Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Oct 1978

Vol. 308 No. 8

Agriculture (An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta) Bill, 1978: Second Stage.

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.

In order that this restrictive and divisive Bill could have been introduced the country and Irish agriculture has had to lose two years during which planning could have gone ahead in developing our advisory and research and educational services under the National Agricultural Authority established by law by the previous Government. The House must address itself not only to the merits or otherwise of this Bill—and I contend they are very few indeed—but must also ask itself was it worth losing two years in which a career structure could have been provided for our advisory services, in which plans could have been made by developing a new educational service based on the directives of the EEC and the most modern technology. Was it worth losing two valuable years—and time is money—in order that the present Minister for Agriculture could be able to come into this House and deliver his personal tablets of stone on this issue?

I believe, whatever the judgment of this House in the matter, the judgement of the country and Irish farmers will be adverse to the Minister. They will see that his priorities in his first year and a half in office have not been the right ones. They have been, for reasons on which I shall not dwell for any length, to overturn the work of his predecessor. I do not believe that is a productive purpose or that it is the best use of his time in his interests. It certainly is not the best use of his time in the interests of Irish agriculture. That will become very obvious as the debate continues on this Bill.

We intend to discuss this Bill in considerable detail not only on Second Stage but also in Committee so that the Minister's error will be evident. The reorganisation of our advisory, educational and research services has been a matter of public debate for about 15 years. There have been reports on the subject which it was felt 12 years ago were merely being used as a device to postpone a decision. The reports were received by the then Government but still no action was taken. No action was taken until the tenure in office of Deputy Mark Clinton as Minister for Agriculture. He did not inherit an Act from his predecessor on this subject. To be fair to his predecessor, now his successor, he had produced the heads of a Bill which had been circulated to his colleagues in Government.

What did the heads of that Bill contain? They contained his ideas in 1973. We know that any Minister is responsible for what is sent by his Department to other Departments as his proposals. He cannot blame particular civil servants. He certainly would not be in order to name those civil servants in debate and say: "This was not my memorandum, this was Dr. X's memorandum." No Deputy, who has respect for the relationship between a Minister and his servants, would do so. The heads of the Bill drafted in the Department of Agriculture and circulated in the name of the then and present Minister for Agriculture were his proposals and he cannot avoid that fact.

What did those proposals contain? They contained, in substance, exactly the same proposals that his successor brought into the law of the land and which he seeks to overturn. They are the proposals which he had put to his colleagues in 1972.

That is not correct. Deputy Bruton and Deputy Clinton know that is not correct. I found heads of a Bill and the new Bill contains substantially the same thing with the vital difference of An Foras Talúntais. That is the essential difference between this Bill and that of my predecessor.

Deputy Bruton on the Bill.

We have had to wait 15 years for this. Development was inhibited and a further two years delay has been added before this Bill was introduced. Is that value for money or value for time? The main purpose of the Bill, as the Minister said, but not the only purpose, is to separate the Agricultural Institute from the remainder of the educational advisory services. What is the purpose of State-aided research? I am not asking what is the purpose of research in the universities. That may be the pursuit of pure knowledge but we are not talking about a Bill which will take the universities under the umbrella of the advisory services. We are talking about an institute set up deliberately separate from the universities to carry out a different type of research. If there was not a distinction between the type of research to be carried out by the institute and its purpose and the type of research carried out as part of their on-going task by the universities who are autonomous institutions, even though they are substantially State supported, there would not be an Agriculture Institute separate from the universities. We would just be giving aid to the universities.

The purpose of the Agricultural Institute research is different from university research. The essential difference is that the research carried on by the Agricultural Institute must be directly related to the needs of agriculture, the pressing needs of economic development in the country. That is the reason the Agriculture Institute was established and why it was separated from the universities. Obviously, to ensure that it reflects the needs of farmers, that its distinctive purpose is fulfilled, there must be the closest possible links between the research carried out by that institute and the work being done in the field by agricultural advisers, agricultural educators and farmers, which does not reflect the real need of farmers, which, for instance, places an undue emphasis on pure production increase without taking account of the difficulties that any farmer in an actual situation faces in turning that pure production potential into reality on his farm with his resources of land, labour, capital and motivation. The value of this research may be of great interest to academics who wish to know what is the ultimate in terms of maximum production. Its value to the country in that context is a very suitable pursuit for university research in agriculture, which should be endowed generously by the State. It would not have the immediate effect on increased production that research carried out by the Agricultural Institute should have.

The real road-block in Irish agricultural development is not lack of research to tell us what can be produced, what is the maximum number of livestock units which can be carried per acre of grass, what is the maximum grain yield that is possible with a particular type of soil and a particular type of fertiliser. The lack of figures in relation to those possibilities is not the problem. The problem is in turning them into action on our farms. The reality is that, notwithstanding the very substantial increase in agricultural prices which has taken place as a result of our membership of the EEC and of the successful work done at the Council of Ministers in terms of increased prices by the former Minister for Agriculture in particular, we have not had the growth in production or the potential which has already been well identified, translated into increased production on the ground and on our farms. The problem there has been one simply of turning the research into reality. The way this can be done is through a proper integration of advice and educational services with research so that the research findings can be passed through to the farmer and the farmer's experience can be passed back through the one institution with a single common direction and a single common purpose, back to the researcher. The researcher then will be directing his attention to the real problems being faced on the ground by the farmers and will be responding to the needs of farmers and not to the needs of some abstract academic.

The reality is that we have had very uneven growth in agriculture below our potential. For instance, notwithstanding the increased price, we have not achieved the targets for increased growth in agriculture which were identified as being possible of achievement in the White Paper circulated prior to our entry into the EEC. In so far as there has been growth in agriculture it has been uneven, a growth that has not been shared equally by different parts of the country or by different sizes of farms. Clearly the problem is on the farm and not in the research institutions.

I will give the House two figures which will illustrate our failure to achieve our full potential and the fact that that failure is distributed in an uneven fashion. From the period 1966-68 to 1972-74 the growth in production per adjusted acre in the east of Ireland has grown on a farm of between 50 and 100 acres by 2.3 per cent while in the same period, which covers the initial period of entry into the EEC, in the west there was a drop of .7 per cent. The figures are for an adjusted acre and not in respect of an actual acre. In the east during the same period growth per adjusted acre on a 200-acre plus farm was 3.3 per cent whereas on a 15 to 30 acre farm, the small farms where there is greater dependence on income from agriculture to provide the basic necessities of life, there was a drop of 2.8 per cent in growth.

The problem is not one of telling farmers what can be achieved because clearly the best farmers can and have achieved it, as can be seen from the figures I quoted. Those who are tuned into what is going on in the research institutes, those large farmers who, as the Minister said on a previous occasion, are able to get on to the institute direct and talk to a friend who is the researcher in a particular field, who know other researchers personally, subscribe to Farm Food and Research every month and read other publications, are well served by the existing arrangement. The Minister and I, as farmers, are well served but that is not the problem. The problem is involved in translating that into action on the farms I mentioned where potential has not been achieved. That is not a problem which will be solved by the Bill. The solution to the problem will be inhibited by the Bill because it is dividing off research away from the development role, away from the role of the advisory service in getting to the farmers who need help.

We do not want an advisory service which is only responding to a demand which essentially will come from farmers who are already motivated, know what they can achieve and are achieving a great deal. We want a service for research and education which goes out in a missionary way to the farmers who are not achieving what they should. The figures I quoted demonstrate that there are many farmers who are not achieving their full potential, who are not availing at all, in terms of increased production, of the increased income from the prices which are available. A research service which is separated from these in an ivory tower and concentrating on ultimate production possibilities which can only be translated into reality on farms whose owners are already motivated, namely the large type farm, will not be doing the best job that should be done for agriculture. We must recollect that the purpose of the Agricultural Institute is to serve the needs of Irish agriculture. It is not primarily one—it may be a secondary benefit—as the Minister, in opposing Deputy Clinton's Bill seemed to be implying by his constant harping on the subject, of providing jobs for graduates. The fact that people happen to graduate from a university does not give them any right to be provided with jobs. Indeed, it may be suggested that others have a greater right than graduates who have already had the benefit of a substantially tax-supported education. They should be better able to fend for themselves than the farmers on the 15-30 acre farms I mentioned or farmers in the west who have not had the benefit of a university education.

The idea of predicating a service, as the Minister seemed to be doing in his contribution to Deputy Clinton's Bill, on the notion of jobs for graduates is to my mind putting the cart before the horse. Of course there must be jobs for graduates but there will only be jobs for them in the service of Irish agriculture and the money will only arise out of which to pay those graduates if there is production to produce tax resources to pay them. We must start with the priority of increased production on our farms, particularly those which have not achieved their potential. This Bill will inhibit that rather than aid it.

Even looking at this from the point of view of agricultural graduates who are in the service—I have not been speaking of their need so far because I believe they are secondary; the primary needs are the needs of the farmers to increase production—as a determining factor I do not believe their interests are being served by the Bill. Anybody in the space of his career will benefit from working in a different environment. A person who spends 40 years working in the same area as an agricultural adviser, unless he is a highly motivated individual or a person of exceptional talent, will not achieve his full potential. Likewise, a person who spends his entire career closted in a research institute working on the same subject for 40 years of his career will not achieve his full potential. However, if one could move such a person from a research institute into giving advice to farmers for five or six years thereby giving him an opportunity to try to translate his research findings into reality on farms and then return him to the research institute he would be a better researcher and his research would be more relevant to the needs of the community than it would have been if he stayed there all the time.

An adviser with a particular interest in a certain line of production, as many advisers develop because of necessity— for instance if they work in the Minister's county they will have a special interest in tillage—should be moved for a period to research work. There is no reason why a man who has developed a special expertise in tillage in the advisory service should not be moved to Oak Park, for instance, to work with people in the Research Institute and then he could go back out into the field to work in the county committee as an agricultural adviser on a project in which he is interested having become more conscious of what can be done in terms of maximum production because of his spell in the research institute. That man's advice will be far more relevant in the eyes of the farmer by virtue of the fact that he has spent some time in the research institute than it would be if he had stayed in the advisory service.

In Northern Ireland much research is carried out in colleges of education such as Greenmount Agricultural College. In Greenmount College it is possible for those engaged in research as their primary activity to give lectures to students so that students get the results of research direct from those who are doing the research and students do not have to be brought for one day to a research institute 20 or 30 miles away to see what is happening. Students in Warrenstown who are interested in tillage have to be brought 60 or 70 miles down to Oak Park in Carlow to see what is happening or else they have to be brought to Grange which is a shorter distance. In Greenmount the research is taking place on their doorstep, and that is a direct benefit of the integration of research advice and education in one campus under one authority. There is no doubt that Greenmount College is an outstanding educational college as well as an outstanding agricultural research institute.

An agricultural development worker's sense of achievement in work can be best achieved in an integrated service where he has freedom of movement and access to specialised knowledge in different areas. Apart from that, the larger a service the greater is the opportunity for promotion. Agricultural graduates want promotional opportunities. If in the course of his work an agricultural adviser proves that he has developed a certain ability in a certain area, it is possible in an integrated service for him to be promoted to work in that area in a research institute or as a specialist adviser for a number of counties attached to a research institute, but if the service is divided the promotional possibilities diminish. A man would have to practically abandon his career as an adviser and apply to enter the agricultural institute under the provisions of the proposed Bill. That is not a good situation. If the service were undivided it would be possible for a researcher who developed a special competence in the course of his work in educating the public about the relevance of his research to move much more readily to become a county agricultural officer or an officer holding a position of responsibility in a geographical area. There is no doubt that any research institute needs not just researchers but promulgators.

Research must be development-orientated; it must be active and outgoing. This Bill will ensure that research runs the risk of becoming inward looking because of the deliberate political intervention by the Minister to divide the research from the educational and advisory services. Those involved will want to know what lies behind this. If the Minister believed in an integrated service he would not have gone to the bother of wasting two years during which development could have been taking place in order to introduce a Bill which will divide research from the agricultural advice and education services. The Minister's action in introducing this Bill to delay development for two years expresses more eloquently than any speech his intention to divide the service. I have no doubt that at every opportunity the Minister will wax eloquent about the need for research to reflect the needs of advisers and farmers in the field. The Minister will speak with apparent wisdom but people will draw the conclusion that it is a case of the Minister saying: "Do as I say but not as I do." The Minister has removed research from under the same umbrella as advice and education and whatever protestations the Minister may make and whatever arrangement he may make to move members from one council to another at the top the reality is that where it really matters, at grassroots level, the Minister divided research from education and advice. That will be perceived to be the philosophy of the Minister.

The National Agricultural Authority set up by Deputy Mark Clinton provided a challenge and opportunity to those working in the present Agricultural Institute which gave them far greater scope for development, for fulfilling their role in society than has ever been possible before and that challenge and opportunity is now, for political reasons, being withdrawn. They, as much as anyone else, will realise eventually that that political decision was not in their interest, any more than it was in the interest of the agricultural industry. There have been so many statements by various people in authority as to the need for greater co-ordination and unification of our agricultural services that it is hardly necessary for me to quote from any document in support of that thesis, a thesis that is accepted in theory by everybody concerned but which in practice appears not to be accepted by the Minister. However, I shall quote one passage from the latest document produced on this subject. This is the NESC report, Policies to Accelerate Agricultural Development, paragraph 3.2. The council are dealing with the institutional framework, the inadequacies of which have contributed to our failure to achieve the full development which I identified earlier when I quoted figures from this report. They are identifying what they believe to be the major blocks in the institutional field in respect of the achievement of this growth. They say:

The development of agriculture is now the responsibility of a wide range of people and institutions. These include the farmers, the Department of Agriculture, the County Committees of Agriculture, An Foras Talúntais, the food processing industries, and the food marketing bodies. Each of these agencies is doing a competent job, yet the aggregate effect of their efforts on agricultural development as outlined in Chapter 1 is not satisfactory. In reviewing the situation, one is struck by the lack of overall direction and co-ordination of their efforts....

It is precisely to provide what the NESC have identified as the major institutional weakness in Irish agriculture—that lack of over-all direction and coordination—that the National Agricultural Authority was set up by the Minister's predecessor. Let it be noted that Deputy Clinton set up an agricultural authority that could take decisions. He did not set up what is described disingenuously by the Minister as a council. I do not know whether in legal terms there is any significant difference between the present Minister's council and the authority as set up by his predecessor but it is clear that their choice of words indicates a mental conception on the part of each as to the role these bodies will fulfil. Deputy Clinton foresaw the body he was setting up as an authority that would go out and make decisions in respect of development and co-ordination while the present Minister sees this body as a council that will come together. But what function have councils, anyway? We know that the very essence of a council is a forum where people talk. The question is whether we need a council or an authority. I say what we need is an authority to provide over-all co-ordination and direction of the efforts of the institutes of agriculture.

What the Minister has in mind is only part of a series of councils that he intends producing. The manifesto promised a plethora of co-ordinating boards. It would not be in order for me to go into the details of the manifesto except to say that the only interest the Minister seems to have is in setting up bodies and tricking about with existing bodies, separating them and putting them together again when he should be interested in the co-ordination, the growth and development of our agricultural industry. The Government's contribution in this regard has not been an improvement of the farm but an alleged improvement for those engaged in the various activities in the institutions concerned.

Is there any provision in this Bill for the co-ordinated planning of research, education and advice? The only change I see is that two members of one council can also be members of another council, that they would be interchangeable. In other words, that A and B may be transferred from the Agricultural Institute to the new AnCOT while X and Y can be transferred from AnCOT to the Agricultural Institute. That sort of provision will not achieve co-ordination. Let us be honest and admit that the type of co-ordination required is not co-ordination at the level of a council which may meet once a month, whose members are all part-time and have other jobs to do. The idea that putting two people on a board of 15 will achieve the kind of co-ordination that is required in terms of research and advice is an idea that could only come from an Alice-in-Wonderland situation.

I should like the Minister to explain what is meant by the change in the wording from authority to council. Also, if one is to judge from the Minister's constant references to the subject, there is a change from the use of the term "education" to the use of the term "training". Is it for this change of wording that we have waited two years? What is meant by it? I suggest that the change means very little because we are told by the Minister that training could involve educational services also. Does the change mean that certain educational activities being carried out now by the advisory services or by the agricultural colleges, will be restricted because they are not unduly educational and do not have a sufficient training bias? Is the Minister contemplating the vetoing of certain activities being undertaken by the agricultural advisory service and by the agricultural colleges? The Minister should give a clear explanation of the reason for the change. I see it merely as an exercise in semantics. If I am right or if the change is merely an exercise in literary point-scoring on the part of the Minister, he should explain why he is detaining the House on a matter of such insignificance.

It is worth quoting in full section 22 of the National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority Act, 1977, which the Minister has seen fit to remove in its entirety in this Bill. I will quote it into the record so that the people can see what exactly he has in mind:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Authority may charge, receive and recover fees for agricultural research or basic veterinary research undertaken on behalf of any person, firm, institution or agency and for services, courses, seminars, lectures and demonstrations provided or organised by it.

(2) No fee may, however, be charged in respect of—

(a) any advice that may be given by the Authority in response to a request from the Minister under section 21, or

and this is the important part

(b) any facilities, assistance or courses of instruction that may be provided by the Authority under section 14 or 16 (b),

Why has the Minister sought to remove section 22 (2)? Why has he sought to confer on his council something that the previous authority did not have the power to do, namely, to charge fees for facilities, courses and any assistance that might be given? Does the Minister envisage that, if a man phones his agricultural adviser and asks for advice, the adviser will say he cannot talk unless the individual is prepared to pay 50p for talking to him for 20 minutes? If people attend a 100-hour course under Directive 161, where the participants are paid to attend to compensate them for the loss of time on their home farms, does the Minister envisage that they will be charged for attending? Is that what he has in mind? If not, why did he bother waiting two years, inhibiting development that could have taken place under the National Agricultural Authority, to introduce this legislation and remove section 22 and the guarantees it gave that fees would not be charged?

I would like to remind the Minister of what he said when he was in Opposition. On 23 March 1977, as Opposition spokesman for agriculture, the present Minister said at column 204, Volume 298:

I would like the Minister's assurance that this is not a provision under which, possibly at some later stage, the advisory services will become a fee-charging institution and that farmers availing of them may not under this section at any time in the future be required to pay a fee to the Minister or to the authority.

The Minister of the day gave him that assurance. The present Minister, as if to underline his conviction, said at column 205 of the same Volume:

I do not want the Minister's assurance about the aspect he has just mentioned. I want an assurance from him that at no time in the future will the ordinary farmer availing of the advisory service or participating in the modernisation scheme be charged for the services of the authority.

Having sought those assurances on 23 March 1977, he now comes here with a Bill one of the chief purposes of which is to do the opposite—to enable fees to be charged. Was this forced on him by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, who has in his Green Paper that fees will be charged for certain advisory services? If so, the provisions of the Bill would have been narrowly drafted to confine the possibility of charging fees to the commercial farmers. But no, that is not in the Bill. The Minister is removing the section holus bolus. He is removing the provision that fees may not be charged for any facility, assistance or courses of instruction that may be provided by the authority. There is no provision that only commercial farmers will have to pay such fees. Under this Bill any farmer will be charged, even those in the 15 to 30 acre category, who have not achieved the increased production and increased income of their more prosperous colleagues. They may all be charged fees under this Bill, notwithstanding the Minister's eloquent seeking for an assurance, on 23 March 1977, that no such fees could be charged.

When in Opposition one of the matters which was of great concern to Fianna Fáil was the position of members of the county committees of agriculture. Fianna Fáil have, as I have, considerable respect for those members because they have stood the heat of the political day, got elected, faced the people and got their support. That is why they are on those committees. Whether they be farmers or otherwise, they have a valuable contribution to make in terms of responsibility to the public for the way our policies are carried out. I have the utmost respect for these men. In 1977 the then Opposition also had respect for them because they sought to increase the number of representatives from agriculture on the board of the National Agricultural Authority from at least one to at least four. That amendment has not been reintroduced in this Bill. That makes me doubt the sincerity of the conviction with which it was moved on that occasion by the then Opposition, who are now in a position to change the law if they so wish.

I believe that the priority in agriculture is not pure research, it is not segmentation, it is not the achievement of professionalism in a narrow sense for groups of workers, for the raising of their individual standards in their narrow terms of reference; but it is to translate the work of research and of the best talents in the advisory services into action on our farms. I believe that the National Agricultural Authority, set up by the previous Minister and abolished by this Bill, provided the instrument that could have translated the enormous talent that exists in the Agricultural Institute into action and so increase production on our farms. It is not good enough to have brilliant men doing great work in the Agricultural Institute unless that work, first, reflects the needs of our farmers and, second, is translated into action on the farms. If the National Agricultural Authority had been let go ahead they would have done this and achieved this marrying of research with practice. By upturning the National Agricultural Authority, by withdrawing the Agricultural Institute from the ambit of a central authority with a central goal, the Minister is turning back the clock in agricultural development. I do not know his motives—I shall not go into them—— but most assuredly he is wrong.

What is important to me, my party and to the country as a whole in regard to this Bill is that the farmers, advisers, institute people and research people know exactly where they are going in the shortest possible time. Some confusion has been created in the past couple of years because the Minister guaranteed that he would change certain provisions of the previous Bill and introduce a new Bill. I am glad that at last he has done that. At least it will clear the air for people engaged in the advisory service, farmers and others interested in agriculture and those engaged in research.

I have a few criticisms to make of the Bill where I believe progress is not being made and in respect of which I believe the previous Bill was somewhat better. I do not want to hedge about anything but I have sympathy with the argument which maintains that the research people should constitute an autonomous body. I have considered the various arguments for and against in considerable detail and I do not really disagree with the Minister on that point. The very Title of the Bill starts a process which runs through it, that of the training versus education. As I see the functions of the advisory service, they are more educational rather than training in nature.

The Minister has said that training includes education. I think they are two different things. The advisory service has always been considered to be people who educated farmers and others for their own benefit, for greater production in agriculture, and they have done a very good job in this respect. In my opinion it would appear that this council may be suspected of providing to groups of farmers the kind of training which is similar to what AnCO is providing for industry. While I agree that AnCO have provided a great service to industry in many ways—and I presume they could not be considered to be an educational authority—what is necessary for the farming community is vastly different and will be provided in a very different field. An adviser will deal personally with individuals and not with groups, as do AnCO. AnCO provide training for a new industry, retraining where an industry closes down, but all this is for groups of people. The important thing about the agricultural advisory service is that they deal individually with farmers, small and large, and for that reason their services are more educational in nature.

May I give a typical example? Let us suppose an adviser goes out to a small farmer who is in, shall we say, the milk business. Perhaps that farmer cannot see that he should increase his herd. Perhaps he should construct a milking parlour and increase his output, but he must first be educated—not trained how to do it; that is quite simple if one can convince him and educate him—into seeing that he should do it. Education is the vital word as far as the advisory service is concerned. Their function cannot be compared with that of AnCO. Therefore to use the word "training" throughout this Bill constitutes a retrograde step which should be reconsidered by the Minister.

There was in the previous Bill a guarantee that at least the status quo would be maintained as far as the advisory service is concerned. I agree that that was insufficient. However that did exist and is now being removed. The Minister has said it was a restriction, and in that I agree with him. However, it guaranteed that at least the same provisions would obtain in real money terms for the agricultural advisory service as had obtained in preceding years. It was a minimum guarantee. Now that is removed and there is no guarantee at all. This may be interpreted in some areas as meaning that the Minister may be considering reducing in real terms the amount being provided for advisers in the advisory service. I agree with the Minister that what is necessary in this area is real expansion. He maintains that the section he removed altogether from this Bill was too restrictive. If that be so it should have been replaced by a section in this Bill giving greater scope for expansion.

There are fears also that the Minister may be thinking of co-operatives or somebody else providing the kind of service—and they are beginning to do it in certain areas—that the advisory service of the county committee of agriculture provided to date. If not for the Minister that may be a way out in the future for someone else. Reducing the amount might be a way out and there is nothing in the Bill to guarantee that it will not be reduced. That is a retrograde step and something we should consider before Committee Stage. We should have some guarantee that there will not be a reduction in the numbers or in the amount provided for the advisory service. There is then the question of the composition of the board. I have certain views on this, views with which neither the main spokesman for Fine Gael nor the Minister might agree, but I believe that on this board the least that could be expected by the workers employed by the board is the same terms as those provided in the case of worker participation in State industries. If there is not that kind of representation this Bill will represent not an improvement but a backward step.

I believe farmers should be represented. I believe agricultural workers, a very important section in rural Ireland, should be represented, either directly or through the medium of some organisation. Representation by the agricultural committees is somewhat limited. Different areas should have representation because there are different farming methods in different areas. The least those concerned can expect is the standard laid down in regard to worker participation in State enterprises.

I am glad the Minister has agreed to withdraw section 12. If he did not do so I should have had a great deal to say on the section. It is important that those engaged in the advisory services and on research should know exactly the terms of their employment and what they will be expected to do. The farmers will want to know what kind of direction the services will take. They must know that quickly. We must not make a political football out of this Bill. A political football was made out of the earlier Bill and the Minister must take some of the responsibility for that. I do not disagree with the principal reason for the Minister bringing in this Bill. I am inclined to accept that the Agricultural Institute should be a separate, autonomous body. It was a pity agreement could not be reached on the last Bill.

Hear, hear.

It is a pity all this time was lost and all the doubt remained just to satisfy the political whims of people. I believe agreement could have been reached on the earlier Bill and, had it been reached, there would be no necessity now for this Bill. Blame rests on both sides for the time lost. It is vitally important that we should go ahead now. I shall have amendments for Committee Stage, amendments designed to improve the Bill, not just to upset the Minister or anybody else.

I welcome the Bill. The previous Bill had two main objectives, to unify the advisory and educational services and secondly, to amalgamate those services with the research institute, An Foras Talúntais. Everybody is agreed the advisory services needed reorganisation. Over the past 20 years there have been many reports on the subject. With regard to the research service, it is accepted nationally and internationally that An Foras Talúntais, since its establishment in 1958, has done an outstanding job for agriculture. To listen to a previous speaker one would think An Foras Talúntais had been totally negative and had made no real impact on farming.

Take the agricultural exports over the last decade. In 1967 agricultural exports were valued at £156 million. In 1977 they were valued at £975 million. Despite the glossy prognostications on the part of some, Irish agriculture has made very considerable progress and the institute, as an autonomous body, has certainly contributed to that progress. Increased production has not been confined to the larger farms. A study of the farm management survey results show that a big contribution to increased productivity came from the smaller farms because of more intensive farming methods.

I welcome the fact that the institute will be allowed to retain its autonomy. I believe that the linking up of the advisory service with the institute would put undue emphasis on production research. Undoubtedly we can increase our production, but the real bottleneck is in the area of processing and marketing. A direct link up of the advisory service would certainly have the effect of laying priority emphasis on production research. It is a much more difficult thing to process additional agricultural produce into products which will be remunerative on world markets. That is what we must do. The institute in an independent environment can place more emphasis on research and development in the processing and marketing areas and will not be confined unduly to increasing production, through which we could find ourselves with mountains of various produce which we would have to put into intervention. We must be able to process and manufacture various agricultural commodities to suit the marketplace. That is one of the reasons why the institute has flourished since 1958 and I welcome the guarantee of independence contained in this Bill. The previous Bill was rushed through the House and did not take into account the tremendous contribution which the institute had made.

The Minister is to be congratulated on his proposal to create a unified advisory and education service. The handicaps of the present county system have been recognised and the coupling of the advisory and education services will be of great benefit. The major constraint on improving agricultural production and remuneration for the farming community is the lack of education and the lack of an intensive advisory service. We are at a disadvantage in this area when compared with our competitors in Europe and the rest of the world. We have roughly 12 million acres of arable land which is valued at between £2,000 and £3,000 an acre, though in some cases it is even more. This means that the value of that natural resource is in the region of £30 billion. This resource can be improved as it contributes to production, unlike some other natural resources to which people look to save the economy, such as oil and mineral deposits which are wasting deposits.

Agriculture must be utilised for the benefit of the people as a whole. At present, 23 per cent of our population work directly in farming. This is a higher percentage than that in any other EEC country and it has led some economists to believe that we will inevitably have a continous drift from the land. In fact, we have only half as many people employed per 100 acres as they have in Holland. I do not accept the defeatist view that we must have a continuing drift from the land. With modern technology and intensive production techniques, people owning relatively small farms will be able to provide themselves with an income comparable to any they would make in industry.

One of the limiting factors in the effort to increase production and increase the income of farmers has been the level of advice and education available to those engaged in agriculture, especially when compared with that available in other countries. Our output from pasture, which is the main area of production, has been only half that of Holland and Denmark, despite our climatic advantages. It will not be good enough for people to say in the future that we have a great advantage over our competitors because of our climatic conditions. A tremendous input of advice and education is necessary to make the most of these advantages and to achieve our full potential in terms of output of grass, which is our main commodity output. The output in Holland is about 200 per cent higher than it is here. In 1973 agricultural exports from this country were valued at £400 million, whereas exports from Holland were worth £3,000 million, despite the fact that they must feed a population of 13 million and our population is in the area of three million.

There is room for further advancement and development of this resource. Some commentators feel we should be doing much better. I believe we are doing very well in comparison with most other agricultural economies. It is unfair to compare the rate of growth in an agricultural economy with that in an industrial economy, as has been done by some of those making gloomy forecasts with regard to our agricultural industry.

The General Council of Committees of Agriculture reported during the past 12 months that 84 per cent of farmers have only primary education and less than 2 per cent have attended an agricultural college. Farming today is a highly technical enterprise, whether concerned with dairying or pig production. It has the kind of technology that is required at farm level where we have farm projects to make, within hours, from the basic raw material a sophisticated product. It is a big handicap that such a large percentage, 84 per cent, of the people in agriculture have only primary education; less than 2 per cent have the benefit of an agricultural education in one of our agricultural colleges. For this reason I welcome this Bill as providing a unified and co-ordinated agricultural advisory service so that we can provide a decent level of education for the people who are working this £30 billion worth of resources initially before they enter farming and then they will be able to get the best possible advice from a unified advisory service to follow through.

In addition to the handicap of having so few people with an agricultural education, the number of advisors per farmer here is only about half the intensity it is in countries with which we are directly competing. For instance, in Holland and Denmark where we are fighting to gain markets, they have twice as many advisors per farm as we have here. The addition of several hundred more advisors would not in itself be the answer to our problems but the results of various surveys indicate that a more intensive advisory service does in fact produce results. We had the pilot area schemes, the small farm incentive bonus schemes, where production was increased dramatically as a result of more intensive advice. More recently we had the World Bank loan where a group of farmers were given intensive advisory services. In a difficult time, 1973 and 1974, when other sectors of agriculture were losing money and their incomes going down, the group of farmers involved in the World Bank project actually increased their livestock by 47 per cent and increased their income by over 300 per cent. That indicates that with the addition of more intensive advisory services we can produce infinitely more from this resource which we have, namely, the land.

Before this Bill becomes a legal document I would like An Chomhairle to advise the Minister in regard to section 12. An Chomhairle should also advise the Minister in regard to an overall programme and development plan for agriculture. I see no reason why we should not have a detailed plan or programme, say, for five years, for the development of the most important sector of our economy. When An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta is set up they should advise the Minister not only on agricultural training but they should also be able to draw up a development plan for agriculture. I welcome the Bill and I congratulate the Minister on introducing it.

Unlike the last speaker I cannot say that I welcome this Bill because the Minister intends to detach a very important branch of the farm support services, by detaching the institute from the combined educational and advisory services which the former Minister, Deputy Clinton, in his Bill brought together under the one umbrella. The present Minister is now removing from that structure a very important support of that umbrella leaving the whole structure incomplete and unstable. Having had experience of pilot areas where the combined forces worked together and having seen the results, the increased production in those areas, I am convinced that there would be a far greater production in the pilot areas had on-the-ground support been given by members of the institute. There are areas in Clare, which is an intensive dairying area, where in the past year a 14 per cent increase was shown in milk production because of the cumulative effects of advice given over a long period. The results would have been even more marked if we had had a direct line of communication and consultations with members of the institute in this area.

The Minister has not convinced me nor has he given any valid or convincing reason why the institute should now be detached from the combined agricultural and advisory services known under the previous Bill as the National Agricultural Authority. He has given as one of his reasons that the environment within which the members of the institute would work might, in some vague way, impede progress. In what better area could a person work than with the people who have experience in the advisory services and in the educational services? Would the institute people not be better qualified and have a broader vision as a result of constant contact with the men on the ground? The absence of the institute could be likened to an army out of contact with its intelligence corps or its transport corps. One cannot have an effective agreement if one of its main supports has been taken from it. Why has the Minister ignored, over the past number of years, the unified approach which we got from the farming organisations? They were very vocal over a period of 14 or 15 years in advocating this combined unit of our agricultural service.

I am very familiar with the approach of Macra na Feirme, in particular, but the other organisations were also vocal. I have not heard their voices raised. Perhaps they are influenced by the fact that the Minister intends to give a good representation to rural organisations. We welcome this but surely if we advocate something for a number of years the Minister should consider the combined opinions of united groups. I suppose it is too late to ask the Minister to allow a closer liaison between the institute and those organisations. If somebody is isolated from his friends and communications are broken down the desired results cannot be achieved.

I was present, along with other Members of the Dáil and Seanad at the meeting with the Clare County Committee of Agriculture, who clearly expressed their opposition to the proposed Bill. They hoped the Minister would introduce amendments which would make the Bill acceptable to them. They were all practical farmers and members of the Minister's party. This meeting was held a few months ago. They were not satisfied that as members of the committee of agriculture they were getting adequate representation on the board of AnCOT. They would like to see that representation increased. Those people were elected to public life and they would like the opportunity to express their ideas fully as practical farmers. They were disappointed that the Minister only intended to have one representative of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture on this board. There are 27 such committees in the country. The Minister should review this section and allow a more reasonable representation from such a very responsible body as the General Council of Committees of Agriculture.

Permanent appointments have been made by the Appointments Commission but county committees of agriculture had power to appoint temporary staff. Under this Bill they will not be free to appoint temporary staff. When there is remote control, as there will be when this Bill becomes law, undue delays are likely to happen and eventually areas dependent on the appointment of additional instructors and their services will be without them. There is a fear that the new board may be like a health board but may be even more remote and central administration would mean a lessening of the authority of public representatives. Although this may not be the case people fear it is likely to happen. People who work with committees of agriculture, instructors and others, are naturally concerned about their future. When they were appointed permanently to particular counties they became familiar with the people and the particular climatic conditions which affect those areas and over the years they have established themselves very firmly with the farming community. Those people can now be uprooted under this Bill and can be moved at short notice to any county. The strong relationship built up over the years between the advisory services and farmers throughout the country will be broken.

With regard to the composition of the board, the Minister should consider that a board works more effectively if it embraces all the many varied interests which it is supposed to cater for. We have a very important force in our agricultural life, which has now been depleted—the agricultural worker. It was always considered wise to have agricultural workers on wages boards. Why can we not include agricultural worker representation on this board? If they are on State-sponsored bodies, and it is recognised that they make valuable contributions there, why can they not be included on this proposed board? There are many deprived areas west of the Shannon. All the counties from west Cork up the coast through Kerry, Clare, Galway, Mayo, Sligo and Donegal have a very high percentage of small farmers. In Clare 70 per cent of small farmers have a valuation of under £20. Would the Minister consider appointing a representative of small farmers on this new body? Such a person could contribute a lot because of his experience of living on a small farm and providing for his family. Because of congestion such people have had to operate without any hope of enlarging their holdings. Most of them have worked hard so that they could live well and have high production.

The Minister should take note of the fact that in the west there has been a drop in production in recent years. I part of the country to bring about the necessary changes. There is scope there for improvement and we should treat the development of farming in the west as a priority. It is a problem that should be tackled immediately. It is disappointing that the Minister has decided to detach the institute from the educational and advisory service. I do not agree with his thinking in this regard and I must make known my views and those of the county committee of agriculture of which I am a member. I leave the rest to the Minister's common sense to make the best job possible of the new board. As a practical farmer I would be disappointed if all farmers did not benefit from this. I hope the Minister will see a way of improving the lot of those people who have a very uncertain life while living on the land. They are subject to varying prices, uncertain climatic conditions and dependent on an uncertain market. I hope the Minister will bring to agriculture, the main prop in our economy, a better prospect for a stable future.

I welcome the opportunity to comment on this Bill, one of the most important pieces of legislation to be introduced in this session. We all realise the importance of agriculture in the economy. The publicity given to the Bill to date is an indication that Irish people are aware of the importance of agriculture. We have heard that we have 12 million acres of arable land. From that we can see that land is our greatest natural resource. As such it must be cared for in such a way that our farmers can increase productivity. We have been told it is inevitable that the number of people engaged in agriculture will decrease annually. I do not accept that because it is my belief that agriculture has not reached its full potential. In recent years new opportunities have been created for farmers with the result that young farmers have a bright future, but they must be assisted in every way possible.

We are all aware of the amount of aid that is given to those who create industrial employment, but at the same time we must never forget that agriculture should be given priority treatment. We should provide for more research and the appointment of more skilled staff to assist those anxious to remain on the land. We have been told that the role of the small farmer is becoming more insignificant daily, but I do not accept that. Small farmers are the backbone of our society. The day has gone when farmers would say: "I am going to send Johnny to college, Joe to school, Mary to the convent and keep Mickeen at home." The Mickeen kept at home is now an ambitious young man who is determined to play his part in agricultural production. For that reason we must ensure that this piece of legislation is debated calmly and that we hasten slowly in our deliberations. The greatest fault with regard to the Bill introduced by the Minister's predecessor was that everything was done in haste. In fact, after the decision of the people in June 1977, a frantic effort was made to appoint the board before the new Government took over. That was a bad decision and one which was detrimental to the progress of agriculture.

The Minister has introduced a more liberal type of Bill, one which is more acceptable because research and education are important to those engaged in agriculture. The Bill endeavours to provide the greatest amount of research and education possible. In order to provide research and education the organisations involved must have a measure of independence. They must be free from civil service control. When we talk about civil service control we are talking about people who have been removed from the agricultural scene for many years or may not have been involved in agriculture at all. We must ensure that any body set up to provide a better service for farmers has a greater degree of independence.

We must always remember that the biggest percentage of our work force is engaged in agriculture. I understand that 24 per cent of our total population still get their living from agriculture. Because of that we should not take any short cuts when carrying out research. Research is important because of the great changes that are taking place in agriculture. In recent years science has come to the aid of agriculture in a big way and we must ensure that all available aids are made known to the farmers so that we can have maximum production. Much of our land has not reached maximum production and those engaged in farming will not be in a position to achieve that unless they fully avail of the research and education facilities.

I compliment the people in Foras Talúntais for the good work they have done over the years in research and education. Their work has benefited agriculture and the country generally. If we fail to recognise the significance of the farmer we will lose out on our greatest national resource. Agricultural products are not imported but are manufactured and processed here. Every effort should be made to ensure that all agricultural produce is processed before exportation. When we export cattle, sheep or pigs on the hoof we lose out in relation to production and job creation. We must have access to organised marketing as we produce more and more of the finished product, and this new body will play a leading role here in advising farmers from year to year of the markets abroad. Intervention is only a temporary measure and is not the answer to our problems. We must know of the markets available and we must be able to compete with other agricultural communities. That signifies the importance of this Bill.

I am glad that the role of the county committees of agriculture is covered in this Bill and that the Minister realises the importance of that role in society. It is only natural to expect that organisations like Macra na Feirme, the Irish Farmers Association, Macra na Tuaithe, the ICA and all the other organisations involved in agriculture should be represented on this committee. The people involved in these organisations know the problems. They may not know the answers but they will avail of the educational facilities which will become available to them. It is good that the future of the county committees of agriculture is guaranteed in this Bill, because if local democracy is removed an important element in the industry is gone. Many people say that these committees are just talking shops, but they have played an important role in the promotion of agriculture. The farming community will contribute the bulk of local rates, so local representation is very important. By guaranteeing the future of the committees of agriculture the Government are removing an element of worry that all control would be at departmental level. There must be an amalgamation of the resources of the county committees of agriculture, the advisory services and the Department, bearing in mind that the Minister is responsible for the activities of his Department.

By and large agriculture has made great strides in recent years, mainly because of our access to new and improved markets in Europe. The agricultural community must be allowed to contribute to national development. They are prepared to do that and are becoming educated to do so. This Bill will make research facilities available to them to help them. This is excellent legislation. Because of the importance of agriculture to our economy I welcome the Bill. I hope it will get a speedy passage through the House and that the debate will be conducted in a manner conducive to the best interests of the agricultural community.

I do not accept the well-known conventional wisdom and orthodoxy in relation to agriculture whereby it is advanced that the development of agricultural research must be divorced from the day to day advisory educational and training services of the industry. I do not share that view either in relation to manufacturing industry. Regrettably, this Bill, in its initial passage when it was first introduced by Deputy Clinton and now further amended by the Minister for Agriculture, has become a matter of party politics and in a sense a matter of civil service politics. I speak as an outsider looking in trying to see how we should develop a more coherent structure.

When we were in Government we lost the opportunity of making a very simple transition. We should have given a shot in the arm to An Foras Talúntais by devolving on them the dual responsibility of the research and the advisory and training services of the Department. I had some difficulty in explaining this view to the many representatives I received on a trade union and on a Labour Party basis when we were part of the Government and in explaining this to the representatives of an Foras Talúntais. If agricultural research is to advance in an integrated and effective way, it must have a very positive link with the advisory and training services. For that reason I felt that a simpler approach could have been adopted by extending the statutes governing An Foras Talúntais, by devolving on them from the Department of Agriculture the responsibility for advisory and training services and by putting the staff involved under the aegis of An Foras Talúntais. I must confess that at the time I found little support for my view. But the more I study the situation, the Minister's Bill and his Second Stage contribution, the more I am convinced of the real merit of the approach I adopted. When the National Agricultural Advisory, Educational and Research Authority were proposed, considerable fears were expressed but this was understandable. There was a degree of appreciation as to how these fears evolved. There was much distrust in the Department, unfair distrust in some areas. There was the old hierarchial attitude that An Foras Talúntais would be emasculated by a departmental contrivance and that they would emerge as a big bureaucratic structure, their independent budget for research crucified and their being staffed by the Department of the Public Service. It was alleged at the time that this was the big new planning effort of the mandarins at senior level in the Department to deal with An Foras Talúntais as they would wish in terms of budget, of policy and of control. At that time I did not share their view but I appreciated their fears and I considered that it would have been much simpler for the then Minister for Agriculture to have told An Foras Talúntais that they were doing magnificent work, that for the past 20 years they had made an enormous contribution in the field of research.

Contrary to the reports produced from 1967 onwards, right up to the Devlin Report which, incidentally, I do not regard as being gospel here, we should have expanded the role of An Foras Talúntais and given them responsibility for training, education and advisory services. Now we are landed with a two-tier situation which will make very little real contribution to the progressive development of the agricultural industry. This two-tier system will solve nothing in the long term. Perhaps for the next decade we will be stuck with what we are setting up here today. Having regard to the controversial nature both of this debate and of the debate on the previous legislation, no politician will be likely to touch on this area for at least another ten years.

The Minister proposes a two-tier structure of research and training, a structure that is not integrated or coordinated in any way. All we are getting is a kind of bureaucratic attempt at cross-fertilisation between the board of AnCO and the council of An Foras Talúntais. This kind of cross-fertilisation between the two boards is typically Irish. Whenever we find ourselves in trouble in developing structures we have an amazing capacity to wriggle our way out by crossing the blood lines and hoping to get a decent horse out of the situation. This is the attitude in a small country in which there is a unified agricultural industry. I do not agree with a two-tier system.

This brings me back to my original proposal which, regrettably, the then Minister for Agriculture was not prepared to accept. It was the expansion of the development of An Foras Talúntais down along the line through the grassroots to the farm whereby the people involved in research would go to the farms and work closely with the instructors and the advisers and work in the field offices in their research and advisory capacities while engaging in training simultaneously. That is what I regard as real work and real development in terms of agriculture.

I may be asked what would happen to the county committees of agriculture if the advisory service is to be brought under the aegis of An Foras Talúntais. There is no reason why the county committees of agriculture should not have continued in existence but I would see their offices as being the field offices of An Foras Talúntais. Their role essentially at that stage would be advisory to the council of An Foras Talúntais and advisory on a consultative basis at local level to such organisations as the IFA, Macra na Feirme, Macra na Tuaithe and so on. They would be in an advisory capacity, too, to the local authorities. That would have been a sane and reasonable approach but I would go further and say that in the initial stages of the preparation of the first Bill, if the staffs of the advisory services had been brought in and told that, with full preservation of superannuation and a full transition of their conditions of employment being safeguarded, they were being transferred to An Foras Talúntais, they might well have accepted the deal. Simultaneously, the council of An Foras Talúntais could have been expanded. However, there were a number of obstacles in that direction, the principal one being a probable policy reluctance, structural reluctance and administrative reluctance on the part of the Department to see emerging a further flourishing of An Foras that would give them more control, not only policy control but also administrative control. Such a situation might not have been welcomed by some of the secret policy advisers of the Department.

After ten years in this House I am tired of the way in which politicians, county councillors and others have a go at the public service. When we make a mess of something we invariably slag the civil servants because they are the last people who may reply. I say that with great deference to our public servants because their motives can be impugned and they have no opportunity of reply. I believe that while the Department should be involved deeply in policy formation, they should not be involved in the administration of advisory and training services and of education.

My reaction to this Bill is that once again it perpetuates the two-tier system which is not to the advantage of our farmers. When we had private meetings with the Minister to discuss the original Bill, I strongly held the view that I would like to see the stature of An Foras Talúntais increased into the area of advisory, training and educational services, the board expanded and a transfer taking place on that basis. That would have been eminently more feasible than what we have now. This means we are back to the two-tier system. Part of the reluctance of the Minister to give more power to the board of An Foras is the old story that, as the Minister who pays two-thirds of the budget of the two councils concerned, he wants to retain control over the use of these funds. I still think An Foras could have been effectively maintained and developed.

These are my views on this legislation and they are strengthened when one realises that the Bill proposes to assign to An Foras additional functions in relation to basic veterinary research and to transfer responsibility in relation to serious research, hitherto the preserves of the Department. When preliminary discussions were taking place, in my view, the consultation on the problems of the staff involved was cursory and was not in sufficient depth to bring about the kind of structure I would have favoured at that stage.

I view with considerable concern the perpetuation of the two-tier system because in the long term it is not to the advantage of the farming community or of the development of a progressive agricultural industry, and in the years ahead we will regret not having brought forward what I would call proper integration, proper co-ordination and a proper structure which would have ended the excessive dilution of national work between the Department, An Foras, representative organisations and the new council envisaged in this Bill. For these reasons I regret the position that developed. It need not have developed if there had been more widespread consultations with the interested bodies and staffs concerned. It need not have developed if the Minister had not shown such indecent and precipitate haste in trying to make cheap political capital out of the situation.

I am convinced and will always remain so, that if Deputy Clinton had brought this Bill into this House, Deputy Gibbons for party political purposes would have come in with the opposite. Such is the nature of the Minister's concept of agricultural politics and of his personal detestation of everything Fine Gael stood for, that he would have, without even reading the Bill, indicated that he would have changed it, just for the sake of change. This is a matter of regret because the Minister has an outstanding brain where agricultural work is concerned. He is a man who has always worked at about 20 or 30 per cent of his potential in terms of his capacity to make a contribution at that level. Unfortunately, almost everything he does is clouded by a vitriolic detestation for all legislation introduced by Fine Gael Ministers for Agriculture.

When the last Bill was going through this House so great were the pressures on the then Minister, Deputy Clinton, particularly in relation to the work he undertook with such great competence in Brussels, that he did not have sufficient opportunity to consult and take a more detached view of the proposals he was making. In my view he accepted hastily the structure which evolved within the Department. Had he consulted more widely with interested parties before the publication of that Bill, he would have found that the solution I have advanced here would have been in the national interest.

For these reasons I am gravely concerned about this Bill. The fact that it is being tacitly accepted around the country as being the measure which will come into operation is an indication of people's despair of a real structure emerging. I hope this will in some measure prove successful but I have very considerable doubts about the real impact it will have in the long run, because it leaves us with a structure for research, training and education, still diffused, disintegrated, unco-ordinated, wasteful of resources and of talent in this country, a scarcity of talent in the agricultural field, which in the long run will not be to the credit of the politicians who tried to improve the situation. That is my interpretation of the position.

I regret that I found myself being so condemnatory of the approaches adopted. I am quite convinced that we lost a golden opportunity. I am quite sure also that when the Minister sees this new structure in operation for, say, five or ten years, he will come around to the wisdom of having an integrated system of operation. I am sure also that the farming organisations and the staff of the Department of Agriculture will come around to that view and will realise the error of what has been done.

I rise to oppose this Bill. It was interesting to listen to the different contributions, particularly those of the Minister and of the last speaker. I am glad the Minister of State is here to hear my contribution. I feel I would have a better chance of putting our point of view to him and having it understood.

After ten years of frustration and uncertainly I regret to say that with the introduction of this Bill we are back to square one as far as reorganisation of the advisory service is concerned. I believe we are entering an era of frustration on the whole issue of agricultural research and advice. I will never understand why the present Minister for Agriculture did not allow the previous Bill be put into operation and ascertain for himself whether or not its provisions would work. Unfortunately, instead he chose to axe it. Therefore, we will never know whether that Bill could have been implemented to the advantage not alone of the farming community but the country as a whole.

I say after ten years we are back to square one; others have said after 15 years. This is a credit to nobody. Being a new Member of this House it was to my advantage that I did not take part in the last debate on this issue when there were, I understand, very bitter exchanges. On that occasion some of the contributions—which I have not read—I understand were more disruptive than helpful. Whatever Bill is implemented we must bear in mind the advantages to be gained, first, for the farming community and, secondly, for the country as a whole.

There seems to be only one point of real agreement, that is, the absolute need for the restructuring of both the research and advisory services. However, there seems to be vast differences of opinion on how that should be done. I have taken a keen interest in agricultural development and research. I have very strong feelings on this Bill and its effects on agriculture. I shall attempt to persuade the Minister to make the necessary changes which I believe to be fundamental to agriculture. In my comments I shall try to avoid any aggravation or disruption of the position but rather to state the facts as I see them.

It is a great pity to make a political football out of this Bill irrespective of how much we may disagree with it. That is what happened the previous Bill. I believe considerable damage has been done already to a lot of very good people who will be affected one way or another by this Bill. Whether or not we like it lines are firmly drawn on one side or the other by the people who will have to work within its framework. That is the unfortunate aspect of it. We should endeavour not to aggravate the situation further.

The Minister said in the course of his remarks:

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.

That statement must be described as warped expression. What is basic to agriculture at present—and I think practically everybody feels this—is education. I shall attempt to persuade the Minister to reinstate the word "education" in this Bill. He has removed it from practically every section and has substituted the word "training". I am more than surprised at this action of the Minister, a man with practical knowledge and experience in the field of agriculture and its administration. Few people in this House would have the same practical knowledge of both aspects. I can see absolutely no logic for the substitution of the word "training" for the word "education". It is difficult to describe the need for education in agriculture. One of the main functions of the proposed new council should be agricultural education. In fact the word "education" cannot be used often enough. I believe the word "training" is completely inadequate and greatly reduces emphasis on the need for education.

I should like to deal with a few aspects of farming and point out what I consider are the needs for education in those areas. Take the man in charge of a herd of cows. The day is gone when one just said to a worker "Take the bucket and stool and milk the cow." The day is also gone of the old bucket plants costing about £1,000. The day is with us when very expensive and sophisticated equipment is operating in regard to 90 per cent of our herds. It is a different situation from what it was 15 years ago. The cost of the equipment is roughly £20,000. A herd of 50 to 60 cows is valued in the region of £40,000 to £50,000 and we are speaking, therefore, of a man in charge of £70,000 worth of equipment and cows. Is it the intention that such a man should be ill-equipped from the point of view of knowledge and education?

The day is gone when a minimum of knowledge was necessary to operate a proper cow herd. Knowledge and education are essential requisites and education is badly needed at the moment. A man in charge of a herd of cows must know something about electricity, about drugs, about the use of compounds and AI. All these things require a certain level of education. The word "training" is totally inadequate. I think—and I say this to the Parliamentary Secretary, who may be easier to reach than his Minister is on this particular issue—that the word "education" should be put back into every section of the Bill in which it appeared before.

A man in charge of a herd of cows needs some basic training on how to preserve milk. The quality bonus operates where liquid milk sales are concerned. It operates right across the board and a farmer can lose up to 5p a gallon if his milk does not reach the required standard. I am not now talking about the bacteria count. There are other ingredients in milk which must be looked after. Education must be the keyword where good quality milk is concerned.

It may be argued that I am adopting a difficult stance in trying to prove that the word "education" should be put back into the Bill. Take tillage. Our average yields are somewhere in the region of two tons to the acre. In England the average yield is three tons to the acre and they are talking in terms of four tons to the acre. This increase has come about as a result of research and education. We have made progress, good progress, in root crops, though not in cereals. The beet factories have contributed in no small way to this progress because they have made the essential knowledge directly available to the farmers and that has led to improved efficiency.

Pig production is an area calling for attention. Would, I wonder, the Parliamentary Secretary or his Minister put an untrained or uneducated man in charge of a herd of pigs? I certainly would not. Such a man needs education and he also needs training. I have absolutely no objection to the word "training" but substituting the word "training" for the word "education"—I heard Deputy Desmond expatiate on this—seems to me to be prompted by pettiness simply because of a certain dislike of the Minister who introduced the earlier measure. If that is true it shows a certain smallmindedness.

Deputy Joe Walsh, a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, mentioned the word "education" four or five times at least. I do not think he used the word "training" once. He talked about the need for education in agriculture. He said it was basic to agriculture. I am delighted Deputy Walsh took this attitude and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary——

Just to keep the record straight, the Minister of State.

It is like everything else. We learn every day we come into this House.

I suppose this is what education is all about.

It is good training for the Deputy.

One learns by experience and anyone who thinks he can learn in another way should think again.

Horticulture is a very important aspect of agriculture. It is a very technical subject requiring a high level of education. In this area there is tremendous scope for expansion. Recently fresh strawberries were offered for sale on the London fruit market. I understand this was as a result of experiment. We are in the EEC now and we have wider scope for disposing of our produce. Wexford is one of the best fruit growing areas in the country. I understand the farmers in Wexford are not able to take contracts from British firms, contracts running for three to five years with practically guaranteed prices. For the small farmer the production of strawberries can be very profitable provided the necessary expertise and knowledge is available and provided those who engage in the production of strawberries have the requisite basic education and training.

I believe practically all lines of farming are in need of improvement through more knowledge and education being made available to farmers and others to ensure high levels of efficiency and production. The farm worker is now a very important man. I am glad to say that the winter farm schools now operating in most counties are taking in these men for training and education. This is absolutely essential. A farm worker using a tractor is in charge of a machine worth between £7,000 and £12,000 and it is very much in the interest of the farmer that the farm worker has a good basic knowledge of that machine. A combine harvester is worth about £30,000 and even a slight mistake can cost £1,000. People need training and education in order to be effective in the use of such machines.

Someone has said that the labour force on the land has been reduced. We are at a crossroads in regard to the labour force. Any farmer who believes he can farm with a reduced labour force is fooling himself. If a farmer wants to be efficient his labour force must be efficient for his type of enterprise. The day is gone when one could reduce the labour force on the land.

I would ask the Minister of State to use whatever influence he has with the Minister for Agriculture to include the word "education" in the Title of this Bill. The word "training" could be more appropriately applied to the work of AnCO, who train people for one line of work and may perhaps retrain them some years later for a different type of work. One cannot compare this type of training with what is needed in agriculture. I am prepared to accept that training is needed in agriculture, but we cannot stress often enough the need for education in agriculture.

I believe the most important function of the new authority is the education of young farmers and this has been realised and demonstrated by all farmers. In Wexford there were 75 applications this year for agricultural scholarships and only 25 places were available. Four years ago we did not even have interviews for these places. That clearly demonstrates the realisation of the parents of those who will be taking over their farms in the years to come that education is absolutely essential. Unfortunately, some of these students who applied for scholarships to Wexford County Committee of Agriculture were unable to get places in agricultural colleges this year. I do not know who will fill the vacuum here and I hope that this new authority will try to remedy the situation immediately. If we have a demand for agricultural education and we have not the facilities to give that education, it must be described as a serious deficiency in our system. I ask the Minister of State to take that into consideration and make the point to the Minister.

The Minister explained why he had reduced the numbers on the council from 26 to 16. The previous Bill dealt very skimpily with the representation offered to the county committees of agriculture. The General Council of County Committees of Agriculture, which represent 27 committees of agriculture, are being offered one place on this council. I appeal to the Minister to make available at least three places to the General Council. We cannot overlook the fact that the county committees of agriculture have carried on the agricultural services in a voluntary capacity down through the years. Huge strides have been made in our agricultural development and expansion. Are we now to treat them miserably by offering them one seat on this council? I am prepared to accept that some of the county committees did not do a good job, but that is not to say that the rest of the committees should, as a result of that, be chastised. By and large, 90 per cent of the committees did a very good job. We are removing those who are accountable to somebody in the democratic process. The majority of the committees are made up of members of the county councils. I would support the Minister in that the rural organisations should have a say on the council, but I cannot support him in offering only one place to the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture. It is a miserable effort and does not recognise the great work which has been done by these committees.

I expressed the same point of view to the previous Minister. Somebody seems to be bringing pressure to bear on this point. The Minister's own party disagree violently with him on this point. The democratic process should not be forgotten. The members of every county council are accountable to the people. I am asking the Minister to increase the number of members from 16 to 18, giving the two extra places to people who have worked consistently through the years in the field of agriculture.

I am glad the Minister has withdrawn section 12. When I read the Bill first I could not understand how his own Department could allow this section to be put in. I express the view on it because there is always the danger of somebody coming back and putting in this section. I am in agreement with accountability but the Department of Agriculture are themselves capable of the responsibility. Of course they are. Why the Department of the Public Service was ever named is a mystery. It is right that they should have control over conditions of employment. Everybody has to get a guideline from someone on that point but why should the Department of the Public Service have any authority whatsoever over this new council? Over the years it took quite a bit of effort to persuade the Department of Agriculture, particularly in the last four years, to give us a couple of extra girls to do work that was originally done by the agricultural officer. That man should have been out in the fields. Instead he was sitting there writing letters. As far as accountability is concerned this issue should certainly be looked after by the Department of Agriculture. I welcome the move by the Minister to remove this section because one always seems to get a pessimistic view from the Department of the Public Service. It is their make-up. They are responsible for everybody's problems. They are responsible for everybody's moneys. But to give them any authority over this new council would be a retrograde step. They have influence enough over the moneys allocated to agriculture without giving them the right to say whether or not this work should be done or that work should be done. I very much welcome the Minister's step in this direction.

There is one other aspect of the Bill that I wish to refer to. It is a very serious matter. We are looking for the same undertaking that the present Minister for Agriculture looked for when the previous Bill was introduced; that is the question of charging fees. This is the area in which the Department of the Public Service could have some influence. I have not read the debate on the last Bill but the Minister, Deputy Gibbons, asked Deputy Clinton for his assurance that there was no provision under which possibly at some later stage the advisory service would become a fee-charging institution and that the farmers availing of that service would at any time in the future be required to pay a fee to the Minister or to the authority. I would make a very strong case to the Minister on this issue. I want an absolute assurance that he has not the intention in the back of his mind to introduce this fee-charging situation because those most in need of the service will be the least able to pay for it and therefore will not be able to avail of the service. In our present set-up under the farm organisation scheme there is a lot of paper work involved. People have to call very often on the agricultural adviser to explain this, that or the other. People can take up the phone and ask for information from the agricultural adviser. Is the agricultural adviser going to tell him that it will cost him a £1? This would be a serious development. This provision was taken out of the last Bill. I do not see why it should be included in this Bill. But there is always a reason for putting it in. It can be brought in, I understand, by an amendment. On this issue I am sure we will have proposals to delete this from the Bill because it would be a retrograde step to even mention charging for these services.

Now I come to the issue that is responsible for this Bill being before the House. I call on the personnel and officers of the Agricultural Institute to reassess their own position in the long term particularly in the light of the implications of this Bill. I believe those implications will be serious for them, not next year or the year after, but in five years' time. The Agricultural Institute have at their disposal some of the best brains in agriculture here. They have a wealth of information and it is the job of the Minister for Agriculture to find the best system to get this wealth of information down to the farm. This Bill will isolate that information thereby isolating the Agricultural Institute and its officers. I would also like to make the point that this Bill will build barriers between the research section and the agricultural adviser and this will have a very bad influence on agriculture in general.

The function of the Agricultural Institute is research. The time has now come when we must look at how that research is being carried out. In a great many fields the research is far ahead of the ordinary farmer. I have taken a personal interest in any researches being carried out in the Agricultural Institute. We have free access to Johnstown Castle. I do not wish to add any fuel to this fire because it is not in my interests but it should be the aim of the Bill to coordinate the functions of the researcher and the adviser. The agricultural adviser is the link between the farmer and the information that is available. I believe that the system of the researcher must change not for the sake of change but because change is absolutely necessary. People in the entire research field must come out of their institutions and get down to the farms because it is by example on the farm that we will get the best results. There is no use in having knowledge in this press or in that press. That is no good. The knowledge must be brought back to the farm. That is what it is important. If the institute personnel are brought out to a particular area to do a particular trial within that area then the people living there will see the effects of that trial and that is what is important. Research by and large is being carried out in the institute's premises. That is fair enough. I am not against that but I believe that if we are to get any benefit or any reaction from the agricultural community they must get down to the local farm where the agricultural instructor is. He knows the type of farmers in the area. They should go into these local farms and carry out their tests there and let the results be seen so that they can be talked about. It is no use putting the results of this, that, or the other test in the papers.

This Bill is doing away with that important link. The Minister knows the attitude of the advisers and the people in the Agricultural Institute. I appeal to him to think again about this issue, which is the kernel of the Bill. I appeal to the Minister of State to use whatever influence he has with the Minister for Agriculture to think about this. I know it will take a lot to change the Minister's attitude on this particular issue. He is being completely influenced by the officers of the Agricultural Institute. I have a lot of friends there. Did he allow a free vote in his party? Would all his good county councillors throughout the country support him on this Bill? How many of his supporters in general would support him on this Bill? How many of the people working in the Agricultural Institute would support this Bill? Would the boss himself support him? He would not. There are thousands of officers throughout the country who would not support him but they are the quiet people, those who are not prepared to stand up and say what they want done. They prefer to go about their day's work. Although the others are going about their day's work they are more vocal and are getting their points across. I believe they are influencing the Minister unduly on this particular issue on which he has taken a bitter stand.

The Minister refused to allow the former authority to make any attempt to see if it could operate or to see if advantages could be gained by letting it operate. I question the advisability of this change, which has been described as a two-tier system but which I describe as taking away an essential link between the farmer and the researcher. I believe the vast majority of people engaged in agriculture feel that the research wing should be integrated with the advisory services resulting in new initiatives which would be for the benefit of farmers and the country in general.

The case for integration has been made very often. Somebody has said that if Deputy Mark Clinton was introducing this Bill the present Minister would be making this case against it. There is no use in researching information if it cannot be got to the farmers where it is needed. The real benefit from the researcher can only come by co-operation between everybody concerned. I believe this Bill will have the direct opposite effect. I have known the officers of both sections in relation to this for at least ten years and I know their views.

We are erecting barriers between farmers and researchers. I have said this before and I say it again. Deputy Toal has also said it but it is no harm to repeat it again and again, because even if the Minister does not come around to our thinking on the matter perhaps the officers of the Agricultural Institute will see that this Bill will sever their link with the farming community. I appeal to them to come together and have a serious look at this issue. They should ask themselves what their position will be in five years' time. The barriers are there already but they will be built higher.

The Agricultural Institute have available to them huge tracts of land and equipment, which is the property of the taxpayers. It is in their interest that the links between themselves and the farmers is not severed. I appeal to the Minister to include the word "education" in the title of the Bill and restore it in every possible section. I hope some of my children go into agriculture but I would not under any circumstances give young people land without having basic and very necessary education in agriculture. It is absolutely essential to insert the word "education" in this Bill. I am glad that the provision for the influence of the public service has been removed because if there was an urgent need for money those people would be very slow to move, depending on how the economy was at that particular time. If we want to strive forward in agriculture we should not have to depend on the public service because they would be completely influenced by the economic situation at the time the decisions had to be made.

The Agricultural Institute is the reason for the Bill and I appeal to the officers of that body to reassess their position and take a serious view of its implications for them in the years ahead. Unfortunately, this Bill will mean an era of uncertainty for us because nobody can say how it will work. We know that different threats have been made in various directions and that it will take at least two years to evaluate whether the proposals contained in it will work to the advantage of all farmers. But agriculture is committed to expansion, the money has been borrowed for that and the expansion will go ahead anyway. What is important is that research is reflected back to the farmers to help them improve production and make available more produce for export.

The markets are available for our agricultural produce. Heretofore fluctuating markets were our greatest problem in agriculture. One year farmers were paid a certain amount for their cattle but the following year they had to accept a reduction. We experienced many slumps particularly when Britain brought in Argentine beef. That problem has been eliminated because we have the markets of Europe. We have other problems but by and large we will never return to the day of fluctuating prices. Our farmers are willing to work their land and increase production and we have the stock on our farms.

Not enough.

I accept that we do not have enough stock but it is the duty of the Minister for Agriculture to help increase our stock and productivity. This Bill will build up many barriers which will have an upsetting effect on the agricultural situation. I am not trying to inhibit the Minister in his work but I have been in agriculture all my life, have worked with the advisory service, been a member of a county committee of agriculture for a number of years and am aware of the workings of the Agricultural Institute and I know what I am talking about. We will not have to wait ten years to see the effects of the Bill. They will become evident in the next few years because the Minister has severed the link between farmers and those engaged in research, a serious thing to do at this stage of development in agriculture.

I accept that agriculture will expand but at what pace? I have heard talk of a growth of 4 or 5 per cent but why not strive for a growth of 6 per cent? That would be a great advantage to the farming community and to the country. At present we export agricultural produce worth approximately £400 million and every extra 1 lb. of beef or lamb and every additional stone of grain can be exported because we are almost self-sufficient in those fields. I hope the Minister will change his views on the question of the Agricultural Institute. It will not be possible for us here to get him to do so and for that reason I call on the officers of the institute to have a serious talk with the Minister about the implications of the Bill.

This Bill raises a number of important issues in relation to the future development of agriculture, our most important industry. It has serious implications in relation to national thinking and outlook on the question of the potential of Irish agriculture. It is unfortunate that the Minister in the Bill is doing something similar to what was done by a former Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, in 1957. Following a general election in that year one of the first actions of Deputy Smith on assuming office was to scrap the parish plan for agriculture.

He was right to do so.

And I equate very much the concept of an integrated agricultural authority with the basic thinking and philosophy enshrined in the parish plan of the fifties.

It was misguided.

The parish plan was the first attempt to apply at local level a co-ordinated and integrated agricultural development programme. It is regrettable that this Minister has introduced a Mickey Mouse Bill which is motivated purely by political vindictiveness. When the previous Bill was introduced by Deputy Clinton we were in a pre-election atmosphere and the present Minister, then Opposition spokesman on Agriculture, allowed himself to be pressured by certain vested interests. He walked into the trap of committing himself to doing something about that Bill if Fianna Fáil were returned to office. The Minister is putting into effect the promises and commitments he gave to those vested interests who objected to our Bill.

Over the years I have paid many tributes to the Agricultural Institute and I have also been critical of them from time to time. I should like to pose fundamental questions in relation to this matter: what do we mean by research? What type of agricultural research do we want? What type of agricultural research will be conductive to the expansion of our agricultural industry? The fundamental purpose of agricultural research is that it must be practically orientated and not just research for the sake of research. The Agricultural Institute has been engaged in a big number of research programmes over the years and has accumulated massive documentation and reports on all types of research projects and I should like to know what percentage of the total research undertaken by the institute since its foundation has been practically applied. The role of the institute is basically a practical role, engaging in research projects, but it does not stop there. Research is no longer isolated. Research and development are two vital components of any development policy and to isolate research is a retrograde step which represents Victorian thinking which has no relevance today. I believe in the great potential of Irish agriculture and that agriculture is our greatest industry.

Sections of the country produce virtually nothing. For instance, north Mayo has 110,000 acres of semi-peat land which continuous research by the Agricultural Institute has shown can be put to productive use. Bearing in mind that agricultural land is now making £3,000 per acre, and that estimates of the cost per acre of making that land productive are well under £1,000 per acre, it would be well worth while to apply the vast volumes of research work done by the Agricultural Institute. What attempts have been made to apply it? How will the Minister's Bill make it easier to apply this research in a practical way in the field?

The Minister is introducing this Bill for political expediency. I challenge the Minister to justify dividing the roles of research and development in either manufacturing industry or in agriculture. This division will create a barrier. Let us face facts. There has always been a problem in relation to the dissemination of the vast amount of information accumulated by the Agricultural Institute as a result of their research. This research could be practically applied in north Mayo and all over the country in a way which would bring non-productive land into productive use, thus generating greater agricultural output and contributing substantially to job creation.

I refer the Minister to Choirce Dhuibhne in the Kerry Gaeltacht where a local co-operative in Ballyferriter has done immense work in bringing non-productive hillside land into high intensive production. Another highly successful co-operative has started in the Joyce country in Connemara, with a land reclamation programme and so on. The Agricultural Institute assisted in these projects but from my experience having been Minister for the Gaeltacht at that time, I noted that there was not a free flow of information between the Agricultural Institute, the local advisory services and very often the Department of Agriculture. It is vital and fundamental for the maximum development of the economy that research should not be separated from development as the Minister proposes to do under this Bill. It is essential to have an integrated coordinated educational advisory research and development programme under the aegis of one responsible organisation. Such an authority was in the mind of the then Minister, Deputy Clinton, when he attempted to bring all the elements in agricultural development under one authority. The powers of that authority are now being diminished because the Minister is dividing the most fundamental elements in any agricultural development programme. As well as that the Minister is by implementation prohibiting the universities from participating in any future overall development plan for agriculture by not giving them any representation. Traditionally, there has been intense rivalry between the Agricultural Institute and the agricultural faculties in the universities and between the Department of Agriculture and the advisory services. The expertise, resources and the manpower available in these bodies could be brought together under the umbrella of one authority. In this Bill the Minister is putting the Agricultural Institute to one side, and he is telling the university agricultural faculties that they will have no say in the formation of policy, except that as a gesture he will put two representatives from the Agricultural Council on this and vice versa. This is contradictory because if the Minister says on the one hand that research should be separated from the National Agricultural Development Authority he is on the other hand saying that there should be some link between them.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share