I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The main purpose of this measure is to detach from the operation of the National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority Act, 1977, the agricultural research function which that enactment sought to integrate with the agricultural advisory and training and educational services and to give all three services a better basis. When the Bill from which that Act emerged was being debated in this House a little over 12 months ago, I made no secret of my conviction that the dissolution of An Foras Talúntais, as the Act proposes to do, would be a most retrograde step and on numerous occasions since then I have reaffirmed that conviction. Since its foundation in 1958, the institute has not only given sterling service to Irish farmers, processors and others connected with the agricultural industry, but has established for itself an international reputation as one of the foremost agricultural research institutions in Western Europe.
To be effective, research requires a particular kind of environment. That this environment is available in An Foras Talúntais is evident from its continued success. I am satisfied that these favourable conditions would rapidly disappear if the agricultural research service were to be absorbed into another authority which would have to cater also for agricultural advice, training and education. The incorporation of An Foras Talúntais in an organisation such as the National Agricultural Authority would, I believe, lead to a serious decline in morale in the research sector with consequent ill-effects on valuable research work.
I have read some comments recently suggesting that my stand in this regard is not a matter of conviction and that I am merely expressing the views of certain elements which are pursuing selfish interests. I should like to refer the authors of these comments to the Jones-Davies Report of 1967, the Review of National Science Policy in Ireland published by the OECD in 1974, the Review of National Scientific and Technical Information Policy in Ireland also published by the OECD in 1974, and the Report of the Public Services Organisation Review Groups 1966 to 1969, commonly known as the Devlin Report. To a greater or lesser degree all these objective reports favour an independent organisation for agricultural research and, in a number of instances, they reject outright the idea that the advisory services should be amalgamated with the research institution.
I am quite convinced that a dilution of the research effort could not be avoided if research were combined with the advisory and training services. The Bill before the House accordingly proposes to retain An Foras Talúntais as an autonomous body with responsibility for the research activities in which it is now engaged. In this way the Bill will remove the threat of having the identity of An Foras Talúntais buried and its true function lost in an organisation which would also be concerned with the advisory and education services. The Bill also proposes to assign to An Foras Talúntais additional functions in regard to basic veterinary research which have hitherto been the responsibility of my Department. These functions were in any event to be assigned under the 1977 Act. In addition, it is my intention, when the Bill becomes law and is put into operation, to assign to An Foras Talúntais added responsibilities in relation to cereals research which have hitherto been reserved to the Department of Agriculture and which also were to have been transferred under the 1977 Act. This proposed transfer is not mentioned in the present Bill because it is possible to effect the transfer under the 1958 Act which set up An Foras.
Under the Bill, the National Agricultural Authority will be dissolved and a new body, to be called An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta, will be established. This new body will have the function of providing training and advisory services in agriculture and making available the scientific and practical knowledge required by the agricultural industry.
While it is essential that the research function should be independent, it is also necessary to maintain and develop the present liaison and good relations between the research services on the one hand and the training and advisory services on the other. With this in mind, the Bill provides for a strengthening of existing relations by ensuring that at least two members of the board of An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta are appointed to the Council of An Foras Talúntais and that at least two members of the council of An Foras are on the board of An Chomhairle.
There have been some comments about the substitution of the word "training" for "education" throughout the measure. I made it clear during the passage of the 1977 Act that in this context the use of the word "education" was somewhat patronising as, indeed, is the term "instructor" in relation to the advisory service. I reject totally the inference that the people on the land belong to a primitive uneducated class who have to be taken by the hand and put on the path to progress by the more enlightened. To my mind, the term "training", which can cover certain educational aspects, is much more appropriate and includes no patronising overtones.
With regard to the alleged undue influence of the civil service, it should be borne in mind that approximately two-thirds of the funds that will be expended by each of the two institutions involved will be contributed by the State and voted by this House each year. Surely it is only prudent that the State should have some control over the use of these funds. The requirements set forth in the Bill are only the minimum necessary and, while there is no insistence that the man who pays the piper should call each tune, he should at least be able to influence the general programme. Furthermore, those who talk of civil service control are really referring to power exercised by the appropriate Minister. In so far as this Bill confers any powers on the Minister for Agriculture, this is being done in accordance with Government policy. The checks and balances set out in the Bill are, in my view and in the view of the Government, the minimum necessary to ensure that the interests of all concerned are fully safeguarded.
I would now like to say a few words about some other amendments of the 1977 Act which are provided for in the Bill. These are mainly of a consequential or corrective nature.
As the Board of An Chomhairle will not have any responsibility for agricultural research, it is logical that the number of members of the board should be less than that provided for in the case of the National Agricultural Authority. Provision is, therefore, being made for a total of 16 members instead of 24 for the authority. The smaller number should contribute towards greater efficiency. As the board will not be responsible for research or involved in third-level education, specific representation by the universities does not seem to be necessary. It was quite correct in the 1977 Act to provide for University representation on the National Agricultural Authority because that body would have included An Foras Talúntais which itself had four university representatives on its council. Now that An Foras will not be part of An Chomhairle, university representation is not called for.
Some publicity has been given recently to allegations that the Bill interferes with the status, powers and functions of county committees of agriculture. I want to make it clear that there is nothing whatever of this kind in the Bill. Indeed, the only provision in the Bill relating to the county committees is in section 26, which provides for an amendment of the existing law on the method of appointing members of the committees. This amendment is being made because on examination of the provisions of the 1977 Act I have found that some of these provisions are unworkable. This did not become clear earlier and in correcting it now I am doing so in a way that calls for the least possible change in the present system. Section 42 of the 1977 Act stipulated that at least three-fifths of the membership of each committee must be members of the parent county council, the remainder to be appointed on the nomination of voluntary rural organisations active in the County and designated as such by ministerial order. However, the second schedule to the Agriculture Act, 1931 stipulated that the total number of members of a county committee of agriculture must not be less than three nor more than four times the number of county electoral areas in the county on the date of the meeting of the county council at which the county committee members are appointed. Because of this, there is no way of knowing how many persons should be nominated by the voluntary rural organisations. The Bill corrects this by specifying that the number of members of county committees shall be four times the number of county electoral areas instead of a figure which could vary between three and four. A second difficulty which has come to notice is that while the 1977 Act required that three-fifths of the members of county committees should be members of the parent county councils, the county councils had previously been free to select persons who were not county councillors and, in fact, all but two of the county councils did so. I doubt if it were intended last year to take this freedom of choice away from the county councils. I think it emerged accidentally in the course of drafting the 1977 Act. In any event, the present Bill restores the choice. Under the Bill, county councils will be able to select their quota of members of county committees from amongst their own members, or from non-members, or partly from each.
When section 48 of the 1977 Act relating to the State endowment of the National Agricultural Authority was being debated in the House, I gave it as my opinion that the doctrine was one of despair. I was referring to the provision under which the State grant in any year must not be less in real terms than the total amount provided by the Oireachtas in the financial year immediately preceding the date of establishment of the authority. I am still of that opinion and have, therefore, included in the Bill a section which will provide for the deletion of the reference to "real terms" and all that it connotes. It is my hope that the financial requirements of An Chomhairle will be assessed each year not on the level of grants in the year before it was set up but on the basis of its real needs to do a proper job. In this way An Chomhairle can be considered fairly with all others when it comes to dealing with the annual Estimates.
This Bill also gives An Foras Talúntais access to additional finance. For the first time since its establishment An Foras is being given power to borrow, subject to the usual safeguards. It is also being given the power to use for capital purpose moneys in its endowment fund. Up to now the fund has had to be kept invested and An Foras had the use of the interest only. These new provisions are in line with similar provisions in the 1977 Act.
Deputies will have observed that the Bill as drafted contains a provision at section 12 (a) requiring the approval of the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for the Public Service for any determination by An Chomhairle in regard to the numbers, grades and the conditions of service relating to leave and hours of work of its staff. Since the Bill was circulated, various groups and bodies have made representations to me about this provision and following consideration of these representations and discussions with the Minister for the Public Service I propose to put down an amendment on Committee Stage providing for the deletion of section 12 (a). I believe that this should satisfy all those who were complaining about this section.
In regard to An Foras Talúntais the Bill requires the approval of the two Ministers for the remuneration of directors subsequent to the first director whose remuneration is already determined by the Government. In addition to the control of remuneration of directors, the Bill requires the approval of the two Ministers for remuneration and allowances of the staff of An Foras Talúntais. This provision is in line with what would have happened under the 1977 Act if An Foras had been merged into the National Agricultural Authority.
I would like to add in regard to controls on remuneration in both An Chomhairle and An Foras that these controls simply represent the present Government policy in relation to the semi-State bodies in general. This should not be misinterpreted, as has been done, as a sinister effort to control the policy or the general effectiveness of the two bodies.
At this juncture I might mention that on Committee Stage I will be proposing a few minor amendments, apart from the change in section 12 to which I have already referred. These amendments, which are mainly of a drafting nature, are designed to assist in smoothing the process of transferring functions to An Chomhairle.
Finally I must say that in commending this Bill to the House I am doing so in the belief—and in the belief of the Government—that the structure now proposed is in the best interests of the farming community and the nation as a whole. I am satisfied that by maintaining their separate identities but operating in close harmony, An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta and An Foras Talúntais will provide the best means of advancing and developing the agricultural training and advisory service and the agricultural research service.