I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. I should say at the outset of the discussion that this Bill to establish an agricultural institute would not have been possible were it not for the great generosity of the United States in placing at our disposal, under the Marshall Aid Programme a considerable sum of money for this and other projects designed to develop the country's economy.
That sum, of over £6,000,000, has in conformity with the agreement signed in June, 1954, between Ireland and the United States been allotted to a number of projects some of which are now completed, and others in process of completion. The principal of these projects were the ground limestone transport subsidy scheme on which was expended £1,750,000; the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme to which was allotted £700,000; and the pasteurisation of separated milk— £500,000; money was also made available for the assistance of rural organisations and legislation has now been introduced to set up a Scholarship Exchange Board to arrange for the interchange of students, teachers and research workers between Ireland and the United States for which a sum of £500,000 has been made available.
The agreement of June, 1954, allocated the sum of £1,840,000 for an agricultural institute. Since the idea of an agricultural institute was first mooted there has been a great deal of controversy over the form it should take and what precise functions it should assume in relation to existing institutions engaged in agricultural research and teaching in Ireland. The project of an agricultural institute raised fundamental questions about the organisation, the inter-relationships and the adequacy of the institutions concerned in relation to the needs of the country.
The original proposals of the previous Government which were set out in a memorandum issued to the Press on the 15th August, 1955, envisaged that the institute would provide all higher agricultural education and that degrees would be awarded by the National Univesity or Trinity College to successful institute students. It would also have undertaken and developed research and investigation facilities. These proposals would have involved the taking over by the institute of the agricultural faculties in University College, Dublin, and Trinity College and the dairy science faculty at University College, Cork, as well as certain institutions controlled by the Department of Agriculture. These proposals appeared to the then Government to be the best that could be worked out, taking account of all the problems and difficulties.
However, as the Dáil is well aware, these proposals met with a great deal of criticism from many quarters. A few interests would have preferred an independent agricultural university on the lines of Wageningen in Holland and personally I consider that there is a good deal to be said for that point of view. Others, and these appeared to include some of the farm organisations as well as the university authorities, would have preferred to develop the existing university agricultural faculties and extend them if necessary within the universities and under university control. The previous Government's proposals of August, 1955, though in fact they lay somewhere between these two opposite positions, became the target for intense opposition and criticism, some of which might not be considered to be very well founded.
The existence of these various and fundamentally conflicting points of view created an extremely difficult situation for successive Ministers for Agriculture who eventually were forced to the conclusion that any proposals which involved interference with the existing teaching functions of the universities were highly unlikely to find that measure of acceptance without which the project could not be expected to succeed. The United States authorities were also unlikely to favour any project which did not enjoy a wide measure of support among informed public opinion. It was in these difficult circumstances that Deputy Dillon, when in office, put forward the revised proposals embodied in the Bill introduced in the House in December, 1956. As Deputies are aware, that Bill was not considered by the House because of the dissolution.
The 1956 Bill proposed to confine the functions of the institute broadly to the organisation and financing of agricultural research and to post graduate work generally. These proposals were removed from the concept of an agricultural university which some people, including the late Mr. Moylan had envisaged as the ideal.
Mr. Moylan, when he took office as Minister, gave the closest possible consideration to this whole problem and to the reasons which led Deputy Dillon to introduce the December, 1956, proposals in the form they took. He considered whether it would be advisable or feasible to revert, at least partially, to the original concept of an institute comprehending both teaching and research but after close scrutiny of the difficulties involved and after consultation with the interested parties and with his colleagues in the Government, he came to the conclusion that it would be impracticable for him to depart in any substantial respect from the main principles underlying the proposals which Deputy Dillon had introduced in his Bill.
The Bill now circulated retains therefore the central idea of two funds: a permanent endowment fund of £1,000,000, the interest on which would accrue to the institute as current income, and a capital fund of £840,000 which would be used for the extension and development of research facilities of a capital nature. Interest on the capital fund will also accrue to the institute as additional current income.
The new Bill also retains the idea of an autonomous governing council for the institute which will have the general responsibility of reviewing and coordinating research work and developing research facilities.
Particular functions of the institute will be to make capital grants to persons or institutions carrying out research for extension or development of their research facilities; to establish new research units itself where this seems the most desirable course and to administer such research units as may be handed over to it later. It will, among other things, advise on research programmes, give grants to assist specific research projects, provide scholarships for research workers, organise courses of study for advanced students in agricultural research and related subjects and seminars, conferences, lectures and demonstrations on specific problems.
One of its most important functions will be to arrange for the dissemination of the results of research work to all concerned but more particularly to those engaged in advising farmers. Finally it will act as adviser to the Minister for Agriculture on such problems of a scientific and research nature as he may refer to it from time to time; the kind of thing I have in mind here is that, for example, should there be an outbreak of an uncommon but serious plant disease the Minister for Agriculture should be in a position to obtain the best expert advice on how to deal with it.
This council, which will have to supervise these manifold activities will be representative of farming interests, the universities and of the State and if our hopes are realised it will have as members people of high standing in the research field and with competent knowledge of agricultural problems and needs.
The whole scheme of the Bill revolves round the council and it is not too much to say the potential value of the institute will be directly proportionate to the efficiency of the council in discharging the heavy responsibilities to be entrusted to it. One of the major tasks of the council will be to review the existing organisation of and the facilities for research in this country and to consider carefully the lines of future development, and it is the Government's hope that this will be the first important task to which the council will address itself.
On the matter of the organisation of the institute the late Mr. Moylan had decided, that it would be better to separate the functions of chairman of the council and executive head of the institute and it will be observed that the present Bill contains a new Section 7 providing for a director and outlining his position and responsibilities. Under the new scheme the chairman of the council—who would be part-time—will broadly be responsible for presiding over the policy-making deliberations of the council while the director will be the chief officer of the institute, responsible for implementing the policy and decisions of the council. He will also be in a position to propose action to the council.
While the capital resources and current income available to the institute from its capital and endowment funds will be substantial, the Bill further contemplates that where this income is insufficient for the needs of the institute, it will be supplemented out of voted moneys, the amount of the State contribution to be decided each year after consultation between the council, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture and due consideration being given to the income and expenditure position of the institute. I am sure that the Dáil will be generous in providing whatever funds are found to be necessary to supplement the institute's own income. It is intended that the proposals in this Bill will form the basis of an agreement with the United States authorities and to that end the two Governments are keeping in close touch with each other.
While the institute, the framework of which is before you, is not as far-reaching in the scope of its functions as many would have liked, still the potential for good and for the development and assistance of agriculture in the difficult future ahead is very great and, within the sphere allocated to it, it has the opportunity, if it exercises its functions with vision and efficiency, to bring about a major transformation in Irish agriculture. If the institute is to succeed in this it will require the full co-operation, support and understanding of all the interests concerned and more particularly that of the farmers themselves and of the universities with whom it will have to work in very close association. It was the late Mr. Moylan's wish that it should get this co-operation and I am sure it is the wish of all of us interested in the welfare of agriculture.