving the personnel of these committees I think that should be altered.

Section 8 provides that the Minister may declare any specified age to be the age limit for all offices, or for such offices as belong to a specified class, description or grade or for one or more specified offices. I do not see why the age should not be stated in the Bill instead of the expression "any specified age". In an important matter like this, the figure should be set out—60 or 65—as it is in the case of other appointments.

Mr. T. Walsh

There are a few points I would like to raise on this Bill. First of all, what does Section 5 mean? Why are officers suspended? They are suspended because they do not carry out certain duties and no officer need be afraid of suspension if he does his work.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the Senator not referring to Section 9?

Mr. Walsh

The Minister does not suspend any holder of an office unless there is a sworn inquiry or local inquiry.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is referring, I think, to committees of agriculture, not officers of the committees.

Mr. Walsh

The committees may be suspended after holding an inquiry——

Mr. Sweetman

Did you see paragraph (b)?

Mr. Walsh

——if they wilfully neglect to do their duty, but not until then.

Mr. Sweetman

Who is to determine what is their duty?

Mr. Walsh

Paragraph (a) provides that an inquiry can be held. Is it proposed to retain a committee that will not do its duty? Is that what you want? If a committee is appointed, it is appointed for a certain purpose, and if it does not do its duty, the Minister has the right to dissolve it. I think we may be perfectly clear that there is very little danger of any committee being dissolved, but what has happened in many committees of agriculture? They have been used for purposes for which they have not been appointed. We have had snowball resolutions passed time and again by some of these committees for propaganda purposes. A good many of them have been used in that way.

As regards the age limit, I agree that there should be one and that it should be rigidly adhered to in order to give the younger men a chance of getting positions. There are secretaries of county committees of agriculture who have reached the age of 65, and some 70 years, still holding on to their jobs, while at the same time younger men who are qualified for such positions cannot get them. The only way to make provision for those younger men is to have this age limit rigidly adhered to.

On the question of travelling expenses, the position in Kilkenny is that no arrangements have been made there for the payment of expenses between the period August, 1942, to June, 1943. That is explained in this way. The county council was dissolved in 1934, and I understand that prior to that date no arrangements were made for the payment of expenses to the members of the county committee of agriculture. Therefore, the members of that committee will not be entitled to any expenses for the period I have mentioned. If similar cases have arisen elsewhere I would ask the Minister to see that special provision is made for them as well as for the members of the Kilkenny County Committee. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Hayden

As a member of a county committee of agriculture for 23 years, I claim to have fairly good experience of the work done by those committees. I want to refer in particular to the amount allowed to the members for travelling expenses. I have attended practically every committee meeting held in my county during the last 23 years. In order to do so, I have had to cycle 12 miles to the meeting place and 12 miles home. I first of all attend a meeting of the vocational committee at 12 o'clock. The meeting of the county committee of agriculture starts at two o'clock on the same day and continues until about five o'clock. Therefore, I can claim that my whole day is taken up attending those meetings. If the members of the committee require a meal they have to pay for it out of their own pocket. I suggest to the Minister that in this Bill he should make provision for the payment of a subsistence allowance as well as of travelling expenses. I and other members of the committee of agriculture leave home as a rule about 10 o'clock in the morning and do not get home until 6 o'clock, and sometimes 8 o'clock in the evening. I have known members of the county committee to leave work on their farms— to leave the harvest field—to attend a committee meeting. Therefore, I think there is a good case for the payment of a subsistence allowance.

Reference has been made to the payment of a travelling allowance of 2½d. per mile. I am 60 years of age and, as I have said, I have to cycle 24 miles— 12 each way—in order to attend a committee meeting. I have been doing that for 23 years. It is a heavy strain on me. I think that 2½d. a mile is an insignificant sum to allow. I am a poor working man—an agricultural worker. I take an interest in the work of these committees. I confess I had difficulty in finding the necessary sum to buy a bicycle in order to enable me to attend the meetings. I find a difficulty now in getting tyres for the bicycle.

From my experience, 2½d. a mile for a bicycle is altogether inadequate. I am also a member of the county council. In my county we sometimes get a motor car to attend county council meetings; but if I can find any other means of travelling to the meeting I do not go to the expense of hiring a motor car. I want to attend the meetings as cheaply as I can. At the county council we were told if we came with a pony we would be allowed 3d. a mile, but that if we brought a horse we would get 4d. a mile. There was that differentiation made between the horse and the pony. When I could not get tyres for my bicycle I went to my neighbour and got his horse to travel to the meeting. During this time of emergency, the horse was worth 10/- a day to that man for hiring. As we were only allowed 4d. per mile for the horse, all that the owner of it got was 8/- for the day, while at the same time the county council itself was paying 10/- a day for hired horses. I appeal to the Minister to be a little more generous to the members of the county committees of agriculture. They are good, genuine men. In my county they have always given a good reception to the Minister and to his officials. They are most enthusiastic as regards wheat growing and in carrying out the various schemes promoted by the committee. All that I ask for those members is that they get fair play and justice.

Mr. Quirke

I rise to support the Bill. I am inclined to agree with the last speaker in what he said about a subsistence allowance for members of county committees of agriculture. Some of them have to cycle ten, 15 and up to 20 miles in order to attend meetings. They suffer a good deal of hardship, especially during the short days, in setting out in the dark in the morning and cycling home on a dark night. The meetings are usually held in the principal town in the county. A good many of the committee members cannot afford to go into a hotel to buy a meal. They are already sufficiently out of pocket by reason of having to attend the meeting without incurring that additional expense. I am sure Senator Hayden will agree that if a subsistence allowance is to be paid to members of county committees of agriculture it will also have to be paid to county councillors. I think that the House should take this opportunity of expressing an opinion on that subject. I do not know if it is possible for the Minister to make provision for the payment of a subsistence allowance under this Bill. If it is I support Senator Hayden's suggestion.

There has been a lot of talk about Section 5. I cannot see anything tyrannical in it. I have been a member of a county committee of agriculture for a long number of years. I am a member of a county council at present. Do Senators who spoke in opposition to the section realise that it is only "if and whenever the Minister finds that certain things have been done" that the section will come into operation? Listening to some of the speeches made on the section one would imagine that some extraordinary power was being taken under it for which there was no precedent. Do not Senators well know that if and when the Minister for Justice finds a person doing a certain thing, that person is brought before the court, and that if and when a farmer allows weeds to grow over his fences the Minister for Agriculture under his regulations comes down on top of him? The Minister does the same if a farmer allows a scrub bull, or half a dozen of them, to roam about. Some Senators seem to see impending disaster for the members of county committees in this section. I do not see that at all. On the other hand, I see in it protection for the democratic representatives of the people. Under the existing legislation, if a county committee of agriculture goes wrong, the only way it can be got rid of is by first getting rid of the county council. On that point I would like to draw the attention of Senators to the fact that while the members of the county council are the direct elected representatives of the people, the members of a county committee of agriculture may not be such at all.

Lest there be any misconception, may I say that never at any period during which I was a member of a county committee of agriculture was there occasion for any member to be afraid of that section. I doubt that any county committee has any fear of the section, but I can visualise a position in which a county council would appoint a county committee of agriculture from which certain members would drop out from time to time and other members would be co-opted in their place. After a few years, you might have a committee of agriculture completely different from that originally appointed by the county council. It would be hard lines on the county council if, because of the actions of that type of county committee of agriculture, it was itself to be abolished. Because I believe that, I think that this section is absolutely necessary. The number of people who have anything to fear from the section are few, but we can easily imagine a certain group getting into control of a committee of agriculture and doing the things set out in the section. I challenge any member of the House to say that a county committee doing these things, or not doing the things it is supposed to do, should not be brought under this or some similar provision. I regard this section as a protection for county councils and the elected representatives of the people against a smaller body which may not be, and in most cases is not, wholly composed of elected representatives.

Senator Sweetman said that a county committee knows best what to do in its own county. If anybody other than Senator Sweetman suggested that kind of law, I could understand it. Would he follow that argument out to its logical conclusion and say that the individual farmer knows best what to do? Would he say that the individual farmer knows what is best for himself and that, therefore, he should take no notice of the county committee of agriculture or the Minister for Agriculture? If that is Senator Sweetman's opinion, then he is suggesting that we go back to the law of the jungle.

Mr. Sweetman

When I suggested agricultural research, your reply was that the individual farmer knew best.

Mr. Quirke

The Senator has had to travel a long way for an interjection and I am afraid he has not made a good job of it. If Senator Sweetman pushes his argument to its logical conclusion, then he must admit that he is advocating the law of the jungle. Senator Baxter and other Senators suggested that we were going to have the country dictated to from Merrion Street. Where does he want dictation to come from? If there is to be dictation from anybody, it must be from the Government.

Mr. Baxter

I hate dictation.

Mr. Quirke

Everybody hates dictation.

Mr. Baxter

And I am not a bad judge as to what to do on my own farm.

Mr. Quirke

That is what you say but other people do not think so.

Mr. Baxter

You should come along and see.

Mr. Quirke

Some people have done so and you would not be complimented if you heard what was said. I do not think that there is anything to worry about in Section 5. As regards Section 3, I know it is a great drawback that a member of a county committee of agriculture cannot benefit by the schemes made available by the committee. I have often found that a drawback myself and I felt sorry for other members of the committee who could not avail of certain schemes. But what is the alternative? If anybody can suggest an alternative, I shall be 100 per cent. with him. But I cannot see an alternative which would not be open to abuse if two or three persons—this is quite improbable but highly possible—were to agree to avail themselves to the full of the schemes under their own control.

Dr. Ryan

Two or three points arising out of this Bill came in for special consideration by a number of Senators. The first point has been fairly fully dealt with by Senator Quirke—the dissolution of county committees of agriculture. It is possible to dissolve a committee at the moment but it must be done in a roundabout way. No Senator will suggest that if a committee was not doing its business as it should do it or was not carrying out the schemes as they should be carried out, for the benefit of the farmers, that state of affairs should be allowed to continue. A situation like that must be dealt with when it occurs. If it were to occur now, we should have to deal with it by abolishing the county council. Then the other body would go with it. That is a very roundabout method and it would be unfair to a county council which might be properly discharging its duty. We are not taking any new powers under this Bill. The powers in the Bill exist already but we are making it easier to abolish a county committee of agriculture. I agree with Senator Quirke that no county committee resents this provision. Senator Baxter said that he did not read the Dáil Debates.

Mr. Baxter

I did not.

Dr. Ryan

I accept the Senator's word but Deputies used the same arguments, with one exception, as Senator Baxter used. I have been around a number of committees of agriculture since this Bill was introduced and I did not hear a harsh word about it from one of them. As Senator Quirke pointed out, if you passed a law that a Senator should be imprisoned for assaulting an innocent person, no Senator would be offended because each one would take it that it was not intended for him. That is how the county committees feel. They say that the provision is not intended for them because they are doing their duty properly. Senator Baxter went so far as to say that farmers were wondering what was meant by this section. I do not think that a dozen farmers have heard of this section or take the slightest interest in it. I have met a great many farmers recently and not one of them asked me about this section. If we were to ascertain their opinion, I am sure they would agree that there should be some such provision to deal with a county committee which is not doing its business properly.

The grounds on which a county committee can be dissolved are set out fairly specifically in the section. I do not want to cross swords with the lawyers in this House about the wording of certain clauses. I have found from experience that the draftsmen have, on the whole, done their job well. Their work has stood the test. I suppose there can be a difference of opinion among lawyers as among other classes. The offences, if they may be so described, for which a county committee can be dissolved and the procedure to be adopted are set out in the section. As Senator Quirke pointed out, in the case of dispute between a county committee and the Minister, there must be a local inquiry. But where a county committee refuses to comply with a legitimate Order or fails to comply with an order of the court or refuses to have its accounts audited, there need not be a local inquiry. These are specific matters; they are plain to everybody; there can be no dispute whether they did or did not occur and, therefore, no local inquiry is necessary. In the other case, where there is a dispute as to efficiency or neglect of duty, a local inquiry must be held to have the matter properly investigated. Any reasonable person will agree that it is better to have good administration, even from the point of view of democracy—I am glad to say we did not hear much about democracy in this House—if democracy is going to last and to succeed we must make sure that any democratic body is acting properly and efficiently and somebody must have power to abolish local authorities of this kind if they are not carrying out their duties properly.

I must say that if this Bill had been passed in 1931, instead of 1944, I would never have made use of it in the last 13 years. That is not to say that it was not necessary. We are not taking any new powers. The Minister for Local Government got an Act passed in 1941, but did not include in it several things which might have been included, and made applicable to county committees of agriculture and vocational education committees, because it was the decision arrived at between the three Ministers concerned that we would deal with our own legislation regarding the age of retiral, travelling expenses and other matters. In my Department we took the opportunity to bring in this Bill to deal with this and other questions that were hitherto in local government legislation and not concerned with agricultural committees. We can in future for practically all purposes rely on our own legislation rather than on local government legislation in our dealings with county committees of agriculture. In my opinion, there is no necessity to make much of this question. This is a re-enactment of what already was in local government legislation, making it simpler, if you like, to suspend a county committee of agriculture but not going further than that.

With regard to the payment of travelling expenses, that question has been dealt with already by the Minister for Local Government and by the Minister for Education. I am now dealing with it in reference to county committees of agriculture. In this Bill we use the words "reasonable travelling expenses", and I am asked to say who is going to interpret these words. In the first instance the county committee of agriculture. Senators know that the decisions of county committees of agriculture are forwarded to the Department of Agriculture, and that the Minister may disapprove of these decisions when he thinks they are, I will not say wrong, but wrong legally. I take it that in this sub-section as it stands, the same principle will be adopted, that county committees would give their views on what they thought were "reasonable travelling expenses" and that the Minister would not disapprove of them unless he came to the conclusion that they were unreasonable. Instances were mentioned by Senators of the amounts being paid in certain cases, and I certainly feel that they are altogether unreasonable, that they are too low. I do not think Senators need have any fear that there will be any difficulty about raising the rates mentioned, and giving people what would be considered reasonable expenses. It is not likely that members of any county committee would vote themselves anything that would be considered unreasonable in that respect.

Mr. Baxter

I suggest that the Minister had better look into the matter of the drafting of any communication in that respect, or otherwise we will have civil servants going back on the old regulations.

Dr. Ryan

Senator Ruane spoke of a lower limit than five miles in regard to mileage. I feel that any person living within five miles of a principal town in a county, where these meetings are always held, must be in the position that he visits that town fairly frequently. If he is an active man he must have some means of transport, a pony and car, a horse and car or, if he is a young man, a bicycle. A person who attends meetings in what is the ordinary market town occasionally, would not need to be paid expenses. Senator Hayden and Senator Quirke referred to subsistence allowances. I take the view regarding legislation of this kind that the Minister for Local Government, who is dealing with the main local authorities, should be the first Minister to initiate a scheme of that kind. I am not expressing any opinion against the payment of subsistence allowances. The question was raised in the Dáil and I mentioned to the Minister for Local Government that I felt he should take the initiative there if he thought it wise to do so. He told me that he would consider the matter, and see if a case could be made for paying subsistence allowance to members of local authorities. I have to wait to see what will be done.

Senators will agree that I could hardly bring in a scheme of that kind for members of county committees of agriculture unless other Ministers were going to do the same, because I take it that county council meetings and meetings of vocational committees have more business to transact and last longer than committees of agriculture. Personally, when discussing the matter with the Minister for Local Government I shall keep the views expressed here in mind.

Senator O'Connell, when speaking about the dissolution of committees, asked if the period was going to be made shorter in which to suspend a county committee. He wanted to know if that meant that if a county council was suspended, a committee of agriculture would not be suspended. I am afraid we cannot change conditions in that respect, because if a county council goes, all subsidiary bodies, including county committees of agriculture, must go. The next point dealt with concerned the retiral age. Nobody appears to have objected strongly to the principle of fixing a retiral age. Certain Senators thought the age should be mentioned in the Bill. I think the principle has been maintained so far, that the question of dealing with the staffs of local authorities has been regarded as an administrative matter, that is, that the Ministers concerned, Local Government, Education and Agriculture, deal with it in an administrative way, having got the necessary powers from the Oireachtas. The same principle underlies the provision in this Bill.

Another point was that it was unfair to apply this to existing officers. I should like to point out that existing officers have no privilege whatever. It is a great mistake to think they have. The existing officers were appointed by the local authorities, and I believe that Senators would absolutely squirm in their seats if they knew all the powers local authorities have over these officers. It is a pity that Senators were not here in 1931, when this legislation was passed. I do not think they would ever have let it through. Section 22 (4) of the Agriculture Act passed at that time says: "A committee of agriculture may dismiss any servant of such committee and, with the approval of the Minister, remove any officer of such committee." There is no restriction whatever on that power. They need not state even the reason why they dismiss a man. They may dismiss anybody they like for any reason they like. That being so, the officers of local authorities have no privilege or right, so far as I can see at the moment, to remain in their posts. Through custom, as it were, they get a certain expectation of being left in their posts as long as they like.

Local authorities were asked some time ago, or rather they got the urge to fix a retiring age for their officials. Here, again, the question of efficiency enters and I am sure every Senator will agree that efficiency is what we want. There was a feeling that people over a certain age, taking the matter generally, were not fit to carry out their duties.

For instance, there are persons working for county committees, persons who are supposed to visit farms all over the county on bicycles, and some of them are over 70 years of age. It is hardly possible that these people can carry on efficiently. So far as I know, they are doing fairly well, but, still, they are getting a bit old for the job. We all agree there should be some retiring age and I am sure we will all agree that it should be a stated age for everybody. We should not deal with every individual according to his condition. Everyone will agree that if persons entering the service are told that there is a definite retiring age, there can be no objection, but some people say that should not be applied to the existing officers. I think it should. I submit that we must apply it to the existing officers and we are not taking any right or privilege from these people. We may be taking them a little bit unawares. It will be the Minister for Local Government who will be dealing with the matter when the county committees decide what pension they will give to the person who is retiring. They can give up to two-thirds of the retiring salary, if the person retiring has a service covering a certain number of years. It is for the Minister for Local Government to approve or disapprove.

In practice, the Minister for Local Government goes on the basis of one-sixtieth for each year of service. If a man has 40 years' service he gets two-thirds of his salary without question and if he has 30 years' service he gets half his salary. In practice that is what the Minister for Local Government does. I have discussed this matter with the Minister and he agrees that if we make an Order of this kind, and if people who are now 64 or 65 years feel strong and hearty and look forward to at least another four or five years, not having made provision for an early retirement, he will be prepared to deal sympathetically with such cases and allow added years in order to give a better pension than he otherwise would give.

The only other point that was raised was the point mentioned by Senator Walsh about the Kilkenny County Committee of Agriculture. This Bill will allow expenses on the basis of the new rate, whatever the county committee agrees is reasonable, to be paid retrospectively to the 30th June, 1943. Senator Walsh asked what rate would be allowed for the previous half-year. It will be the rate applicable before this Bill is passed, a rate the same as the county council rate. I think it would be 4d. a mile one way, travelling by rail, and up to 5d. a mile travelling by road, according to the mode of travel. Where the expenses have not been decided upon by county committees that may be waiting for this Bill to go through, the old rates will apply, up to the 30th June; that is, whatever rate may have been decided upon by the county committee.

Sir John Keane

As regards travelling expenses, are they allowed both ways or only one way?

Dr. Ryan

Under the old scheme, one way, but it does not make a lot of difference. They say 4d. a mile both ways, or 8d. a mile one way—it does not make a lot of difference.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 19th January, 1944.