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.