asked the Minister for Agriculture why he will not allow the National Agricultural Authority to function in accordance with its mandate.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - National Agricultural Authority.
6.
My views in regard to the National Agricultural Authority are on record in the House. The Agricultural Institute must be retained as a separate body so that it will have the independence necessary to carry on its research function in the interest of the farming industry.
I am arranging for early amending legislation to provide for amalgamation of the advisory and training services while retaining the Agricultural Institute as an autonomous body.
Is it a fact that the National Agricultural Authority at its second last meeting sent a request to the Minister to allow them, notwithstanding his views in relation to research, to go ahead with planning in relation to education and advisory services and that he refused this request? Would he say why he did so?
I think it would be unwise for the National Agricultural Authority to begin to establish itself, in the light of the Government's intention to alter the legislation under which it was set up.
Will the Minister agree that the major farming organisations are most anxious that the NAA should proceed immediately and that there seems to be unanimity among every section of the farming community with the exception of the Minister in regard to this authority? Does the Minister not see that it is essential that he should allow the authority to proceed?
That is not my impression. My impression is that the farming organisations are most concerned that there should be no long hiatus in the period between the enactment of the NAA Act and its amendment by this Government. I have given my assurance that this period will be as short as I can make it. I do not accept that there is a general clamour from the farming organisations for the retention of the existing NAA, involving as it does the abolition of an Foras Talúntais. On the contrary, several scientific examinations of this subject undertaken by Jones Davis, by Devlin and by the OECD have come down on the side of the retention of the research element as a separate entity.
Would the Minister not agree that there would be no hiatus whatsoever if he had allowed the NAA to function fully in accordance with its mandate and later on make whatever changes that he might, in the light of experience, then deem to be necessary?
This is probably true, but the Deputy will recall the circumstances of the establishment of the council of the NAA, after the general election and after the electorate had given their judgment on this as well as on other subjects, when the Fianna Fáil attitude in regard to the retention of research as a separate entity was made very clear well in advance of and during the election. The surreptitious establishment of the council after the former Government had lost the confidence of the people and lost the people's mandate was a very reprehensible action in my opinion. If there is a delay it can be traced back to that reprehensible conduct of a former Government in the dying days of their guardianship.
How can the Minister say it was surreptitious? The decision that was made by the Minister was a perfectly open and public one.
And democratic.
It contained an element of sharp practice in that, following the resounding result of the general election, objective people thought the Government until 5th July were acting merely in a caretaker capacity, whereas the then Government took advantage of the period between the general election results being announced and their relinquishment of office to establish this council and to pack every one of their own friends into every available Government position that could be filled in a way that was quite unprecedented in this State and that establishes a new low for political conduct.
(Interruptions.)
Do I take it that the Minister is implying that members of the NAA are going to act in a way that would be other than fair and impartial, as political hacks?
That is a totally unwarranted assumption on the part of the Deputy.
It is exactly what you said.
The fact that the outgoing Minister—and he was very much outgoing at the time when he nominated the council—should call upon the farming organisations to send members to the new council put the obligation on them at that time to send members. But I imagine they would have taken that action with the greatest apprehension.
That is not true.
I am calling the next question.