I think I can agree to a certain extent with Senator Honan that this is a small Bill, but it is a very important one. I do not think that we can deal with this as lightly as Senator Honan dealt with it, but one does not need to go so far into it as Senator McDonald has done. It is a simple Bill. Every Member of the Seanad is getting used to this type of Bill. In my ten short years in this House this is the third time we have had amending legislation of this kind. It is the third time we have had this kind of amending legislation since 1964 because we had it in 1964, 1970 and again we have it in 1971.
When a similar Bill was before us in 1970 I made a plea to the Minister to increase it to the 15 new pence, otherwise we would be back here in two years seeking to have it increased to 15 new pence. As a member of an agricultural committee since I first entered public life—I was appointed a member of the Meath County Committee of Agriculture and I am still on that committee—I know that I and my committee are not affected by this Bill, as the Minister and his officials are probably aware. Last Monday we had our estimates meeting for 1972/73 and we still have not reached the old figure of 27 pence for the past year. There are reasons for that because a penny in the £ in my county brings in almost £2,400. When you contrast that with a penny in the £ in a county like Longford or Leitrim, bringing in one quarter of that, £600, this is where the problem arises.
There are one or two things which I should like to ask the Minister and I would deem it a favour if he would answer me. Why is it that committees of agriculture are inhibited by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in the way in which they are? A ceiling is put there for the committee of agriculture, "thus far and no further must you go", and the result is that in certain counties—and again I may say that my county is not affected—they find that they cannot live, operate and give a service that the agricultural community demands on the ceiling that is imposed upon them by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Those of us who are members of local authorities will know what I am talking about when I talk about the old joint mental hospital boards. They met and they fixed a rate for the coming year and that demand was presented to each of the local authorities within the joint board's area. That had to be met and no questions asked. You have the same situation with the vocational committees. When we sit down in a few months' time to deal with our estimates for 1972/73 we will be getting a demand from all the regional health boards and councillors may ask questions. But you cannot take one halfpenny off that; it is mandatory, you have to write the cheque and hand it over.
The agricultural committees are being treated as if their membership were composed of a type of second-class citizen, or somebody who is not to be trusted. The heavy hand of the Department must be over them and they are told "You cannot exceed 27 pence" and now we are asked to increase that to 36 pence. I am dealing in the old pence, I think it is the easiest way. It is increased to three shillings.
I do not think the Department are being realistic in imposing a figure of three shillings. In section 1 (1) it is proposed to increase the ceiling to 15p in the £ with effect from 1st April, 1972. This maximum does not, of course, make it mandatory on county committees of agriculture to reach it or indeed to meet the demands of the committees of agriculture unless County Councils see fit. We all know that is the situation and we all know that county committees of agriculture are in the main composed of members of county councils who are the rating authorities. They have a responsibility to the ratepayers of the county, they accept that responsibility and they carry out that responsibility as members of committees of agriculture and as members of the county councils. I do not think there should be any fear that they will make excessive or wild demands on their local authority when it comes to the striking of the rates.
I should like to ask the Minister when he is replying to clear up one point. Why has the figure—which is sailing so close to the wind and is making it so difficult for committees of agriculture in certain parts of the country to carry on—to be 15p rather than, say, 30p or 35p? Is it because committees are not to be trusted or is it because committees are about to be phased out? There is grave suspicion that this is the case and that this is the reason why we have this piecemeal legislation coming in here every couple of years aimed at getting another couple of shillings to keep the county committees of agriculture in business until we decide what we are to do with them.
Usually, when a Minister introduces a Bill in the Dáil and subsequently, when it has passed through all Stages in the Dáil and is introduced in the Seanad, we find if we read the Minister's speeches introducing the Bill in the Dáil and Seanad that there is a great similarity in the speeches. I notice, on reading the Minister's speech on this Bill in introducing it in the Dáil and on reading his speech introducing the Bill here tonight, that there is a grave omission in one paragraph. It might be no harm to read from his Dáil speech so that we could put it on the record of the House. It appears in volume 256, column 2127, of the Dáil Debates of 16th November, 1971. The Minister, in introducing this Bill in the Dáil, said:
This Bill I should explain is basically an interim measure designed to enable the more hard-pressed committees of agriculture to pay their way in carrying on their very important work until such time as a final decision is reached on the whole future of the agricultural advisory and educational service which, as Deputies know, have been under comprehensive review. The new maximum rate will meet the needs of those county committees which in the immediate future cannot carry on without a contribution in excess of the present permitted maximum. Otherwise, those committees would have to consider curtailing the scheme and possibly the number of their advisory staff. Such a contingency would not only be highly undesirable but would be seriously detrimental to the interests of the farming community.
We can all agree with that but the hidden message in it is that the fears that are being expressed by members of committees of agriculture that they are about to be phased out is, I think, evident in that paragraph which the Minister omitted in his Second Reading speech here tonight.
The leader of the House got a bit annoyed when Senator McDonald indicated that he proposed to ask the Minister to reconsider this figure of 15p. He pointed out that this Bill went through the Dáil in a very short time. I do not wish the leader of the House to think that I am making a threat here tonight but I think we have a democratic right, if we feel that we can in any way improve the Bill, to put down amendments. I propose to put down an amendment to this 15p mentioned in the Bill because I think it is an inadequate sum. I know the Minister knows it is inadequate too. I think this figure should be increased to at least 25p so that it will give a breathing space to the seven committees, as Senator McDonald has said, that are seriously in the red and who would have had to curtail their services were it not that their bank managers were so accommodating during the year.
I do not wish to take up much more of the time of the House but there are still one or two small points that I should like to refer to and which I hope I can refer to without incurring the wrath of the Chair. There are references here to the normal 50 per cent towards the cost of employing adequate numbers of advisory staff. For the benefit of those who are not au fait with committees of agriculture, the general basis in a number of counties is pound for pound: for every pound put up by the rates the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries put up a pound.
In the 12 underdeveloped counties the system is different, but as a person who comes from the eastern part of the country we are supposed to be enjoying the 50 per cent, or pound for pound, generally indicated. I wish to point out that this is not the case and it is something that should be put right immediately. In my county, when we were dealing with the estimates last week we found that we were being short-changed by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to the extent of £1,615 on our 1972-73 estimates. This arose by reason of the fact that we do not get the 50-50 ratio we are supposed to get. I believe the same applies in a number of other eastern counties. It is entirely wrong that this type of Victorian legislation should be carried on into the seventies. I would respectfully ask the Minister and the Department to have a look at that aspect of the matter because this short-changing of the Meath Committee of Agriculture of £1,615 is approximately the equivalent of three-farthings—if you would pardon me for talking of farthings in this affluent age— in the £.
There is one further point I should like to raise and that is the question of the representation of committees of agriculture on the regional development organisations. I am sure the Minister and his officials are as aware of this as I am. Where there were applications from four county committees of agriculture to become members of the regional organisation they were inhibited from doing so because the Department of Agriculture would not sanction the payment of a subvention to the regional organisation. I believe this applies all over the country. I do not know what the reasoning behind it is. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that in his winding up speech.
I feel that the committees of agriculture have a role to play in regional development and that they should be members of the regional development organisation. I also feel that, if they are to be members of the regional organisations, they should be full members and that they do not come in merely because they happen to be committees of agriculture who are inhibited from paying any subvention, thus playing the role of the second class citizen on the regional organisations. I would respectfully ask the Minister to have a look at that and see if there is anything that can be done to enable the committees of agriculture to pay the small subvention of perhaps £100 or £150 that may be demanded in order that they may have full membership of regional organisations.