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

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Dr. Woods

I welcome the Bill and am glad to support the Minister in this regard. I did not agree with the abolition of An Foras Talúntais, an excellent organisation which combined research and development. It set high standards from the outset and was highly respected by our producers. It was noted for its efforts to disseminate results to producers, consult with advisers and the industry as a whole. I agree that after the first 20 years of An Foras Talúntais we have reached a situation when its position should be re-examined with a view to strengthening its development role in association with the advisers, to expanding its marketing arm, increasing its involvement in food science and technology and to strengthening the links between An Foras Talúntais and the advisory and development services. I would envisage increasing the development staff at the main centres and providing for greater staff mobility between the advisory service and An Foras Talúntais. These measures can be taken within An Foras Talúntais as it exists and I support the Minister in refusing to allow the abolition of An Foras Talúntais.

If we are to achieve the growth target set in the Green Paper we need increased investment in management, in training and in advice. We know from the recent surveys that only one farmer in five had any formal education in agriculture; only one farmer in three was in yearly contact with his adviser; only one farmer in ten was working to a farm plan. In all cases the position is much worse for small farms. If we look then at the new entrants to the industry we also know that, of the 2,400 young people who enter farming each year, 2,030, or 84 per cent, have no formal training for the job. Of the 70,252 farmers classified up to 31 December 1977, 80 per cent were classed as transitional for the farm modernisation scheme. It is obvious that agricultural training and development have suffered from a serious lack of commitment and funds. While training within industry in 1977 under AnCO cost £12 million, of which the EEC contributed 50 per cent, training for agriculture under Directive 161 cost £357,646, of which the EEC contributed 25 per cent. The EEC's contribution to training in industry was therefore 80 times greater than to agriculture in 1977.

I welcome also the Minister's promise to put down an amendment on Committee Stage providing for the abolition of section 12(a). I believe, as the Minister does, that this will set at ease the minds of many of the people concerned in the advisory and educational services.

Concerning the general problem of training within agriculture, I see three vital needs. These can be divided into three categories. The first category is in relation to training for production, husbandry and enterprise management. The second category is in relation to training for anciliary services —mechanics, engineering, major feeds, fertilisers, seeds, crop protection and animal health. The third category is in relation to departmental schemes, quality control and sampling, sanitary control and other allied activities.

Concerning the first category we have at present the one and two year courses designed specifically to meet the requirements for production, husbandry and enterprise management. The demand in this case is greatly in excess of the places available, indeed the demand is increasing. In 1978 there were approximately 750 places provided in agriculture and approximately 120 places in horticulture. In this category there would certainly appear to be a need for some 200 extra places per annum. Preferably, in view of what I have said at the outset, these should be provided, especially in the small farm areas in the south west and in the north west. There should also be an expansion of the agricultural training college in Clonakilty and there is scope for a new agricultural training college in the north western area, for instance, in Sligo.

I will now turn to the second two categories, training for ancilliary services and the general departmental schemes, quality control and the like. Special courses are required here in association with the regional technical colleges. A great deal of work could be done here through co-operation between the regional technical colleges and the local agricultural colleges.

The fourth category includes those in production and husbandry who cannot avail of a one or two year course and in addition all those who need refresher courses. This is of course by far the greatest category and the one which is least catered for at present. The requirements of this category can be met through short intensive courses of, say, three and six weeks duration held at extra mural units attached to the agricultural colleges. Such units providing courses of this nature would have the greatest impact on the present needs within agriculture. This will of course require additional specialised staff at the agricultural colleges and facilities at each college for approximately 20 participants. Travel and maintenance grants should be paid while on these courses as in the case of AnCO in the industrial sector. This would be the quickest way to increase output and standards in line with the programme set out in the Green Paper. It will also provide a basis of knowledge on which the adviser can work with the people who attend the courses and will provide suitable refresher courses for up-dating in modern technology.

The apprenticeship board is, in my experience, very highly regarded and does an excellent job with extremely limited resources comparatively speaking. There are about 218 apprentices being trained in 1978 and I believe that the work of this board should be expanded and incorporated within the new agricultural AnCO, An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaiochta. Apprenticeship is one important facet of the work of training of An Chomhairle.

Turning then to the question of advice on development and the advisory services in general, we all appreciate the long and very valuable tradition which has been established in the farm advisory services. We appreciate that it covers social and economic and often personal advice. I believe that the new board should set specific targets, formulate a programme for accelerating development on our farms throughout the country and set this programme before the advisory service. At present I believe that the advisory service would welcome having as its priority farm development and the maximisation of the farm modernisation scheme. But to achieve this they would need office and administrative staff and technical assistance to extricate the advisers from the burden of administrative work. We have highly trained technologists who are capable of giving great assistance and service to the farming industry, but they have to spend a great deal of their time doing office and administrative work. I believe that assistance in that respect would free them to devote their time and energies in a greater way to the direct task of increasing production and standards within the industry.

The advisers have a function on behalf of the State. They are development agents for the State. They provide links with research and development. They provide the links between the farmer and the development arm of the Department of Agriculture. They provide the links with the farmers and growers and they co-ordinate the technology from many and varied sources impinging on the producer today. Consequently their function in this respect is a most important one. They also have certain teaching functions which can be seen particularly in the winter farm school courses and the demonstrations, seminars and short courses of various kinds. They could cooperate with the agricultural colleges in these specialised courses by coming into these courses to give their experience. But the courses should be run by people who are specifically trained for the educational function at these college units. I also agree with the Minister that it is time we saw more graduates in agriculture. The co-operatives and producer groups need their own graduates. They need procurement, crop and animal husbandry staff for quality control and increased production just as is the case in industry.

The graduates within the industry will be directly related to the needs of the industry and will spend a great deal of their time on that work. I know that there has been considerable conflict about this particular aspect. I find it hard to understand, with the development of our agricultural industry, that it is not very obvious that there will be a greater number of graduates throughout the industry performing a great variety of services and functions. We should have, parallel with this development, a greatly strengthened advisory service. My experience has been that where there are graduates working within the industry the task of the adviser becomes a much more efficient one because he has somebody on the floor with whom he can relate directly in a technical way. This can be beneficial to the advisers concerned and to the industry. In industry in general there are engineers and scientists. I believe with the new agricultural and horticultural growth and sophistication in the industry we need more intensive technology within the industry in those areas.

The work of An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaiochta will be a task for the new board but there are a few points I would like to make on this. I believe that the board will strongly represent An Foras Talúntais, the advisory services and farming organisation but this board must strongly represent the training and educational interests. Development and training are the two principle functions and it would be a pity if the training and educational side is not very strongly represented on the board to ensure that there is a reasonable balance. I believe the board should include representatives from the universities. The Minister said that the initial reason for specific representation by the universities have been removed; 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.

However, I believe that it is important to maintain, from the educational point of view, the contact between the universities and third level centres of education and the work of An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaiochta. I believe, while saying this, that the people who should be concerned at the university level are the farm management people, the dairy science people and those concerned with the husbandry side. I would like the Minister to give consideration to the involvement of this side of the universities in the work of An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaiochta.

I believe it is desirable to have a director for training and a director for development. Those are two equally important functions in the new body and it is very important that the two develop simultaneously. The two functions are interdependent. This can best be done by providing a deputy director for each sector within the organisation. This may well be a matter for the board after it is constituted. I am giving my view at this stage on the possible future development of the board.

The Minister has made some comments in relation to finance and has said that the financial provisions will at least be not less than in the past. I am very glad to have that assurance from him. I would like to see the Minister being given backing from the Department of Finance to match in An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaiochta the expanded programme of training and development which I believe will make it possible for us to achieve the target we all strive for within our new, modern agricultural area which has, within the EEC, far greater opportunity to contribute not only to growth and economic development but also to stem the flow of people from the land, which is already happening, and to provide a greater number of jobs.

Mr. Clinton

I know that many people will expect me to be very bitter because the Minister, for unworthy reasons, is in this Bill destroying a piece of legislation which in my view would have been of immense benefit to the agricultural industry if it had been allowed to go ahead as planned. I am not interested in bitterness. My interest is now, and always has been, to try to ensure that the best possible service is provided for Irish farmers. I am absolutely convinced now, as I was then, that the way to get this service is through a fully integrated arrangement, which is what the National Agricultural Authority Act was all about. I was anxious to get the agricultural schools, who provide a basic education, the advisory services, which also have a very important part to play in the education of young farmers, and sometimes not so young farmers, and the research services in An Foras Talúntais to work together as a team and provide a comprehensive service.

All these organisations between them should have the necessary knowledge to go into any farm in the country and provide solutions to any problems which exist. As the Minister knows, I had also made provision for the development services in the Department of Agriculture to be taken out at a later stage by ministerial order and included in this group, which would eventually provide the overall services for the industry. I believe that this is the only way a first class service can be provided for our farmers. When I had the honour of being Minister for Agriculture I spent a good deal of time trying to open doors and remove barriers to progress and improve communications generally. I made it known, as a first step on this road, that Agriculture House was always to be an open house where all the agencies providing a service were welcome and where the representatives of the farmers were welcome to discuss their problems and recommendations with me as Minister or with my officials or with both Minister and officials. I wanted to generate a team work spirit in the matter of providing services for agriculture.

That was the essence of the National Agricultural Authority Act, 1977 which the Minister is now replacing with this Bill setting up An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaiochta and which we are now considering in this House. In contrast with what I was trying to do, the Minister is trying to close doors and to re-erect barriers or to make permanent any barriers that may exist. The National Agricultural Authority Act had the almost unanimous support of the agricultural organisations and the people connected in any way with the agricultural industry. Before I finish my contribution I may produce several quotations to support what I am saying in this regard.

In the Bill before the House the Minister obviously is hellbent on the work of destruction and I feel both justified and obliged to use every weapon available to me against the destroyer. Of course, I know in advance that our best efforts will be frustrated, that the House will be treated with contempt and that the dangerous majority that the Government have will be used to bulldoze through the House the measures contained in the Bill.

As everybody knows, I appealed publicly to the Minister at least to give the National Agricultural Authority a chance to operate for a trial period of three years. After that period if the authority were found to have defects, then by all means let the Minister introduce whatever amendments he considers necessary. However, the Minister refused to listen to my appeal and to the appeals from many sources. There were appeals from all the members of the board of the new National Agricultural Authority, from north Connacht farmers—and I am glad to see Deputy Callanan present because I know he would have respect and regard for what they would have to say—and there were appeals from the farming organisations and from every section of the agricultural industry. They told the Minister they were happy with the legislation and were satisfied that it should go ahead but the Minister would not listen. His attitude was that he had looked into his own heart to see what was best for the industry and he put forward an amendment to the National Agricultural Authority Act that had been passed during my term of office as Minister.

I have no doubt that the Minister and his party will expect me to launch a very bitter attack on him for dismantling the arrangements I had incorporated in that Act. He and his party would see that as retribution in kind for the petty, childish, insincere and ridiculous comments that were hurled at me across this House by the Minister and Fianna Fáil Members during the passage of the National Agricultural Authority legislation. However, I have no intention of copying that kind of behaviour. The House will not find me setting out to denigrate officials of the Department whom I still hold in high regard.

At that time the Minister spoke about the long-felt envy of people in the Department of Agriculture and he added the following gem of abuse. I am quoting from the Official Report of 23 March 1977, column 229:

The Department of Agriculture have a few things to be proud of but they have a few things to be ashamed of, and this is one of them. There is nothing this party can do to stop the passage of the Bill once the bit has been shoved between the Minister's teeth by the interested parties in the Department.

Deputy Burke re-echoed the Minister's charge of envy against officials and he went on to refer to the "clammy little mitts of the Department of Agriculture". I am quoting from column 58 of the Official Report of 22 March 1977. Deputy Burke is now a Minister of State. I wonder if he and the Minister for Agriculture are still proud of such scandalous remarks about the officials in the Department? I am not too surprised about Deputy Burke because I do not expect him to know any better about agricultural matters other than what is put into his mouth by interested parties and vested interests but I expected more of the Minister for Agriculture. He had served previously as a Minister and he should know the difference. The same applies to Deputy Lalor, who spent a period as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture. I am quite certain he received enormous help from the officials but he too had something to say. His reference was "to becoming conscious of a certain amount of friction between officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Agricultural Institute". In the context of his speech this was clearly for the purpose of belittling officials of the Department. However, I expect that all of that is gone now that Fianna Fáil are back in office, although I have heard it said that the Minister states quite openly that he cannot trust any of the senior officials in his Department. All I can say to him is that he need not have the slightest worry because a more loyal bunch of officials could not be found in any branch of the public service. I wonder sometimes if they can trust him.

I am deeply disappointed at the action taken by the Minister in dismantling the National Agricultural Authority. He is giving in to party political bitterness, aided by the promptings of a vested interest, namely the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, better known as the ASTMS. As we know, this is an ultra-left, British-based union, headed and led by arch-leftist Mr. Clive Jenkins. Most of the research workers of the Agricultural Institute are members of that union. I wonder how such a committed republican as the Minister claims to be can make common cause with such a union, a union that has never failed to turn down national pay agreements. I am disappointed that the Minister is preventing the reorganisation and reinvigoration of services which are so vital to the development of the agricultural industry.

Before I left the Department the prices were right and the markets were there. The only limiting factor was know-how. We can produce as much as we like and the prices we get for our products will show a reasonable profit provided we do the job well. We can only do the job well if we are educated. The need for reorganisation existed for many years but Fianna Fáil Governments never did anything about it. During the passage of my Bill through the House, I explained and justified my reasons for joining research, advisory and agricultural services in one organisation—outside the Department, not inside it, as some newspapers reported after the First Reading of this Bill. These reasons were ably articulated by our spokesman on agriculture, Deputy Bruton, and I hope the Minister listened to him. The members of the then Opposition who spoke against these proposals were so obviously brainwashed and confused by the union to which I referred—I saw some of the brainwashing taking place in this House—that they failed to understand the fundamental significance of my proposals. There was unanimous support within the farming industry for the concept embodied in setting up the National Agricultural Authority. If that statement is challenged—and I do not believe it will be challenged—I should like to see where the authority comes from for challenging it.

During the passage of my Bill through the House the chairman of the IFA working party published a statement supporting the Bill. We know from statements that appeared in the press after the Minister took up office that he was approached by all the farming organisations, the advisory services, the union's representing the staff of the institute, the North Connacht Co-operative Society and others to allow the National Agricultural Authority to operate, at least for a trial period. He refused to listen to these bodies, all important bodies in the farming world. Organisations represented on the board of the new agricultural authority also appealed to him. The only support the Minister got for his proposals came from the English-based left-wing trade union to which I have referred. He does claim that several scientific examinations of this subject undertaken by Jones Davies, by Devlin and by the OECD have come down on the side of the retention of the research element as a separate entity. He said this in his opening statement and in reply to a question put down by Deputy Bruton on 7 December 1977.

I am amazed at how the ASTMS have misled the Minister. The Devlin report stated that An Foras Talúntais as a research activity should report to the secretary of the new Department of Agriculture and Lands and have the head of the planning unit as a council man. Since the review group recommended that the advisory service should be placed within the new Department, the secretary of the Department would be responsible for both the Agricultural Institute and the advisory service. In other words, both services would have the same head and not be separate, as the Minister stated. This is similar to what I proposed to do with the National Agricultural Authority, which would have been outside the Department. I should not be surprised if the other scientific examinations to which the Minister referred give as little support as Devlin to his action.

During the debate on the National Agricultural Authority Bill, Opposition speakers, led by the Minister, argued that research work would be stifled, starved of money and be the subject of this treatment by envious individuals in the Department of Agriculture. Naturally I rejected these charges, but the Opposition kept repeating them. I stated that my object was to integrate three services which are now operating independently into a unified whole so as to give a better service to the agricultural industry. That was my only interest and it is still my only interest. I was creating a link between research, education and advice, with each retaining its character. In my concept each activity would be strengthened through the close ties. The research activities in the Department of Agriculture were being transferred to the authority to be joined with the research coming from the Agricultural Institute. The advisory service was being organised on a national basis to eliminate many of the weaknesses which exist in the present system. While the facilities for agricultural education would be closely linked with the advisory and research services, I was leaving the board of the authority free to regulate their affairs.

Much play has been made of the fact that the Agricultural Institute was being abolished. This is something that I did not like the sound of either, but I was assured by legal people that this was the only way in which the institute could become part of an integrated service. First, we had to abolish what was known as the Agricultural Institute in order to integrate them in a comprehensive service. I know the loyalties attaching to any institution in which people have been working for a long time, and I tried very hard to get round that but I could not find a way to do so. Everybody knows I was giving the institute a wider role, a greater interest and greater scope. I want to clear that up.

I also gave the board full scope. The only thing they had to do was to be accountable for their finances—they were free after that. They came and they discussed their programme with the Minister. It is right that they should come to the Minister for discussions and that the Minister should have an opportunity in the national interest to put his views to any organisation or agency operating throughout the agricultural sphere. They were free at any time to organise the new agency as the board thought best. The board would have the power to develop structures for education, research and advice and they could utilise and involve the people specially equipped to deal with these structures.

I was, and I still am, convinced that the framework I then proposed would bring about an essential unity of purpose for the greater benefit of the agricultural industry generally. But what do we find in this amending Bill? We find the work of a lazy man, of a bitter man, of a man who has a perpetual chip on his shoulder. The Agricultural Institute are being detached from the authority which I set up and except for a few minor amendments the only changes being made to the Act which set up the authority is to delete all references to the Agricultural Institute and to research. The rest of the Act which the Coalition Government put through the House has been accepted by the Fianna Fáil Government. I almost forgot one earth shattering amendment: everywhere the word "education" appeared, except in one instance, the Minister has replaced it by the word "training". What a victory for unenlightenment. I say to the Minister, you train dogs and you train horses and the standard equipment usually for training dogs and horses is a whip and a whistle. The last thing I want to see is any Minister using the whip on Irish farmers. It seems to have been useless for me to have explained that education includes training, both in the dictionary definition and in the minds of people.

I am amazed that the Minister has retained almost without change my proposals in relation to the county committees of agriculture. Sixty per cent of their members will be chosen by the county councils and these need not be councillors at all. Forty per cent will be chosen by the rural organisations. I hope Deputy Callanan has looked seriously at this. The county committees are being given the same responsibilities as in the National Agricultural Authority Act. When that Bill was before the House, Deputy Hussey, now Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Deputy Callanan, Deputy Noonan, Deputy Crinion, Deputy Leonard—and, of course, Deputy Killilea, then a Senator, did not fail to entertain us in the Seanad with his usual nonsensical verbiage which was very amusing——

Mr. Donnellan

In the County Galway Committee of Agriculture Deputies Killilea and Callanan have a very special way of doing things—they are expert at it.

Mr. Clinton

I am surprised that they are still members of Fianna Fáil, if they have read the Minister's speech. I am looking forward to hearing them eating their own words and seeing them trooping into the division lobbies behind the Minister. I am at a loss to understand why the Minister did not stir himself and introduce an amendment with the object of setting up the kind of county committees of agriculture representative of the agricultural industry which he told us about during the passage of my Bill. I suppose that would have been too much to expect from the Minister, or are we to believe that the contributions of the Minister and the Deputies I have mentioned were only pretence and sham? They must have been only pretence and sham if they now come in and calmly accept everything that it said in the House, everything that is in this Bill, having spoken as they did during their contributions on the National Agricultural Authority Bill which later became the Act. It is intellectual dishonesty of a high order.

As I have pointed out, the Minister has retained without any significant change almost all the sections of the Act dealing with the advisory and education services. How did he come to do this in view of the statements he made during the passage of that Act? It is beyond my understanding. I quote from his contribution on my Bill on 9 February 1976, reported at column 1086 of the Official Report:

The proposals do not offer any improvement in the existing situation. One need only apply the acid test to look at the situation in which young agricultural graduates coming from our universities have no prospect of jobs from the advisory services or from any other State or semi-State source.

He went on to say that the primitive notion contained in the old parish plan had been carried over into the new legislation and he said that the parish plan was at variance with the requirements of the country at that time. He continued:

We need to expand our horizons. This Bill is infested with the notion of the parish plan.... It is a stultifying stupefying notion that one should enclose the thinking of people in a parish plan concept as this document does.

They are very strong words. I think Deputy Callanan will agree with me in that. All I can say is that the only thing that was wrong with the man who had the bright idea of the parish plan was that he was ten years before his time. Fianna Fáil were glad to imitate the parish plan under a different name in the west. At that time Deputy Gibbons asked me to tell him in which part of the Bill was there a promise of better advisory services. He asked me if there was any mechanism in the Bill for securing a better system of promotion or a better system of job prospects for the people in the advisory services. He said he could not see it. He also said there was no provision for the establishment of a socio-economic advisory service. He said my Bill was dowdy and unimaginative. He continued:

It is building on out-of-date and obsolete foundations. There is no indication of any new thinking in the Bill. There is no recognition of the fact that Irish farming is at the crossroads.

He rejected the Bill out of hand because he said it was not any good. Yet here we have a Bill which is the same, practically word for word, except that he has taken the institute out of it. And of course all his disciples will troop into the lobby here after him. In February 1977 he referred to the hollowness and emptiness of the Bill then before the House. He ended his statement as follows:

This Bill does not give us a lead into the type of advisory service we should have and the House should therefore reject it. The Minister may push it through the House and thereby do serious damage to the industry. It will be rejected by the people in the industry and by all working farmers.

After such an attack on the provisions relating to the advisory services in the National Agricultural Authority Act how could the Minister retain all these provisions in this amending Bill which is before the House? There is only one explanation—downright laziness—that is, if he were serious in thinking that all these things were wrong and then comes along with an identical Bill. The farming community, the advisory and educational services and all the people involved in them will see through his pretence and sham as evidenced by his statement on the National Agricultural Authority Bill which I have quoted. What was all wrong in 1977 suddenly becomes acceptable in 1978.

Deputy Callanan looks like a man who is coming in to speak. I hope he will now be able to justify his stand then and explain why he is here to support the Minister—if he is here to support him—when the Minister——

Mr. Callanan

Did the Deputy quote what I said on that Bill? He has not quoted me yet.

Mr. Clinton

I am sorry; I was not really concerned, but I have a very clear memory of all the Deputy's criticisms and his thoughts in relation to the Bill at that time.

Mr. Callanan

But the Deputy has not quoted one of them.

Mr. Clinton

Some of it was a bit of baloney that he had to go through with. Nevertheless I shall be interested to hear what he has to say now. The Minister referred to the difficulty of young agricultural graduates getting positions in the advisory services and I have a clear recollection of Deputy Callanan also referring to the same matter and, indeed, there was difficulty. Perhaps the Minister will now tell us how many extra posts were created for agricultural graduates in the advisory services since he took up office? I hardly think he will need all the fingers of one hand—more sham and nonsense. Of course extra posts are needed; many people are needed if we are to have a worth-while advisory service. Many changes are needed. But we are putting the clock back in this legislation. We did have a first-class piece of legislation that should have been operating for the past one and a half years. I am sorry for Deputy Callanan. He has been let down. He also rejected all the provisions dealing with advisory services and the committees of agriculture in the National Agricultural Authority Bill. Now he has them foisted on him by his own Minister in this amending Bill.

The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Deputy Hussey, is in the same predicament as are Deputies Noonan, Leonard and Gallagher and the Minister for Education, Deputy Wilson, to a lesser extent. Will they have the nerve to come into the House and support what they so categorically rejected 12 months ago? Whatever about their impossible predicament it is a matter of some importance and a source of no little pride for me to find that the Fianna Fáil Government have not been able to improve on the arrangements which I proposed for the advisory and educational services. They are there line by line for anybody to read. It is a grave mistake to detach the Agricultural Institute from advice and education. I have no doubt that at some future time a more active, more enlightened Minister for Agriculture will see the wisdom of joining the three services together again.

I have given some friendly advice to the Minister during this debate, advice I hope he will consider. In case I am misunderstood either outside or in the House I want to say that nobody either inside or outside this House has a greater appreciation than I have of the work of the Agricultural Institute. Why should I want to reduce its position, so to speak, reduce its contribution to Irish farming? Nothing could be more silly than to suggest that was my intention, that I was setting out to make it more ineffective, to submerge it in some way or other. The last thing in my thoughts would be to inhibit in any way the work of the Institute which I know contributed so much for so long.

I wanted all these agencies to come together as a team and I wanted to remove whatever inhibitions or barriers might be there to their work and their contribution to the farming industry. This is what the Minister is setting out to change. He is setting out to re-erect these barriers, to close all the doors and have these separate competing empires. Where the people or agencies providing these services are separated in this way they become concerned about their own institution as a separate thing and the overall service of the industry as a whole will not be the main concern. That is what I was trying to avoid. I also wanted the stimulation that normally goes with research to affect the work of the advisory and educational services. I wanted each to understand the other's job and become part of it. That is the way the agricultural industry would be best served.

I promised to back statements I made with quotations that I think are important. Before concluding I should like to put those on record. This is a letter to the present Minister for Agriculture from the north Connacht farmers. I shall read one paragraph of it:

If all agencies in Irish agriculture worked closely together to develop the industry we have no doubt that your determination to ensure the maximum economic contribution from the sector will be achieved. In this respect we urge that the integration of the research element in the National Agricultural Authority be retained as it will greatly facilitate the transmission of research findings to co-operatives and farmers. We have no fear that agricultural research will lose its essential freedom of action especially when one sees the quality of farmer representation on the authority. For this reason and in the interests of the fastest possible takeoff towards greater expansion in agriculture we emphasise the need for a closely knit and harmonious National Agricultural Authority.

That is what the north Connacht farmers had to say to the present Minister. They are not an unimportant group. This is a part of the country that we want to develop and if we have not fully developed it in the last few years, I am glad to say that it is one of the areas of intensive farming where they are making rapid progress in milk production. I hope they continue expanding. I quote now from the Irish Farmers' Journal of 1 October 1977, page 7:

After 11 years of frustrated debate, thought-provoked reports and voluminous submissions we are finally back to square one on the reorganisation of the advisory service.

Further down they talk about putting it in perspective:

It is time we put the whole issue of the National Agricultural Authority into its proper perspective.

Question—Who wants the integration of advice, research and education?

Answer—Irish farmers as represented by the three main farming organisations; Irish agricultural advisers as represented by the Irish Agricultural Advisers Organisation; Irish commercial agricultural graduates as represented by the Agricultural Science Association and Irish co-ops, as represented by the IAOS.

In other words the majority of responsible agricultural opinion!

Question—Who is opposed to this integration?

Answer—The Minister for Agriculture, Jim Gibbons, and the trade union representing research workers in the Agricultural Institute.

There is:

Seán Eustace, a Macra representative on the NAA. He believes that integration is essential to secure the greatest possible degree of efficiency in the services which are basic to the development of the agricultural economy.

The report goes on to say:

...The research wing was to have been integrated with advice and education with the hope that the integration between the three agencies would generate new initiatives and momentum to the benefit of Irish farmers.

If such interaction was to occur both the research workers and the advisers would benefit more mentally than through working in isolation, and Irish farmers would be better off as a result.

The case for integration has been made so often before that farmers nowadays take it as logical that the three services should be fully integrated. Any Minister must have the best up to date advice available to him to enable him to carry out his statutory functions relating to formulating and implementing agricultural policy. This advice in so far as it relates to agricultural production is largely found with the Agricultural Institute and the advisory service.

The fundamental objective of an agricultural research agency is to provide knowledge that improves productivity and that is the best available. It is the job of advisers to ensure that this knowledge is given impartially, effectively and economically to farmers....

Are farmers to be once again caught in the middle of a trade union die-hard attitude which will not put the best interests of the nation before their selfish objectives? The voice of Irish farmers and agricultural advisers has been heard loudly on this issue. Not all of the research workers in the Agricultural Institute agree personally with the myopic and selfish attitude of the ASTMS.

We have a real opportunity to secure the greatest possible degree of efficiency in the services which are basic to the development of the agricultural economy. History will not judge us kindly if we do not think straight and do what is best for Irish agriculture at this crucial juncture.

In the final analysis the biggest mistake may have been a decision to separate, rather than to integrate the Institute from advice, development and education.

Mr. John Joe Dunne, Laois, stressed the importance of the new agricultural authority when he addressed judges, sponsors and committee members of the Louth-Meath efficiency competition at the Grove Hotel, Dunleer. He said that we must see as a very important role the up-dating of the advisory, research and educational services for the farmer. If the farmer has not a good backup service he is unlikely to develop his farm to the full. He said that even the Taoiseach would agree with this. Mr. John Joe Dunne is one of Macra na Feirme's two representatives on the new authority; the other is Seán Eustace, whom I have already quoted.

I quote now from the Irish Farmers Journal of 23 July 1977, page 3, under the heading “Gibbons to be asked for timetable on election promises”. The final paragraph reads:

The future of the new National Agricultural Authority will also be discussed. IFA believes there is sufficient flexibility in the legislation enshrined in the present Act to introduce the necessary changes which will make the new authority more effective and agreeable to the majority of interests directly affected by the restructuring.

I promised to give those quotations to back up the statements I have made that the legislation introduced by me and enacted in this House had the backing of almost the entire agencies and of the people connected with the agricultural industry.

I was glad to hear here today Deputy Woods regretting that the Minister had now decided to drop from the board a representative of the universities and a representative from education. We all know that graduates are trained and educated in the universities, and surely we should all be interested in the type of education they get in universities to equip them for this extremely important work of the advisory services. That is why I was so anxious to have the universities involved and to have a representative from the education bodies. The vocational and comprehensive schools have a very important part to play in this whole question of the education of farmers to be better farmers. If anybody sees any reflection in my saying that people, no matter how old they are, can go on being educated for the rest of their lives, I do not know how that can be justified. Why does the Minister regard as a slight our suggestion that people can be educated further to do their job better? More education is needed, and I am not ashamed to say it. No farmer in Ireland would say that he could not be further educated to do a better job, and we have here some of the best farmers to be found in any part of the world. Nevertheless, a great majority of our farmers could learn more and could do their job better.

My interest in intervening in this debate is to deplore what the Minister is doing and the fact that he has wasted a year and a half when these services could have been reinvigorated by the legislation that was passed in this House. Indeed, the Minister has given the impression, both inside and outside the House, that this was done without the authority of the people. When it was done we had the authority of the people. I went very far before the election. I named the organisations who were getting representation on the authority and the numbers they were entitled to nominate. The Minister has quite wrongly described them as my political hacks. How could they be hacks when I asked organisations to nominate their own people? I also named the new director before the election. I could not name the members of the staff until the staff were set up. I named the chairman and I had to have an organisation before I got a chairman. That was all I was asked. There was nothing surreptitious about what I was doing. It could not have been done more openly. I knew that there would be a certain amount of dissatisfaction at the representation during the election period, but I was not afraid to state whom I was asking to nominate people and the extent of the representation. I am quite sure if the Minister had been in my boots at the time he would not have disclosed that, because he would have been afraid of the repercussions it might have. Anything I did in relation to the setting up of the new authority was completely above board. I was setting up an autonomous body outside the Department with financial accountability and nothing more nor less.

I believe the Department have become too big. It is time more and more of the work was pushed outside the Department down to where the action is taking place. Then there would be a greater understanding of what is happening. It is important that as soon as possible the development section of the Department should be included in any reorganised body dealing with advisory and educational services. Then we would have a comprehensive service from people who have a contribution to make in solving farmers' problems.

I am sorry Deputy Callanan has not got any more graduates or any more assistants in the west. He looked for that assistance when my Bill was coming through the House. The present Minister wept bitter tears for the unfortunate graduates working in shops and various other places which were unsuited to their qualifications and degrees. You could count on one hand the number of people who have been employed since the Minister took office. I want to know what has gone wrong. Why has the Minister not properly staffed the county committees to give the services needed?

Deputy Callanan and other Deputies claimed that practically all the time of the existing staff was spent in the operation of the modernisation scheme, that this was lost time, and that the farmers who most wanted assistance were getting least, that there was practically no assistance in the west. Now the Minister calmly comes in with the same Bill line for line almost, with the exception that he has separated the Agricultural Institute. He calls this a new Bill. After all the things he criticised from a height—he could not think of anything bad enough to say about what I was doing with the committees of agriculture and the advisory services generally—he swallows my Bill and repeats it line for line.

I do not know how Deputy Callanan will get over his problems. Deputy Woods kept as far away from the Bill as possible because that was the only way he could talk on the Bill without giving offence to the Minister. He could not tell the House what he thought about the Bill and I suspect other Deputies on the Government side are in the same predicament. It will be very interesting to hear what they have to say because they have said very little so far.

Mr. Callanan

I appreciate Deputy Clinton's sympathy for Deputy Callanan and other Deputies on this side of the House. We seem to have practical farmers on both sides of the House. When I was young I read about a debate which took place here about the War of Independence. Two Old IRA men were arguing the toss. One man spoke who knew nothing at all about it. A very well-known man said that a person who never took up a gun in defence of his country should sit down and let men and soldiers talk. People who knew nothing about farming should let farmers talk about this Bill.

Deputy Clinton did not quote anything I said in the debates on his Bill. So far as I recollect, on Committee Stage there were only three Deputies in the House, the Minister, the shadow Minister and myself. It was stated in the Fianna Fáil manifesto that the Agricultural Institute would be taken out of the authority. That proposal was endorsed by the fact that we now have 84 seats. My personal view is a hopelessly minority view, but I am not afraid to give it. I agreed that education and research should go together. I still hold that view.

The Minister has stated, and rightly so—and I read it in The Farmers' Journal—that 98 per cent of the Fianna Fáil Party are behind him. I am about the only person in the Fianna Fáil Party who is out of step in that regard. During the debate on the previous Bill I challenged Deputy O. J. Flanagan, who talked about representation on county committees for elected members, to give his personal view here but he did not.

During my time in politics I have always put my view as forcefully as possible, and I did not give a straw about who liked it. When the majority in my party say I am out of step, I step back in with the majority. I have done that all my life. I hope that explanation will satisfy Deputy Clinton. I knew I would probably be lacerated by Deputy Clinton on this Bill but I thank him for a nice speech. He certainly did not go too hard on me.

Deputy Clinton talked about all our criticisms of his Bill. My criticism was of the board. We did not tear the Bill asunder. The present Minister's criticism was that he objected to putting research and education together. For Deputy Clinton to say we ripped the Bill on Committee Stage is not exactly correct. I objected to the board. I have objections to the present board because I do not believe public representatives have enough representation on it. That was my objection to the last Bill. Whatever I think, the majority of the people of Ireland have said they must be separated and Deputy Callanan and Deputy Clinton are in a minority in that respect. I accept that. Arthur Griffith said an intelligent minority kept the national spirit alive, so it is no harm to be in a minority.

We want to ensure now that we will have a Bill which will give people confidence in the advisers. Let us try to enact the best Bill we can. I am delighted the Minister agreed to delete section 12 (a) which was objectionable to everybody. I understand he will be introducing an amendment. I have reservations about the fact that education is not mentioned, as Deputy Woods and Deputy Clinton said. "Training" is too narrow a term and does not adequately describe the advisory services, the agricultural colleges and the work they are doing.

I would also like representation for the universities. This board will be a very important body and it should be able to indicate to the universities the type of training agricultural students should be getting. I respect theoretical training. I have heard from people who became agricultural advisers with a degree in agricultural science that they learned more in three or four years of practical experience mixing with the farmers in their area than they learned in the years they spent in university. It is very important that this board have liaison with the education sphere so that graduates will have been educated on the right lines.

I am appealing to the Minister to increase to at least three the representation on the board of the county committees of agriculture. I am totally dissatisfied with a representation of one. I am convinced that the new body will have some kind of agricultural policy in consultation with the Minister. Anybody having regard to the trend in agriculture today will realise how the industry has been improved and developed but it will be realised, too, that, for instance, the poultry business is no longer a family farm enterprise. The poultry business is confined to a few factory farms. Also, the pig industry has gone from the small man and I am afraid that the dairy industry will suffer the same fate. This is the type of policy that the advisers will be putting to the farmers and that is why I am advocating greater representation on the board from county committees of agriculture. This situation would leave the advisers in the position of advising and educating the small farmers. The Minister has said that grants will be paid to all farmers who will work to a plan. There is a tendency on the part of some people to think that the advice is being given only to the larger farmers. I would not agree with that thinking because in Galway, for example, advice is given to anyone who seeks it. I trust that the board in conjunction with the Minister will have a policy concerned with the direction in which agriculture is going. Unfortunately, the present trend is towards a small number of commercial farmers. This is to the detriment of the small man. Although milk production has increased very considerably the number of milk producers has decreased.

The Minister referred the other day to the increase in farm incomes since our accession to the EEC and made the point that the increases are substantially higher in respect of the smaller farmers. That is only to be expected because proportionately the smaller farmer had a long way to go to bridge the gap between himself and the bigger farmer. That gap remains very wide. We must endeavour to make provision for the availability of instructors in the field of education and advice for the small farmer and for the young farmer in particular who is very anxious to be educated in this sphere.

I agree with Deputy Clinton that we need many more instructors. Money spent in this way would be very beneficial. We must employ the maximum number of agricultural instructors if we are to gain the maximum production from the land. This goal must be part and parcel of the new board.

This small Bill is really a Committee Stage Bill. I could repeat much of what has been said by Deputy Woods or by Deputy Clinton but I have no wish to be repetitious. I rose for one purpose. That was to clarify a matter which I think I have clarified to the satisfaction of the House. There is no point in anybody referring to what Deputy Callanan said. I was not quoted by Deputy Clinton although he quoted from every relevant paper and from the Official Report. I am making the same criticism in respect of this Bill as I made during the passage of the last Bill. Both this Minister and his predecessor graduated from the general council of county committees of agriculture. Deputy Clinton said during the debate on the last Bill that we are the watchdogs for the taxpayer but there will not be much watching if the county committees are to have a representation of only one on the board.

Perhaps Deputy Donnellan will advert to the County Galway Committee of Agriculture and to their political constitution but that is politics and the will of the majority carries the day. Deputy Clinton said to me once that the question of politics only enters into the general council on the day on which a chairman is elected. During my time on the county committee of agriculture I never experienced a situation in which politics were forced on any committee. The advisers have always acted freely and independently. They have done a tremendous job. However, Deputy Donnellan is correct in referring to the political constitution of these committees.

Mr. Donnellan

I was trying to convey that politics are brought to bear in terms of the selection of members of county committees of agriculture.

Mr. Callanan

County councils are responsible for that. While I would not agree with that sort of situation, it is part of everyday political life.

Mr. Donnellan

According to the Deputy there are many things with which he would not agree but which he is prepared to support.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Callanan is in possession but he should not anticipate Deputy Donnellan's contribution.

Mr. Callanan

Deputy Donnellan expressed his disagreement with a motion that was before the House concerning the west of Ireland but we accept that because he is a member of a political party he must accept the will of the majority of that party. If one is in the situation of being a hopeless minority in terms of a decision taken by his party, he has little option but to abide by that decision. However, it is no harm for any man to have the guts to say what he thinks should be done to improve a Bill. I wish many more people would act in a similar manner instead of coming here and building up a case for a Bill regardless of whether they agree with its provisions. I am asking the Minister, as I asked also the previous Minister, to make the alterations I have suggested. Deputy Clinton, as Minister, did not accept my suggestions and I am not saying that the Minister will accept them now either but at least I have the honesty to stand up and say what I think. That honesty is something that is lacking in some of our public men today.

Mr. Donnellan

In other words, the Deputy is not as the rest of men.

Mr. Callanan

As I said a while ago, it is the decision of the majority that carries the day. In other words, the majority, if they wish, have the right to do wrong. Neither Deputy Donnellan nor I are super-intelligent but I have the right to put forward my view while accepting the decision of the majority.

I read carefully in The Farmer's Journal what the Minister had to say about his intention to have Directive 159 changed. This is the area in which the new body will come into play. The most important matter is to increase the number of advisers but I should like to hear a little more from the Minister about the financing of this new body. An objection I had to the last Bill was that although the county councils, through their county committees of agriculture, would not have a very big say in the body, they would have to provide the necessary moneys. I understand that a percentage of this money will be supplied by the ratepayers. A case could be put very strongly for better representation of the general council of county committees of agriculture.

Deputy Woods mentioned the farm apprenticeship board. I was the first chairman of that board and went to see Micheál Ó Moráin who was Minister for Lands and got scholarships for the board. I am very proud of the students who came through that apprenticeship. They were not all sons of larger farmers in the first or second group. A number of them were sons of very small farmers. The board should be well financed to ensure that they are working efficiently because they are doing a very good job for young farmers.

We may criticise EEC directives but we all can be very proud of Directive No. 161 which deals with education. The classes held in different colleges under that directive are of great benefit to students. It is not every farmers' son who can go away for a few months and if there were more winter classes they could attend. More farmers' sons usually get secondary education. This means they are away from the farms until they are 18. This is the kind of thing this board will have to consider.

There is a great deal of unproductive land particularly in the west and if there was a plan there could be increased incomes on these farms. Because the directives are against the grant system for the smaller farmer, he is not in a position to plan. I hope when the apprenticeship body are appointed that they will place greater emphasis on planning for the smaller farmer so that he will get the same grants that are available to the other farmers. The smaller farmer cannot get guidance premiums or grants to purchase more machinery although he gets the ordinary 30 per cent grant for building and land reclamation.

I hope it will not be long before this board comes into being. My greatest criticism of the EEC policy was that instead of closing the gap between the big and small farmers it widened it. I would not like to see a new body being geared to putting all the emphasis on development and commercial farms.

It has been suggested that a co-operative of larger farmers should make a contribution to the provision of advisers. I would not agree with that because the man who pays the piper calls the tune. If a larger farmer has to pay for the adviser he will expect more from him and the adviser will feel in debt to the farmer. I would like to see this board in charge of the appointment of advisers.

I believe the Agricultural Institute have done a wonderful job. As I said, I am glad that we are going to have this board now and the quicker it is set up the better. The sooner the advisers know where they stand the better because for the last six or seven years they did not know. From that point of view I welcome the Bill.

The Minister may not heed my remarks but if he does I will be thankful. I would like him to increase the number of representatives on the board, to consider using the word "education" and to see how the universities would fit in on the board. I am glad to have had the opportunity of making these remarks. I believe it does not matter if one is critical of a Bill or not, but any man who does not have the guts to stand up in public and say what he has to say is not a man. I reserve the right to do that As I said, I will always be for the majority. If the majority think a thing is right, it does not matter what Johnny thinks; I will go with the majority.

Mr. Donnellan

Deputy Callanan said he would always agree with the majority. That is the general idea of people in politics. He objected to the previous Bill, he objects to this Bill. To have the courage of your convictions to stand up and express your reservations one way or another, in my view, is not an expression of manhood.

I have read all the speeches so far in this debate and listened here today. It is a pity that all Deputies do not get together and forget political arguments as far as setting up some type of agricultural body is concerned. We should do something constructive and help agriculture.

The purpose of this legislation seems to be to abolish what was there before and to set up a new body called An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta. I cannot see any reason for setting up this body to replace the National Agricultural Authority. What prompted the Minister to introduce this Bill? Was it because of his opposition to the previous Bill or because of an election promise? The whole problem with this Bill is that the people who will be concerned with it when it becomes law are not aware of what is happening under it. Farmers are not altogether aware of the proposals in this Bill, nor were they fully aware of the proposals in the previous Bill. I represent an area in the west where the majority of the people are small farmers. If this Bill goes through, it seems that at some stage in the future these people will have to pay for the agricultural advisory services. At present in west Galway there are two agricultural advisers and they each deal with between 5,000 and 6,000 farmers. In the eastern and northern parts of Galway the agricultural advisers each deal with between 600 and 750 farmers.

An election promise was made that this Bill would be introduced because of the opposition to the previous Bill, but if the Minister for Agriculture would appoint the necessary number of agricultural advisers they would be able to give a better service to the people in their areas. Perhaps at a future stage they will be called "agricultural trainers". Those engaged in the agricultural advisory service give the best possible service with the resources available but when a man has to deal with 700 farmers how often will he call on them annually?

Figures issued by the Department in the not too distant past indicated that a large percentage of farmers do not avail of the agricultural advisory service at all. An equal number avail of it only occasionally and about 30 per cent avail of the service quite regularly. In my county there is no point in all farmers within an adviser's area trying to avail of the service in the manner in which they would want to avail of it because it would be physically impossible for the adviser to give a service to all these farmers. I see Deputy Callanan is nodding in agreement with what I am saying.

Mr. Callanan

That is correct.

Mr. Donnellan

We would have the support of Deputy Callanan and, possibly, of Deputy Killilea in asking the Minister——

Mr. Callanan

We have been looking for an answer to this problem for the past six years.

Mr. Donnellan

——to appoint an instructor for every 250 farmers. The service provided would be free because, whatever its costs, it would result in a massive increase in agricultural production. If it is decided to charge a fee, fewer farmers will avail of the service. The idea behind the legislation is to provide a better and more efficient service. This Bill was introduced because Fianna Fáil had decided to shift Deputy Clinton's Bill.

Mr. Killilea

We shifted Deputy Clinton along with it.

Mr. Donnellan

I suppose so, but Deputy Killilea scraped into the last seat on the last occasion.

Mr. Killilea

Just after Deputy Donnellan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Killilea or Clinton seat has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Killilea

Deputy Donnellan was delighted to get in.

Mr. Donnellan

Deputy Killilea was more so and there are enough comics in this House without the Reginald Perrin of the west interrupting me during my contribution.

Mr. Killilea

The Deputy brought my name into this but he need not apologise.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Donnellan is in possession.

Mr. Donnellan

The people whom this Bill will affect are not aware of what is happening. How can an agricultural adviser estimate how much he will charge a farmer? There are several advisers in my local office in Tuam and if one wishes to contact them one must telephone early in the morning before they go out to do their work. Will a farmer be charged for speaking to an adviser on the telephone? If I make an appointment for an adviser to call at my farm, will he charge me for the length of time he spends with me? If the charge is calculated on the basis of time, the farmer will rush the adviser around the farm as quickly as he can.

There are not enough advisers in the local service and most of the time there is nobody in the local office to answer the telephone because the advisers are out. I am sure Deputy Callanan would agree that there should be a secretary in the office to take calls from farmers and make appointments for the advisers. If these things were done there would be greater advances in agriculture. There was a time when farmers held a big political vote. A great many people were involved in agriculture. The country was not so heavily industrialised and farmers through their votes could change a Government overnight. The farmers' vote was vital. The numbers employed in agriculture have been decreasing and there is now no need for a Minister for Agriculture, or a political party, to pay the same attention to the farmers as was paid to them in the past.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away completely from the Bill now.

Mr. Donnellan

Possibly that is the reason for this Bill being introduced. Deputy Clinton quoted many extracts from the Farmers' Journal, and so on, indicating that no one was against this Bill except the principal Opposition spokesman on agriculture. Deputy Callanan was against some part of it and in favour of another part. What was the need for a change? When speaking on the previous Bill the present Minister for Agriculture sought assurances from his predecessor that there would be no charge for any advisory services. Those assurances were given. It was quite clearly said that there would be no charges. Now a Bill is introduced in which there are charges. Perhaps the Minister would tell us why he has changed his mind. I see no reason why there should be any charges.

Mr. Callanan

On a point of order, I do not see anything in the Bill about charges.

Mr. Donnellan

There is. Possibly the Minister will explain it to Deputy Callanan.

Mr. Gibbons

Where is there a reference to fees?

Mr. Donnellan

There is a reference to fees somewhere in the Bill.

Mr. Callanan

There is not.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies will have an opportunity of dealing with this on the Committee Stage.

Mr. Donnellan

Recently the vocational education office in Galway was ordered to take on additional staff, two girls for typing or something. Now the county committee of agriculture office needs extra staff and has been seeking extra staff but no one is prepared to make the necessary money available for this extra staff. As a member of the committee I am sure Deputy Callanan is aware of this. We are now members of the EEC and the farm modernisation scheme has meant a good deal of extra paperwork for the agricultural advisers, paperwork which takes up time that could be more usefully spent in other directions. It is a great pity the agricultural organisations did not call for a national campaign opposing this Bill. The aim of any Bill should be to improve the lot of those affected. I cannot honestly see that this Bill does anything at all for the farmers.

Mr. Smith

I welcome the Bill. The purpose of the Bill, as the Minister said, is to detach from the operation of the National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority Act, 1977, research functions which can be integrated with agricultural advisory training and educational services. It is important that An Foras Talúntais should remain autonomous. Since its establishment as an independent research authority that body has made very considerable progress, not only on individual projects and overall research programmes but also in providing information essential to progressive policy formulation. An Foras Talúntais has constantly reorientated its research programmes to match the changing needs of agriculture. Judging by some of the contributions to this debate it seems to me strenuous efforts are being made by some Members on the Opposition benches to scale down the importance of the research carried out and the independence enjoyed by that body and to attach more than the appropriate share of blame to this authority for the fact that, while the relevant knowledge is there and well documented, it has not always been translated into action on the farms. It is vital that new methods, skills, techniques and scientific knowledge are used to the fullest possible extent in harmonising the full potential of agriculture not just for the farmers themselves but for the whole nation. The fact that that information is available but not used effectively on all farms reflects on a very wide area of responsibility but, in my opinion, least of all on An Foras Talúntais.

Deputy Bruton in the course of a lengthy contribution stated that research must be directed to maximum agricultural production and the pressing needs of economic development in the overall sense. I agree with him in that but from there on he went on to deal almost exclusively with the area of farm production. While one cannot emphasise too strongly the necessity to increase production I would question this farm gate mentality. Where does the definition of agriculture begin? Where does it end? Agriculture covers a very broad spectrum. The research institute has been involved in the industry in toto. Undue emphasis has not been placed on production without a matching development in the food processing and the marketing effort as well.

The Institute should be the information link between the farm gate processor, the market and the consumer. A few days ago when the Minister was opening a meat research unit in Castleknock he referred to the changing demands of the consumer and the more sophisticated products that are being demanded by a much more sophisticated consumer. Looking at the market it is clear that it is vitally necessary that research into food must be a top priority. Research into dairy products, meat, cereals and vegetables must go on with a greater intensity if we hope to harness the further development of farms and convert it into real returns for the community. Almost 20,000 people are employed in the food processing industry and I look forward to the day when the numbers employed here will be doubled because of greatly increased processing of the output from farms. To develop farming and processing to the stage where they provide top remunerative prices for the whole community it is necessary that An Foras remain autonomous and not be diverted into the productive areas and that they be allowed to concentrate on further development in the areas I have referred to. We all appreciate that liaison between the research arm and the production arm of farming is necessary.

In conjunction with An Foras, the Minister should consider the further regionalisation of that body so that we can have more personnel in the research organisations coming closer to the rural scene. I accept that researchers must specialise and that as the volume of work in research grows, there will be more specialisation. The same thing will happen in relation to advisory services. The happy-go-lucky arrangements that were often used in the past can be used no longer. Specialisation is necessary now both in the fields of research and advice, so as to support the development of farms.

Many speakers emphasised the importance of agriculture. We have four acres of agricultural land for every man, woman and child and that is four times greater than that in any of the other nine European countries. Our climatic conditions facilitate good grass production and we are on a par with our best competitors. The total income from farm production in value terms this year will exceed £1,000 million and a further £250 million will be added to that from the processing industry. This has been achieved by the farming community with the aid of research, education, advice, the co-operatives and the food processing organisations.

Arising from the setting up of this authority we wish to see a greater acceleration in the agricultural industry. The land and its products must play a leading part in national growth and in this context the full potential of our land has not yet been exploited. For long term development in agriculture we must have growth in the cattle breeding herd. Cow numbers decreased significantly from 1974 to 1976. During this debate there were a lot of quotations from speeches made in 1977 but there were no quotations from speeches made by Fianna Fáil spokesmen in 1974 in relation to what the Government could have done to stop the slaughter of cows. The dairy herds and breeding herds were depleted and the effects of this slaughtering of cows have still to be felt. In recent years the beef cow herd has continued to decrease and the dairy herd has increased slightly, but we still have not got over the haemorrhage of 1974, and the fact that no action was taken at that time to restore the confidence of small and medium-sized farmers who sold their cattle for a pittance.

Mr. Donegan

A fairytale.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Smith, on the Bill.

Mr. Smith

We recognise that the pace at which agriculture has developed since our accession to the European Community has been too slow. We hope that the setting up of An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta and the developing programmes that will follow from the setting up of his Comhairle and their being translated into action on the farms will ensure that the development will be accelerated in the future.

We must also improve our milk yields. Our average milk yield is between 20 per cent and 100 per cent lower than in France, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Denmark although we have the same climatic conditions which should make it easy for us to compete with these countries. It will be the task of this council together with all other interested bodies to ensure that better management skills, better housing facilities, better breeding and availability of winter fodder are all brought into line for increased milk yields.

Because beef production constitutes a very large part of agriculture I would ask the Minister to consider introducing some scheme to facilitate further growth in the beef herd. While the main impetus to beef production must come from the dairy farms it is obvious that there must be some self-sufficiency within the beef herd and we need to gear ourselves for an improvement here. The Minister might also have a look at the question of how it is so profitable for Italian farmers to come here and purchase in great numbers, calves under three months old. Do they enjoy a production premium which is not available to Irish producers? What advantages have they that put them in a position to compete on the Irish market in such a manner? If it is possible to introduce such a scheme here the Minister should do so. He should consider introducing it in order that the profitability of an enterprise in calf production be enhanced for Irish farmers.

The farm modernisation scheme has proved of greater benefit for farmers with large holdings than those with small and medium-sized farms. The number of small holders to participate under that scheme as development farmers should be increased dramatically. I share the view that it would be better that basic grants be paid to all producers but we must devise a way to pay follow-up grants to producers who attain agreed targets. In that way those with small and medium-sized holdings would have the incentive to develop their herds, as was done in the 1960's.

Obviously, the main reason for a Government-sponsored advisory service must be to secure improvement in the industry's productivity. In the Government's Green Paper, Development For Full Employment, strategies for accelerating agricultural development are proposed. On the advisory service the Green Paper states:

...the role of the agricultural adviser also needs re-assessment. It is desirable that the adviser be explicitly recognised as the agricultural development officer for his area. As such he would be expected to assess the resources in his area, to identify constraints on development which might be eased or removed by local or national initiative, and to advise on and monitor farm development.

An overhaul of this service is long overdue and is fundamental to the further development of the educational and advisory services for our farmers. I do not think it is possible to meet the target outlined in the Government's Green Paper unless we have a better back-up service in the offices of the committees of agriculture throughout the country.

We all agree that participation in the farm modernisation scheme has drawn to that service a lot of planning and administrative work which must interfere with the amount of time advisers have to move among the farming community. It has interfered with them in their efforts to get to farms the owners of which have not sought the assistance of the service. I understand up to 40 per cent of our farmers at some time availed of this valuable service but it is also clear that we are not penetrating the way we want to to the holdings that require improvements, that need drainage and to farmers who need information about buildings and the better breeding of cattle. It is clear, therefore, that we need many more agricultural instructors. The provision of better back-up facilities and the need to devote more attention to such farmers is a top priority. We must also have the best kind of educational facilities through Directive 161. We should help farmers through adult education courses, shows, exhibits and visits to various farms, to get involved in turning their holdings into business enterprises so that they can get the best standard of living. If that happens we will have more produce going to our factories and for export.

I was pleased to read in the Minister's statement that he intends amending section 12 which controls staff, grades and conditions of service. I wish to express the thanks of the agricultural subcommittee of our party to the Minister and the Tánaiste, who was also involved in this matter, for the way they dealt with this problem. The section as proposed was unacceptable to many of us. I hope that the setting up of the new body will spark off a greater interest and involvement of all the agencies concerned with agricultural development. I hope we can now leave behind us the sort of dissension which was referred to earlier. We look forward to greater prosperity among our farming community and better possibilities, particularly for those with small and medium-sized holdings. From that prosperity we can develop more employment in food processing and other areas serving agriculture.

Mr. Donegan

The whole tender of this Bill is restriction. The Bill is designed to restrict the activities of committees of agriculture and their staff and puts an end to the Agricultural Institute. It amounts to bringing the power back to Merrion Street. I take pride in the fact that many political years ago, as shadow Minister for Agriculture, I initiated a policy which, even though we were in Opposition and in a minority in local government, we succeeded in having implemented in three-quarters of the country. My proposal was that when committees of agriculture were assembling their new members they did not have to select elected representatives only but could give representation to organisations such as the IFA, irrespective of their political persuasion. I wanted to ensure that those committees consisted of a cross-section of people so that farmers could look upon them as being exclusively for them and giving them a voice.

The problem about the Bill is that it tends to remove power. In the agricultural world things are moving very fast. There are new opportunities and methods of production. For that reason committees of agriculture must have the opportunity to be flexible and to put instructors on specialised jobs. That may not sound very practical but it has occurred to me that I can give a practical example of where, by spending a little money, commercial companies could improve production with no loss to the farmer. I am referring to a case where the company I work with had the job of buying malting barley from about 400 farmers in Louth and Meath. From being at the very top of the league some years ago for quality—to wit, low licencing, which is what the brewers want—it went to the very bottom. Instead of there being difficulties of any kind a very brilliant and hardworking man came along and—not just in relation to 400 farmers; if a farmer had five loads that was five tests—over four years it was possible to find out why a man in a very good malting area had not got the low licence and was getting the high one. It was possible in the quietest manner conceivable to chat with him, talk about his rotation and get the matter straightened out.

Under this Bill the chief agricultural officer would have to go to the Department to get permission to employ another person. Then one would have to consider the political climate of the time. Imagine the airy fairy days after the last election. Imagine the picture of a very fit Professor Martin O'Donoghue on a bicycle during the election and imagine the euphoria there was. There was all the money in the world being thrown around like snuff at a wake. Then imagine the present situation where the Minister for Finance in the course of his duties would obviously have been trying to save money. We would have a situation whereby, while the Minister for Agriculture would have been convinced that a specialist job or an extra man was necessary in a certain place, he would then have to get sanction from the Department of Finance and depending on what was the mood at the time, he might or he might not get it. Anybody on either side of the House would agree with me. I have had the privilege of being in Government for four-and-a-half years and there is very little difference between the problems encountered and solutions that have to be found by the Fianna Fáil Government and those that had to be found by ourselves. Would anybody deny that it would be much easier to get money from the Department of Agriculture immediately after the last election than it would be now? If we are to believe the Tánaiste, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development and various other spokesmen for the Government, things are going to be worse before they get better. I have given a practical example of how this over-restrictive approach will affect the onward march of agriculture. Everybody agrees that we have not reached half our potential yet and times are going to change. But are we going to be entirely dependent on the say-so of the Minister for Finance to the Minister for Agriculture? Are we going to be entirely dependent on Government policy? If this Bill is so restrictive, what will be the result?

Anybody who ever sat on a meeting of the local hopscotch committee or a cabinet or any political party meeting knows that there are decisions to be made and that one must balance one thing against another. When one goes to these meetings there are people who take no account of anything outside, who vote and speak entirely for the committee they are on. If the Government are going to decide, by a majority or unanimously, exactly what is best for the Government and not for agriculture and lay that heavy hand upon the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Gibbons, and put constraints on him that stop him expanding the agricultural services, then that is very bad for agriculture. The people will have to decide whether they want it that way, because ultimately the buck stops with the Cabinet. Do they want the question of money, employment, and almost everything else decided at Cabinet level by a political decision? Or do they want these matters decided in part at least by their local committees of agriculture, their Agricultural Institute and their various other agencies? That is what faces the people. That is what they have to accept. There is no way out of it that I can see except that this Bill should be changed and more power given to the committees of agriculture.

Let us consider the changes that have taken place—and I do not think they have been mentioned in this debate—in relation to rates and the impact of the rates contribution to various schemes, the fact that now rates are gone on houses and therefore there is a very much lesser amount of rates available. When the rates went off houses the rates on agricultural land went up to a very extraordinary degree and my neighbours and I found that, instead of paying less rates, taking into account the fact that we did not have to pay rates on our houses this year, we are paying far more rates than last year. I was on a deputation recently to the Minister for Fisheries in relation to Clogher Head pier. What he said on that occasion struck a chord. It applies to almost every local authority. In relation to the question of payment for certain works the old system whereby the county council would subscribe 50 per cent and we would subscribe 50 per cent is gone. Now that our new economic policy of the last election is in operation the old system is gone.

An Ceann Comhairle

The House is discussing an Agricultural Bill.

Mr. Donegan

I will relate this entirely to this Bill. It is known to everybody that the rates of the county do subscribe a portion of the expenses of the committee of agriculture which is far less than 50 per cent. But if we are going to have this new system, whereby we have the Minister of State talking about the possibility that with a tax on arable land rates are going to go, are we going to have total and absolute control from the Government and a nil control by the committees of agriculture? If that is so then the members of committees of agriculture would be advised to stay at home because their work would be completely nullified by the work in this regard by the Minister for Agriculture and, the man who has the most say, the Minister for Finance.

We had a young Deputy—I am afraid I find myself unable to name him because, although I have long service here, I am perhaps getting a bit long in the tooth and I do not know the names of all the young Deputies—who talked at length about specialisation in the agricultural services. How does one specialise when one is tied hand and foot to every pound and every shilling, when the Department of Agriculture must go three or four months before the budget, to the Department of Finance and make their bargains and lay bare their souls to the Department of Finance and tell them exactly what they are doing and justify it and come back with the knife of the Minister for Finance slashed across their estimates? This Deputy talked about the fall in cattle prices in 1974. What would the present Minister have done in that situation? If world cattle prices, world grain prices or any other sort of prices fall what can one do?

Mr. Gibbons

Intervention prices did not fall.

Mr. Donegan

But world cattle prices fell and in that event what can one do? What can the present Minister do or what could the Minister of the time have done? The answer is he could do nothing. What did the Minister of the day do during his four and a half years in office?

Mr. Gibbons

Nothing.

Mr. Donegan

I will tell the Minister what he did and what the Cabinet did. It is very important that it should be reported in this House. The Coalition Government for four and a half years gave the full amount on every change in the green £ while in Britain the Minister for Agriculture and Food gave small slices. What was the effect? I will give it in a simple instance. I know of a young man learning the milling trade in England who was out buying certain goods from farmers. In the course of his duties he purchased two lots of barley from a farmer in the month of July. He bought one lot with over 16 per cent moisture at £82 a ton and another lot with under 16 per cent moisture at £84 a ton. What was the situation the following month? The farmer here with the 20 per cent moisture, because of that green £, got £84.38 a ton. What is the result now? Barley can be exported and there is a market for 300,000 tons in Northern Ireland. At the border the NCA gives £19 a ton to the man who paid £84.38 a ton. That is what Deputy Mark Clinton did when he was Minister for Agriculture. Far be it from me to speak disparagingly of the present Minister for Agriculture but he knows that within the laws of the House one always prefaces humourous remarks by the word "political". My view is that he would not be a political patch on the political posterior of Deputy Mark Clinton's political pants. There is no offence intended.

The Minister knows that he must work with his fellow Ministers of the Council of Ministers in Brussels and Luxembourg as an equal partner and he must bargain as hard as he possibly can. I am sure he is doing his best but there are things he cannot stop. A young Deputy wanted to know why they wanted the calves exported. They want them for veal which we could produce here but it seems that is not our wish. We prefer to export stores or fat cattle for beef. I would prefer if every beast in the country was fattened for beef because while there is a building up period of three to five years it means that far more money in the long run will go out of the country to pay for the raw materials to keep our people working in factories and to keep our balance of payments correct. This will be a more rigorous constraint on us if we decide to go into the EMS.

Section 12(a) of the Bill requires the Comhairle to obtain the approval of the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for the Public Service for any change in the number, grades and conditions of service of the staff, including their leave and their hours of work. Such restriction on the powers of the Comhairle is unprecedented in any legislation governing semi-State bodies. That includes the current Bill for the establishment of a national board for science and technology and Bord na Gaeilge.

I do not know why this should be picked out for this restraint. Perhaps Fianna Fáil believe that there are a number of people on the committees of agriculture all over the country who do not know what they are doing, that they have no responsibility. It is an old saying that one cannot run a racehorse in hobbles. It appears to me that that is what the Minister for Agriculture and Fianna Fáil are trying to do. They are taking complete Government control over budgets, annual programmes, local contributions and staff salaries. They want the annual reports and accounts. Perhaps some of that is necessary towards good administration but I do not see why all of it is necessary. I believe that the responsible farmer, the representative of the IFA, a member of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour who gives his time to a committee of agriculture every month who feels that he is so restricted and stultified by this Bill that his presence makes no impact whatever will not serve on a committee of agriculture.

An undertaking was given under the National Agricultural, Advisory, Education and Research Authority Act that the grant of the new body would not be less in real terms than that provided for this service in the year immediately preceding transfer. We all know that when inflation comes salaries have to be increased. At least that was something, but it is now removed completely. During a previous inter-party Government from 1954 to 1957 there was a campaign which said that one cannot inspire farming from Merrion Street. The Minister for Agriculture at that time, Mr. James Dillon, had a hard time about that. That catchcry was sold to many people. There was much more freedom and power for the ordinary member of the committees of agriculture then than there will be after this Bill becomes law. If we accept that our agricultural output is not near its optimum, that the changes which have happened are so spectacular as to nearly pass us by before we realise they are there and if we realise the amount of adaptation which will be necessary on every farm to get a job done well surely this should be a farseeing Bill, one giving an opportunity and not restrictive. There could also have been in it the question of whether or not it is wise for three or four committees of agriculture to come together in a joint scheme but there is no provision for anything like that. I am disappointed in the Bill. I feel that the euphoria of the 84 seats has meant that Fianna Fáil feel they can rule by a sort of divine direction. I am afraid that is not the case in Ireland. I sincerely hope that the restrictions in this Bill will be removed by a different Government sometime in the near future.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Gibbons)

It is well at this stage to look back a little bit and try to establish what happened in the last five to six years in this regard. During that time I was in the Department of Agriculture when it was in Merrion Street. There was in an advanced stage of preparation a scheme for the reorganisation of the advisory services. The Bill which the Coalition Government subsequently enacted was essentially the same with a vital change on my insistence. On the best advice the research arm of An Foras Talúntais was excluded from that organisation. It was clear at that time, and it is even more clear now, that research of this nature needs a special environment where the people engaged in research can pursue their work without interruption or danger of interruption.

It is worth recalling that on Second Stage of the Coalition Bill only two Deputies supporting the Coalition spoke in favour of the Bill in the most general of terms and neither of these two Deputies retained his seat. It is incidental but not without its own significance that one of the two contributions from the Coalition side was even more irrelevant than some of the speeches on Second Stage of this Bill.

I should like to thank the House in general for the reasonably helpful approach that has been adopted with regard to this Bill. When the previous legislation was going through the House, I remember only two Coalition speakers speaking on Committee Stage and both of them spoke against the recommendation of the Government. I remember one Deputy who is no longer here who was very much as Deputy Bermingham was on this occasion, accepting our idea that research should be a matter apart from the other two branches of the service, advice and training or education.

In the enormous amount of heat and the tiny amount of light generated by Opposition speakers in discussing this aspect of the Bill, it seems to have escaped them that really there is no connection per se between the two services, training and advice on the one hand and research on the other hand. Research is different in the way it is carried out and in the type of people who engage in research. They are people of a particular vocation. The successful conclusion of many kinds of research often requires a great number of years. I am thinking of one experiment at Oak Park, Carlow, in my constituency where research is being conducted into the growing of cereal crops on a continuous basis. Obviously that kind of research has to be pursued from year to year. In the type of unwilling union proposed in the legislation of the national Coalition, I do not think it conceivable that this kind of research could be carried out. Much of the work of An Foras Talúntais has won international praise and I do not think that this work and the organisation responsible should be abolished in one fell swoop. As Deputy Callanan said, in his typically independent contribution, he held the opposite view but he recognised that the vast majority of Fianna Fáil at that time held the view that I hold on this important matter.

Deputy Bruton was worried about the time lost in making this change. I think that the change itself was vital because the research element in the new organisation could have been destroyed if the legislation enacted by the Coalition had continued. After serious consideration for a long period the Government Party decided on the course they have embarked on. I regret the loss of time in establishing the new council but it is not irreparable. The time that will be lost now will be determined by the House.

I think it was Deputy Bruton who referred to An Foras Talúntais as "an ivory tower". This is to suggest that up to now An Foras have been working in a completely isolated, cocooned atmosphere where their work and the results of their work became known only to a small select group of people. That is manifestly untrue. I am not for a moment suggesting it is deliberately untrue but it does not accord with the facts. There has been research into sheep and sheep breeding in Creagh, County Mayo, and work is also carried out in Belclare, County Galway. There is a dairy research centre at Moorepark, Fermoy, and there are two relatively small enterprises in my constituency dealing with plant research and machinery research. An Foars Talúntais also have a small, specialised undertaking at Ballyragget, County Kilkenny, and there is research into cattle production at Grange. All of this research work is widely known and is resorted to by many farmers. An Foras have many "open days" and there is a constant stream of farmers and other people interested in the various subjects, through the portals of the different establishments of An Foras Talúntais. People who speak of ivory towers are not really speaking of the situation as it is nor are they speaking of people who are in any way inaccessible.

Deputy Bruton also said that the change that politically motivated. One must put the simplest defination of political motivation on that charge and deal with it as seriously as it deserves to be dealt with coming from the agricultural spokesman of the Fine Geal Party. This charge could not be true. I agree with speakers who said there was no place for party politics in agriculture. To suggest that I or anybody else was motivated by base party politics motives is not true. It is worth considering the establishment of the board of the NAA in the period between 16 June and 5 July last year. I regret to say that appointments were made to the Judiciary, the Land Commission, the Army, the NAA, and throughout the length and breadth of our economic life. An unprecedented orgy of political patronage heralded the demise of the Cosgrave regime. Nothing like it had ever been seen before. In that environment, on the last day of the Coalition Government's term of office, the chairman of the NAA was selected. I do not want to dwell on the selection made on that occasion but the company in which it was made was most unsavoury. That is why the charge of political motivation for the introduction of this Bill does not stand, especially coming from Fine Gael.

Several Deputies talked about the impending introduction of fees. Deputy Donegan asserted that it was written into the Bill. When I invited him to show where it was written, the Chair absolved him from the necessity of doing so, which was lucky for him, because there is no such reference in the Bill. When An Foras Talúntais are doing work under contract they can charge fees, but we are not talking about An Foras Talúntais. We are talking about An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta and there is no reference in this Bill to the charging of fees. Such talk indicates a carelessness in the reading of the Bill, although it may have been an oversight on Deputy Donegan's part. It is true to say that he missed my opening remarks and that he dealt at length with the objectionable features of section 12(a). I have already indicated our intention of amending that section.

There is an interesting cleavage of opinion between Deputy Bermingham of the Labour Party and Deputy Bruton of Fine Gael on whether An Foras Talúntais should be in or out of the new organisation. Deputy Bermingham, a moderate and sensible Deputy who made a moderate and sensible speech, came down on the side of the status quo—the continued existence of An

Foras Talúntais. I am glad that the opinions in the Jones Davies Report and the Devlin Report, from which Deputy Clinton quoted selectively, should come into recognition. After all, in a matter of high scientific content such as this it is expedient for laymen to have their thinking conditioned by observations made on a scientific and objective basis. All the assessments agreed excepting research from the services.

There was also a suggestion—Deputy Clinton was very vocal on this subject—that the staff of An Foras Talúntais were my masters, that they were pulling the strings which made me dance, that the ASTMS and the officers of An Foras Talúntais were left-wing saboteurs of some kind whose every machination was being viewed suspiciously. Having opened his observations by saying that he had no wish to see anything but teamwork, that he wanted to pursue an open-door policy, whatever that means, and had no feeling of bitterness about this matter, Deputy Clinton then proceeded to make the bitterest contribution to this debate. One of his observations was that I am known to have said that the Minister does not trust his own officials. He should have pursued that further, because it was obviously destructive. I am surprised that Deputy Clinton should have condescended to make that kind of an assertion because it is so groundless.

He went on to say, and I made a note of his actual words, that the Minister was brainwashed and confused by the ASTMS. It is important for Deputy Clinton and others to remember that when you are dealing with the staff of An Foras you are dealing on the whole with young Irish graduates, men and women, and it is a serious allegation to say that they are part of some sinister left-wing conspiracy. It was unworthy to make such a suggestion and I imagine he will regret it when he has had time to ruminate on the impact of his words.

Deputy Clinton had harsh words to say about the substitution of the word "training" for "education". By an extraordinary mental process he said you use whips on dogs and other animals to train them. Again, it was not a worth-while observation and I am sure that people in educational establishments in this country will know what I mean.

Deputy Taylor expressed his continued confidence in the powers of committees of agriculture to appoint temporary instructors, and he wants this power to be retained by them. I wonder if this accords with the wishes of Fine Gael. It certainly does not accord with mine or with the wishes of anybody who has had any experience of this matter. They will know that it is a particularly bad way to appoint a young man—instructors are usually young graduates—to that or to any other post. Votes are given by committees of agriculture in many parts of the country for every reason except the right reason, and it would be well if Deputy Taylor were to think further about this. This system has been, almost by unanimous agreement, a bad one; but Deputy Taylor wants the system to be continued indefinitely.

He also wants to see a situation in which advisers would be left in their own areas—not only their own counties but in their own areas. This runs contrary to the possibility of attaining any kind of progress in regard to specialisation. Depending on the quality of the new board, I would hope they will introduce a certain degree of mobility, having regard of course to the disinclination of everybody in the public service to be unceremoniously removed from their normal permanent habitats. I would not contemplate that the board would ever consider transferring on a very wide basis, but if you confine it to any area you also confine promotion prospects in regard to people who may be good enough to merit prospects in other areas at a higher rung in the ladder of promotion.

A number of Deputies were concerned about the composition of the board. On the whole, the position is very much like what the Dáil has already accepted, with necessary changes made for the smaller size of the board, in relation to their smaller functions. There is a mistaken impression on the part of some Deputies that the General Council of Committees of Agriculture are not being given any representation, or not getting enough. I would refer them to the relevant section of the Bill through which the Minister, after consultation with the appropriate bodies, will nominate the board himself. Obviously there will have to be a great deal of consultation between interested parties. One should bear in mind that what we want to end up with is not representations by different pressure groups: we want to wind up with the best possible board which will be as objective and as competent as the Minister can possibly achieve.

Deputy Taylor went so far as to say this was the only concern of the County Clare Committee of Agriculture—that they had no other concern in the matter except the maximisation of representation of county committees of agriculture. That may be a worthy motive but it is not sufficient for total motivation. The board must be more than that. If we had a board of 120 we could see all kinds of people represented, but we do not have that kind of freedom. We do not want to stultify the board by making the size too big. It is in the farming organisations that we will be most likely to find the most suitable people.

Deputy Bermingham, whether by way of objection or not, compared the similarity of functions between AnCOT and AnCO. That is what we are aiming at. We assume that young men and women going into farming will have at least leaving certificate standard. Unless they have they will not be educated fully in a general way. Thereafter, they will need training and instruction of a specialised kind, and that is one of the purposes of setting up this board.

Deputy Kenny also appears to be an ivory tower man. He appears to think that An Foras Talúntais in the past lived in an ivory tower—possibly it was Deputy Kenny not Deputy Bruton who made that reference but it is so wrong that it should not be permitted to go unchallenged. Deputy Kenny, like others, asserted there was a section in the Bill under which fees could be charged for advice.

Mr. Bruton

There is a guarantee against the charging of fees in the previous Bill. It is now being removed.

Mr. Gibbons

There is no reference to fees in the Bill.

Mr. Bruton

I know that.

Mr. Gibbons

On the general subject, practically no Deputy referred to the rapidly changing scene in farm advice at present. In several counties there are people who, in the presence of the existing advisory services, are themselves subscribing in one form or another to specialised services, notably in the dairy industry.

Mr. D'Arcy

They are availing of specialised services from where?

Mr. Gibbons

They are engaging their own advisory services.

Mr. D'Arcy

That has nothing to do with the advisory services we have at present.

Mr. Gibbons

Yes, it has. This is the attitude I should like to clear. A free for all must not develop. We must have regard to this development and to the weaknesses it seems to betray, the need for specialised advice and, as I have often said, for relating agricultural production to a particular line of production right through the manufacture of the product up to the consumer. The simplest and by far the largest is the manufacturer of milk into industrial products of one kind or another. It is obviously becoming profitable for an increasing number of farmers to pay a certain amount per cow in their herds or pay in some other way to have this specialist service. I would say that specialist service would have regard for the creamery or the creamery combine that would take this milk. They themselves have an interest and their interest would be to get the most milk possible from each of their supplier farmers and they employ these advisers to enable them to do so. It is good for them and for the farmer. I imagine this type of specialisation would have special regard to nutrition, grassland and livestock management and possibly livestock breeding also.

I think this specialisation will expand, and it would be well to expand it with the co-operation and assistance of AnCOT and with the existing services. This amicable co-operation is eminently feasible—it has been shown to be so—between local committees and specialist advisers. It is vitally necessary. The prospect of an arrangement whereby there would be free for all development, independent of committees of agriculture and of AnCOT, is not one to be contemplated readily. Nor is a situation where the freedom of people engaged in specialist production of that kind to procure for themselves the best possible advice would be interfered with in any way. That is why I say this Bill may well be the beginning. We are in the process of change at present and in the next ten years I would expect quite dramatic changes in this area. We must establish a framework upon which these changes can be made. We must not allow the development of a situation where changes will conflict with the existing organisation. There is no need for such conflict.

Mr. Bruton

Is there conflict at the moment?

Mr. Gibbons

It may be an oversight on the part of Deputies on both sides of the House that this quite dramatic change should have passed unnoticed while relatively unimportant things, such as the number employed in this organisation or that organisation, have been raised. What is important is that they should be the best possible people. The development of specialist advice is going to extend. The next place to expect it would be in regard to meat production, because in that area again the vital business of nutrition for beef production deserve better attention than it can possibly get now under the existing advisory services. I say that in no sense of denigration.

Mr. D'Arcy

That is purely an assumption.

Mr. Gibbons

It is, but it is based on facts on the ground.

Mr. D'Arcy

Is this good practice?

Mr. Gibbons

Yes, I think so. Surely you can have amendments made to the Bill at any time?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Sorry. The Deputy will be allowed to ask brief questions when the Minister concludes.

Mr. D'Arcy

This did not seem clear to us. I found it hard to follow.

Mr. Bruton

It is not clear yet. There are many more questions to be asked.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is in possession.

Mr. Gibbons

It is purely an assumption, but you must make an assumption on what you have already got. What you have already in many of the creamery areas is an existing second advisory service. That is a good development and it will grow. The next place I would expect it to grow is in the meat sector and for the same reason, although it may be more difficult in this case. There is need for the dairy combines and the meat combines to get together and see where they stand in the matter of cattle breeding. Again it is an area that requires much further examination and a structure upon which changes can be based. I expect changes will be made, will need to be made, but the framework we have in this AnCOT is, in my opinion, essentially suitable to carry them. Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 14 Nov 1978

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

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Nov 1978