I would like to have the Minister's views on other Departments and other Ministers having access, under the terms of the Bill, at all reasonable times to the lands and premises of the new authority. This is a dangerous section and I would like to see it removed for the reasons I outlined earlier, that is if we want to maintain the confidence of farmers. On several occasions in the Bill we find mentioned "with the authority of the Minister", "with the authority of the Minister for Finance" and "with the authority of the Minister for the Public Service". This is a dangerous precedent. I am surprised that the Minister is party to this, knowing his involvement in the local scene and his contact with farmers generally.
National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority Bill, 1976: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Does the Deputy know that that is there at the moment?
It is not.
The Deputy is chairman of a county committee of agriculture and he should know it is there.
It means that some Government Departments will now have access to documents which are at present owned by the county committees of agriculture.
They have it already.
I doubt it, with due respect to the Minister, because when the White Paper was published in April, 1975, he stated in an article published by The Irish Farmers' Journal that the function of the new service would be to provide independent impartial and unbiased advice on ascertained facts. Furthermore he stated that it would be an education service operating on the philosophy of helping farmers to help themselves. If the Minister says that this section is to help farmers to help themselves, then that is that.
With reference to section 14 I should like to know if in future a county committee can still put forward their own ideas without getting direction from the Minister or any direction from the top. Regarding the operation of the farm modernisation scheme will the overall operation of this scheme be in the hands of this new authority? Section 16 gives the impression that this is the case. I should also like to know why there is reference in section 19 to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Public Service.
There is also a question here regarding the contribution to be provided by the local authority which heretofore contributed 50 per cent of the expenditure in the county, the remaining 50 per cent being provided by the Department of Agriculture. Under the terms of the Bill the county committee will now have to get a certificate from the Minister to demand the amount required from the local authority. Is there a possibility that the amount demanded by the Department from the local authority could be reduced and when the amount is ultimately paid will there be a guarantee that the money will actually be spent within the county?
I should like the Minister to reply to these questions and to take account of the serious consequences of this Bill with regard to the farming community, which I think will be shattered. He should also consider the problems which exist for the people involved in providing the service, the staff of the Agricultural Institute, the institute itself now losing its autonomy and also the agricultural advisory service. I hope that the Minister will consider very seriously the implications of this Bill.
This Bill is entitled:
An Act to make further and better provision for agricultural advice. education, training and research and for that purpose to establish a body to be known as the National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority and to define its powers and duties and to provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid.
We all know of the Minister's interest and expertise in the development of our agricultural industry. Indeed, even when we were in opposition we worked together on a blueprint for agricultural development. Having read the Bill and having regard to the widespread acceptance of the Minister's position in the country, you will appreciate my great disappointment at the negative views and approach of the Opposition to this entire problem.
I should like to underline the importance of agricultural education and of continued agricultural research and experimentation. I have been a member of a county committee for some 20 years and I am also a member of the general council. I have seen our county services increased. When I first joined the committee there were two advisers; now there are 16 or 17 advisers. More and more farmers each year are seeking the advice and guidance of these advisers. This is very necessary because agriculture is becoming increasingly technical. The infrastructure of investment in agriculture is so very high that if farmers wish to stay in business they must utilise resources to the fullest possible extent. Therefore I welcome this Bill which seeks to modernise and improve the services that are already at the disposal of the farming community. I must comment on the tremendous job done by the 27 county committees of agriculture. They have provided consistently improved services for the farming community since the beginning of this State. This is no mean achievement and I look forward to the expansion of this system and to seeing it operate in the most dynamic way.
It is true to say that farmers and the farming industry in general have never experienced a more prosperous state. Never before has there been such confidence in the farming industry. Since the introduction and implementation of the three development directives there has been a tremendous amount of long-term planning in the industry. This will ensure that its position in the national economy will continue to go from strength to strength and will easily compete with the other branches of the economy. Agriculture will keep its place as our main source of income from external sources.
Looking at the EEC agriculture directives and at the common agricultural policy generally, and looking at the desirability for Irish farmers of successfully milking the funds that are there for their development, as never before we need to have an advisory and research service second to none. It is not much good looking at what is available in other countries and I hope the Minister will not spare any effort to provide here a service specially tailored to suit the particular situation and conditions in which Irish farmers have to work.
The advancement in our services has been facilitated by development programmes. Earlier on, farmers had difficulties but now they can obtain loans and advances for development, and in the past two years the ACC have embarked on a new programme which bears very little resemblance to that which so many people feared and hated in the past. However, the banks are able to offer better terms than the ACC and we should have a very serious look at this. The ACC are a statutory body set up to do a specific job and I do not accept that they should allow a situation to develop whereby they are not the leaders in their field—why anybody can offer more beneficial terms to the industry which the ACC were specifically founded and equipped to service. I hope we will have a future opportunity to look specifically at this question.
There has not been a survey of agricultural financing since 1959. The pitch has changed completely since then and I hope it is within our competence to update the Gilmore Report, the last effort that was made to assess the value and the credit rating of agriculture.
The Bill covers a very wide and important area and it is difficult to know where to start on it. I am afraid its importance has been underestimated in some sectors. It gives us an opportunity to look at what is now available to agriculture. There are an extraordinary number of agencies, semi-State and others, serving Irish agriculture and the amount of costly duplication to the taxpayers is amazing. Inherent in the multiplicity of the systems is the cost the taxpayers are called on to bear.
If I have some criticism to offer on the Bill, it is that in section 2 the Minister has not provided for the rationalisation of the research facilities available. The universities have a significant acreage of farmland on which they do a lot of good work on seed and soil testing. The Department have no mean outfit; An Foras Talúntais since 1958 have been working; Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann have dabbled in the same work; and Bord na Móna have tried their hand. I suggest it is time for the Minister to look seriously at this in an endeavour to provide a comprehensive service to cover all these agencies. I am not asking for a national saving, but the moneys which are being spent in duplication of services could be more prudently spent in developing areas which it has not been possible to cover to date. The Bill gives us an opportunity to look at these problems and to try to provide at least co-ordination between these agencies. Somebody told me not long ago that not only was there lack of co-ordination between these agencies but that some of the personnel involved were not even exchanging civilities. This is regrettable, seeing that the taxpayers foot the Bill for the lot.
I compliment the Minister on the success of the expansion of the farm centres. In recent years—credit is due to whichever Minister started it—the winter farm schools have been very beneficial and very popular in the farming community. The amount of work the advisory services and the divisional inspectors have been putting into these services sometimes goes unnoticed. The winter farm schools are an important part of adult education and have been made much more attractive not just for the students but from the point of view of benefit to the entire agricultural industry. I would hope it would be possible to expand this system in the not too distant future. In my own county, even in co-operation with County Kildare, in the school in Athy, which is on the border of County Laois, we are not able to accommodate more than 35 or 40 students in any one year. That is a small number when one considers there are between 4,000 and 5,000 farms in the county. The advisers try to pick people who find it impossible to go away for residential courses.
Deputy Noonan referred to the Jones Davies report and to a certain extent I agree with what he said but that report is somewhat out of date when compared with 1977 standards. That is of some significance because the service it dealt with has almost turned a complete circle. It is not really important what other countries do. We must plan our services so that they will serve our people adequately and fully.
Section 10 deals with the incorporation of An Foras Talúntais into the new authority. It seems unfair, remembering the establishment of this body, to see it disappear in four or five words. The cost of agricultural research and development is out of proportion to resources and possibly to the size of the industry. Much of what passes for research is of little value because it lacks originality. It is carried out by people who are not adequately trained. It is not directed towards the solution of real problems. Research that is not original should not be classified as research.
There has been an overemphasis on fulfilling EEC regulations in, for example, variety testing. A cost benefit analysis might show that the country would not be appreciably worse off if the farmers used the varieties in the NIAB list. If that were done we could reduce drastically the volume of work incurred in variety testing. We should consider leaving plant breeding to private enterprise. In my own experience Midas barley and Atle wheat have served us well in past years. Atle is not as popular as it was but the experience there shows that the private sector has a role.
We should insist that researchers are better trained and it is important that they should be engaged in research qua research as distinct from development. Many countries like New Zealand, for example, do not train their own research workers. They send them to the United Kingdom or to America. Large staffs are supported in universities in the dual roles of researchers and teachers. It is argued the two should be linked. The correct situation is where the professor does the research and directs the students under him. This is not a case of training higher degree students on a part-time basis. I think these services could be obtained on a less costly basis elsewhere. Research must be properly directed and those directing it must be qualified and reasonably close to practical problems. There are people who are out of touch with the practical problems of rural Ireland. That may be a little too strong, but there is some element of truth in it.
Funds for research in agriculture must be spent on research proper and not on diversions such as how to do research, on research on personnel, management, computer methods of retrieving information and various forms of pseudo-science. Researchers must be continually exposed to practical problems at farmer and EEC level. It is important that researchers should serve on EEC Committees and pull their weight vis-à-vis their counterparts. This is very important in the present situation and the relationship we must maintain vis-à-vis the common agricultural policy. I hope that the new authority will select representatives at the various meetings not only of the EEC but also of the OECD, bodies on which we should be strongly represented in the future.
It is an opportune time before the new authority is set up to look at the activities of An Foras Talúntais to see where improvements and economies can be made. It is also an opportune time to prevent any further concentration of the staff of An Foras Talúntais in Dublin city. We have the chance to phase out activities which have been in operation for many years but which have shown little results. We could look at the work of the soil survey. A considerable amount of work has been done on rare diseases and on pests and it should be possible to transfer the greater proportion of headquarters staff to the new authority. I am sure they would form the basis of an excellent administrative nucleus.
It is opportune for the Minister and the Government to examine the activities of semi-State bodies as An Bord Bainne and the Potato Marketing Board to see if they are not in an arrangement of mutual self-perpetuation with An Foras Talúntais and other research institutes. We should not have a situation where research is being carried out on how to do research. This is something we can do without. Above all we need a competent co-ordinator of research who would be able to keep in touch with field work in areas throughout the country.
With regard to the various farms of An Foras Talúntais, it would be helpful if separate accounts were kept for cattle and cereals so that the farmers who will benefit from the research being carried out can identify a little more closely with what is being done. It is also desirable to phase out staff who reach the age of 65 years. This country has not been very active in this matter. Much more emphasis should be placed on engineering. Possibly it could be divided into an advisory component and a research component. There should be room for agricultural engineers to play a greater role in the development of agricultural services.
Some years ago on the General Council of Committees of Agriculture I served on a sub-committee with Deputy Callanan and we produced a report which we presented to the then Minister, possibly in 1969. It was entitled "Agriculture in the Seventies". In that report the general council, which represents all the committees, recognised the problems of the advisory service, the greatest of which was that there were no promotional opportunities for the advisers. I admit that progress has been made in the last few years in this matter and some of the imbalances may have been corrected. In that report we advocated a structure for promotional opportunities for the advisers and since then the grades of senior adviser and deputy chief agricultural officer have been introduced. Unfortunately there are too many temporary posts in the advisory service and this cannot lead to an overall improvement of the service and it cannot help the people whom it was designed to serve.
The document of the general council laid out very clearly what was required and I am sure the Minister referred to it before he drew up the White Paper on which presumably this Bill is based. I admit that the situation has changed somewhat in that we now have to contend with directives and regulations under the CAP and we have to consider our position and the European influence which is brought to bear on many of our decisions. The Bill takes into account the new environment in which we find ourselves but there are one or two points which the Minister might clarify.
Section 70 deals with county agricultural officers. They are described as secretaries or accountants—this may be for the sake of convenience— and I hope the Minister will give me an assurance that these officers will always be agricultural graduates. Similarly, deputy CAOs should have a degree either in agricultural science or horticultural science. Such degrees would be my priorities for the posts in question. These people are specialists in agriculture or horticulture and if people who did not have this training were appointed to direct county services there would be a danger that they might put more emphasis on one of the lesser lines of agriculture husbandry. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify this. The section itself is quite clear but it caused me some concern when I read that a CAO would be a secretary or an accountant to the committee.
I hope the Minister will forgive me if I make a few suggestions with regard to section 31.
Section 31 (1) reads: "There shall be a Director of the Authority." Section 31 (3) provides for the appointment of the first director by the Minister. The entire section gives prominence to the first director and I wonder why it does so. All the directors should be appointed by the Minister and given equal prominence. There is great scope in the section for the Minister to take a modern approach. If the proposed authority is to remain modern and to exude vitality, which our industry needs, then all the directors should be appointed for a term of not more than four years. The system should be structured to provide fresh minds for directing the work of an organisation such as this. We could start to use new ideas in an organisation such as this. We should start by appointing a person for four years and then make it mandatory for him to become an assistant director. If we took this course we would be assured of a vital team of directors.
There is a tremendous difference between Departments in regard to the top officials. For instance, in the Department of Foreign Affairs the secretaries seem to change frequently, mainly because there are outlets at ambassadorial level. The senior civil servants in Foreign Affairs appear to be a different breed and sparkle more than their colleagues in other Departments. It is not a good idea to leave people in jobs too long. If a person knows that he will be moved after four years he will do his best during his term of office. It also means that he will be able to move aside with less pressure. It would also avoid the probability that we would appoint an empire builder. If the Minister tried to merge the existing organisations he would be up against three or four empire builders who cannot be budged, by peaceful means at any rate. It opens the way for the introduction of a new type of top-class stewardship. The system is accepted in other countries and there is no reason why it should not work here. I should like to see the same type of rota operating among the directors and regional directors. It is also important to retain experienced people within the authority. I should like to see the retiring directors moving aside after four years.
The desirability of transferring staff from all levels of the advisory service is also important. The Minister has an opportunity of overcoming this problem at present. For example, church leaders remain in their positions until they are in their eighties or nineties and it is very difficult to shift them. They are open to the charge of being ultra-conservative. The same situation does not apply in the various Orders where Priors are appointed for definite "Terms."
I have read section 36 time and time again in conjunction with sections 11 and 15. I am still not sure whether the new county committees will have the same power as the old ones which had the power to borrow and to acquire and sell property with the sanction of the Minister. In my 20 years' experience I do not remember sanction being refused by the Minister for Agriculture. The only refusal I remember was in connection with a subsidised tour of farming centres in Europe. Under the new authority will they be masters of their own destinies within their counties? County Laois was the first county to co-opt members of voluntary organisations to its committee. The people co-opted have made a significant contribution to the advisory service. As a result the farming organisations identify more closely with the advisory service.
While I would prefer to see the present system of authority continued whereby the county committee would retain all their powers, from reading the Bill, even though the sections are very comprehensive, I am not too clear on that point. It is not that I have any great doubts on the matter, but I would hope the Minister would be able to give me an assurance that the county committees will retain their present functions and indeed that their functions will be increased.
On the question of the composition of the committee, in our county, where there is a committee of 16, we have had the experience of having two representatives of Macra and two representatives of the IFA in the last two committees. This has given our committee a new dimension and has been an excellent experiment. However there is one point I would make in regard to the Minister's proposal that there should be 50 per cent from the voluntary bodies and 50 per cent from the local authority. Take the case of the health boards, who do not have to answer for their estimates. They statutorily requisition the amount of money it takes to run their service, and the administrative costs have escalated to an extraordinarily high livel. Whether I am right or wrong, I think some of this may be due to the fact that the people involved have not the responsibility of levying the rate or the tax on the people and therefore have no direct answerability to them. Therefore, I would prefer if the Minister could introduce a different ratio. I do not say that the ratio of 50 per cent from the voluntary bodies is too high but, in my considered opinion, 50 per cent from the duly elected public representatives is too low. We must retain our support for democracy and for the electoral process, and it is important to have the right ratio there.
As regards section 36, if the powers of the committee are not as strong as we have been used to and they are too centralised, will the public themselves lose a certain amount of respect for or confidence in the system? This certainly would not have any great bearing in normal times, but if the situation should arise where there would be a sharp clash between the farming community and the Minister, as happened in the sixties, would it react on the credibility of the staff of the committee? Would there be a danger that people would lose faith? I have already heard speakers from the other side say that there might be a lack of confidence. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us clearly that there is no danger of this happening.
Surely the Deputy is not being influenced by the propaganda from across the House?
No, but I can see a real danger. Regrettably, I was not here for the Minister's Second Reading speech and therefore I would hope he would be able to take a few minutes off to strengthen my faith in this regard. From reading the Bill I think the civil service might appear to have more control and more power than they had under the old Agricultural Acts. The working relations between committees and Departments have been and I believe will always remain very good, but this new authority is an unknown quantity.
I would like to go back to section 2, the definition section, and deal with the question of the co-ordination of the research services. I was rather saddened over the past few weeks to find that, after we had succeeded in securing a six-figure sum from the Energy Commission in Europe to do a research project on alternative sources of energy, it has not been possible to date to get a piece of marginal land from a State agency suitable to carry out experiments and spend the money received. There are many State bodies with land, the Department of Lands, the Forestry Division, Bord na Móna, Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann and goodness knows how many others. There ought to be co-ordination here, and under the new Act passed last year I thought all those new authorities or boards with land were vested in the Minister for Agriculture.
If there are tests to be carried out there should be some kind of priority given to such work, and I would hope to see better co-ordination in this respect. In the midlands, in my own constituency, there are 200,000 acres of marginal land, a great deal of it in the ownership of Bord na Móna. The experiments and research going into that type of soil have been proceeding at too slow a pace. I would have expected to see a more dynamic policy on this project. I would ask the Minister to consider whether under this new authority, or even without the new authority, he could, within his own Department take on a dynamic co-ordinating role not only to ensure that the best possible service and value for money are obtained from the public money spent but also that there will not be unnecessary and costly duplication.
In situations where services were discontinued in the past and new bodies took over there has been the practice of officers or servants of such bodies who had reached the age of 60 being given the option of retiring on full pension or transferring their contract of service to the new body. While that is not written into the Bill the Minister might tell us whether the position will remain as it has been and that it will be possible for people who may not wish to move into the new body, to retire at full pension on the termination of their present position, even if they should be, say, a few months short of retiring age. This would be desirable from the point of view of any such persons concerned as well as in terms of the present circumstances of job shortages. I am wondering why there is no reference in the Bill to this aspect of the situation.
Regarding the composition of the board I am disappointed that there appears to be provision only for one member of the council of committees of agriculture. This is not sufficient especially when one has regard to the different types of husbandry that apply in different parts of the country. I would suggest that at least four, but perhaps six members, be appointed to the board from the general council. The committees are entitled to representation of this order. The situation would be even better if, when asking voluntary organisations to nominate persons for appointment to the board, the Minister would tell them to nominate one or two, or whatever number would be considered correct, who are serving presently on county committees of agriculture. This would ensure fair representation for the committee and would allow for the service being as effective as possible.
There would be little point in having a number of people on the board who would not have first-hand information of the various difficulties and problems that can hinder the progress of the work of any organisation.
I would suggest, too, that the board be appointed for a particular term and, then, that the members could be either replaced or reappointed. It would be very important to have a flow of fresh minds to the authority so that there would be an input of new ideas. If the kind of organisation we are talking about were to be allowed to develop into a type of club I do not think the maximum benefit would be derived by the people for whom the legislation is designed.
In conclusion I welcome the Bill and I trust that the Minister will not take objection to my raising a few questions on it. I hope that on Committee Stage he will, should he consider it necessary, introduce some amendments so as to ensure that the Bill has the goodwill and the support of the widest possible section of the community. We have been waiting a long time for this legislation. I compliment the Minister on its introduction and I trust that it will result in a vast improvement in the services concerned. We all recognise the dedication of the Minister to the industry he is serving. His ability is recognised not only here but in Europe, too. It is my hope that we can embark on this new and dynamic step by so structuring it as to give dynamic leadership to the people who will be working in the new authority.
Mr. Kitt
I join with my colleagues on this side of the House in opposing this Bill. I oppose it for a number of reasons, the main one being that it appears to be designed in a way that will take away the power of local bodies and give complete authority to the Minister and the Department in so far as the future of agriculture is concerned. Indeed, at a time when we are talking about decentralisation the Bill is the worst example possible of centralisation.
As Deputy McDonald said, we were all looking forward to a Bill on the future of research and education in agriculture but so far as this side of the House is concerned the measure before us was not what we expected. I suspect, from some of the contributions from the other side, that they are not pleased with it either. Deputy McDonald, for instance, had quite a few questions to pose in respect of it. I note his agreement with much of the criticism we have offered in regard to the representation on the authority of committees of agriculture.
Deputy Finn referred to the politics involved in committees of agriculture. He condemned this situation. However, when the majority of members of committees of agriculture are elected representatives, the committees generally work quite well. As the Minister pointed out, there are some weaknesses in the present set-up but I would suggest that there is a greater element of politics in what is proposed here in that there can be a situation of the Minister of the day giving jobs to the boys. If Deputy McDonald's suggestion were to be adopted jobs for the boys would be available every two years or so.
Leaving aside whatever faults may be inherent in the present situation we all know of the many organisations, such as Macra na Tuaithe, Macra na Feirme and Muintir na Tíre, who have got tremendous help from the advisory services. It appears now as if the Minister is pulling the stool from under them.
The first weakness that comes to mind in relation to the Bill before us is that it contains no provision for an extension of the services. Some Government speakers have referred to this omission. I am particularly worried by the method of financing. In the past there was agreement between the committee of agriculture and the council as to the amount of finance that would be given and this was levied on the rates. I am afraid that this might come to an end because the amount asked for by the committee of agriculture might not be sanctioned, and even if it is sanctioned there is a danger that it might not be spent in the county area. I ask for the Minister's comment on the fact that the Minister seems to be telling the councils what to do under this Bill. The main problem is that the committees of agriculture need more money and staff. This has become a very acute problem since the implementation of the farm modernisation scheme. There is a quota of advisers for every county area and many of them are temporary. There are not enough advisers to deal with the large number of applications under the farm modernisation scheme. Much of their time is taken up with paper work when they should be out and about meeting the farmers, advising them and making recommendations. On many occasions at committee meetings we have asked that more clerical staff be made available to our committee. This would relieve a lot of the paper work involved for the graduates. We have not got sanction for that extra staff, and even when the existing clerical staff are on sick or maternity leave we are not allowed to bring in a replacement.
When talking about our entry into the Common Market, before I came into this House, the impression was that there would be a great future for agricultural graduates and at that time there was a shortage of graduates. Now we have a different situation. Only last Friday in County Galway for one job we had 16 graduates from County Galway alone, not counting applications from other parts of the country. The future looks bleak for those graduates, some of whom graduated in 1973. I would be grateful if the Minister would refer to this in his reply. In every county there seems to be need for more graduates and the Minister should get the committee of agriculture to sanction the appointment of temporary advisers. There are many graduates unemployed and graduates are urgently needed to cope with the amount of work involved in the farm modernisation scheme. At the moment there is no prospect of jobs in the advisory services or in semi-State bodies for any of those graduates.
I am disappointed with section 10 which deals with the dissolution of An Foras Talúntais. Much research was done by the institute particularly in my own county where research was carried out on the flocks of sheep. The institute could continue to work particularly in relation to the eradication of diseases in animals. The Minister will recall that only today Deputy Callanan put down a question in relation to the outbreak of sheep scab in Galway. That is just one problem that could be tackled by the institute. Galway County Council have done everything in their power to ensure that the regulations laid down by the Department are carried out. On one occasion I approached the county manager on behalf of a farmer who had his sheep dipped in late September and it was only a matter of weeks before the dipping season was to start, but the manager stuck rigidly to the rules and the farmer had to dip his sheep again. That is an example of how rigidly the rules are adhered to. The institute have done great work and I am disappointed that they are to be abolished.
Deputy Gibbons referred to some EEC directives. When these directives were first introduced farmers asked a lot of questions about their implications. They were puzzled by many of the directives and they got a lot of information from the advisory services. At the time we understood that socioeconomic advisers were to be appointed particularly in relation to directives 160 and 161. These were not appointed and there is no reference to them in this Bill. It was a great pity that they were not appointed.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 1st March, 1977.