The annual reports and accounts of semi-State bodies are basically the only way they are directly and statutorily responsible to the House. If they are not presented within a reasonable period of time after the end of the year to which they apply the information contained in them is substantially out of date. Reports of the Agricultural Institute have been as much as 16 months late and I believe there should be a requirement, as proposed in the amendment, that the reports and accounts be submitted within a definite period after the end of the year to which they apply.
Agriculture (An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaiochta) Bill, 1978—Committee Stage (Resumed).
NEW SECTION.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 34:
In page 6, before section 14, to insert a new section as follows:
"Section 51 of the Act of 1977 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (2):
‘(2) Accounts kept in pursuance of this section shall be submitted annually by the Authority to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit and immediately after the audit, a copy of the income and expenditure account, the balance sheet and any other accounts kept pursuant to a direction of the Minister, together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the accounts shall be presented to the Minister who shall cause copies thereof to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas not later than three months after the end of the year to which the accounts apply.'".
A number of factors must be considered in relation to this. The first is the extreme and technical difficulty of rounding-up necessary data from the areas of 27 committees of agriculture and from four big State agricultural schools. The second is the capacity of the Comptroller and Auditor General to deal with the AnCOT figures as well as figures from other bodies. It would be tying both of them down unnecessarily if I adopted the suggestion in the amendment. There was no such draconian provision enshrined in the 1977 Act nor did anybody deem it necessary at that time. Therefore, such a provision was not included in the Bill.
Would the Minister be prepared, notwithstanding the fact that he does not wish to incorporate this in the Bill, to indicate to the semi-State bodies under his responsibility his concern that the reports be presented within six or nine months of the end of the year to which they apply?
I am advised that the only example available to the Department of a provision of this kind is the University Act, 1908. It is provided in that Act that there be a time limit of three months preparation and three months audit of accounts. That provision was found to be impracticable and was repealed later. The inclusion of things known to be almost impossible to comply with is plainly unnecessary and undesirable.
The Minister will appreciate that commercial companies are able to produce their accounts for their shareholders within a shorter space of time. There are commercial companies which are as big, if not bigger, than AnCOT. For instance, a concern like Cement-Roadstone Holdings has interests all over the world and they are able to produce their report promptly. In this instance we are concerned about those who must report to the people of Ireland and one would have thought that a higher rather than a lower standard would be applied. To be honest about this, I appreciate the Minister's difficulty——
I have no difficulty whatever.
If the Minister wishes to cavil with that I will put it another way. I can appreciate the point made by the Minister about the insertion of such a requirement in the Bill, but I should like to know if he would be prepared to indicate to semi-State bodies that he believed they should aim to submit their reports and accounts within six to nine months of the year in question?
I would have no hesitation in indicating a general desire that there should not be any delay in the presentation of these important figures but there is no question of any such desire on my part. I am surprised that the Deputy requires an assurance on that point. With regard to the Deputy's point about companies I should like to state that it sounds more like an assertion than a fact because it would depend on the size of companies. I doubt if it would be feasible for a company of any great size to do as the Deputy has suggested but in the case of a small company this would not present any difficulty like we have to deal with.
I shall try to get some information on large private companies between now and Report Stage and see if I can persuade the Minister that my suggestion is practicable. In anticipation of that I am prepared to withdraw my amendment in order that it may be reintroduced on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 6, before section 14, to insert a new section as follow:
"Section 52 of the Act of 1977 is hereby amended by—
(a) the substitution of the following paragraph (a)—
‘(a) within two months after the end of each financial year, prepare and submit to the Minister a report of the work of the Authority in that financial year and a copy of every such report shall be laid forthwith before each House of the Oireachtas, and',
(b) the insertion of new subsections as follows:
‘(2) The Minister shall—
(a) have power to lay down, after consultation with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies, information which must be provided in the annual report and the format in which such information is to be provided, and
(b) in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by subsection (2) (a) of this section, the Minister shall endeavour to ensure that the nature and format of information provided in the annual report may be easily understood by members of the public and be easily compared with similar information contained in the annual reports of other semi-State bodies.
(3) The annual report for a given year of An Chomhairle shall contain the agreed annual agricultural, advisory and education programme for each county and the agreed estimate of expenses and receipts of An Chomhairle for the following year.'".
This is fairly similar in its intent. It requires that a report on activities be submitted to the Minister within two months of the end of the year. It also states that the Minister would have power to lay down the information which would have to be provided in the annual report and the format on which such information is arrived at. It asks that the Minister, in laying down the type of information which will have to be provided, will have power to ensure that the nature and format of the information is easily understood by members of the public and easily compared with similar information obtained in the annual reports of other semi-State bodies. It also provides that the annual report should contain information in relation to what is planned in the following year in individual counties and an estimate of receipts for the following year. As an instrument of making the House aware of what policy a body are following, a report, which is solely concerned with what they did in a particular year without any reference to what they plan in the future, is not very useful. I ask that not only should the annual report contain information about the past but that it should contain information about the future so that when it is presented it will be a comprehensive statement of the board's activities and planned activities in any year.
It is also important that the report be comparable from one body to another, particularly as far as financial affairs are concerned. I know that there is a joint committee which are concerned with the activities of the various semi-State companies and with the type of information they are providing in their reports. The comhairle are not within the ambit of that committee because they are not a trading company. At the same time that body are concerned in general with reports and accounts of the kind of bodies which are responsible to the Government. I ask that their expertise be sought in relation to the type of material which should be inserted in reports.
As far as the provision in the Bill is concerned it is quite possible for an annual report to be submitted which gives little or no information about what the comhairle are doing. So long as it is called an annual report it can be submitted. It is another question whether the accounts are accepted by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The confidence we have in him is a guarantee that the accounts will be adequate. There is no provision anywhere, as far as I can see, to ensure that a body like this submit a report which is reasonable and gives reasonably full and comparable information.
This amendment proposes to give the Minister power to see that certain information, which he believes should be given, is given in the annual report. That is a reasonable power for the Minister to have. It might not be necessary to use it if bodies were behaving reasonably in the view of all parties, but I believe it is a power which should be there. It will not interfere with what they do. It is merely saying that they must report about what they do. I believe this is a good principle and would increase parliamentary scrutiny of a body like this. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
I would like to support this amendment. The matters referred to in it could easily be carried out by the comhairle. The matters the report should contain need not be detailed. They need to state only the broad outline of their work throughout the year as well as their projections and programmes for the following year. It would be very useful to have this. This board are rather removed from the general public and from the parliamentary system, unlike the Department of Agriculture, who are under scrutiny every day the Dáil sits. It could be extremely useful to the Minister for Agriculture if he could get stated in the report the programmes which the comhairle carried out in the preceding year and their projected programmes for the following year. The two months question could be altered but if the Minister obtains this information, which we are seeking in the amendment, it could be a very useful exercise.
My objections to this amendment are similar to my objections to the previous one. It is worth the Deputy's while to refer to the Coalition Act, section 52, which states:
The board shall as soon as conveniently may be after the end of each financial year, prepare and submit to the Minister a report of the work of the Authority in that financial year and a copy of every such report shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
It goes on to say:
...supply to the Minister such information regarding the performance of the functions of the Authority as he may from time to time require.
There is great perceptibility in the amendments of the Fine Gael Deputies, not just this one but several others, their inability to cope with the certain parting of political ways, that one would hope would ensue after the enactment of the comhairle Bill. For many years there has been a farrago of insistence from farming organisations, farmers and their elected representatives within the committees of agriculture for such an undertaking to be made, similar to the lines of the successful establishment of An Foras Talúntais. Amendments such as this appear to me to be unnecessarily restrictive in that freedom of movement, especially in regard to what I can only call prognostications for the future, before their programmes are even contemplated, much less implemented. It is well that the political provisions in paragraph (b) of section 52 of the 1976 Act should be continued on this basis. It was on that basis that they were accepted without any ado by the then Opposition Fianna Fáil Party.
The revision of a report within two months of the conclusion of the financial year is not possible. I can perceive through the restrictive nature of the amendment, as proposed by the Deputies, a general good intention that I am in accord with, the furnishing of information that will be useful not only to Members of the Oireachtas but to people in the food production business. Such publications, as the House will know, are readily available within their own limitations from An Foras Talúntais. Some of them are quite celebrated and have constituted a part of the liveliness of certain producers. This is a good thing. In any advisory service, the production of publications is necessary. It will not be secured by this amendment or by anything approximating it. It will be secured by the conveyance of a very important trust. That is the function of the comhairle and it will be of great importance to our greatest industry.
That is why we should not quibble about who gets what representation on the board. That is not important, it is important to get the best board. That is not a guiding principle that was always followed by our predecessors in Government in many semi-State undertakings to the detriment of many of them. I will not go further than that. The amendment has a certain praiseworthy content and it is a measure about which I can foresee discussions taking place between the comhairle and the Minister at a future time. That is really irrelevant to what we are doing here which is setting up an organisation. That it should be restricted in any way or that this legislation should seek to carry with it an implicit lack of trust, would be to condemn it from the beginning, and that is not my intention. For that reason I reject the amendment.
There is no restriction of the operations of the comhairle in this amendment. The Minister is completely misrepresenting the amendment in suggesting that. They are entirely free to do what they like so far as this amendment is concerned. The amendment is only asking them to tell the House and the public in time, what they are doing. It is not unreasonable to ask people to tell the public what they were doing during the year within two months of the end of the year. The comhairle must know what they did during the year; they will have accumulated information throughout the year. Why can they not just submit the information that is there on file in an annual report at the end of the year? The fact that they must submit an annual report would not constrain them. All they have to do is to report within two months of the year ending.
The Minister said that it would also be impossible for them to incorporate in this report a statement as to what they intended to do in the following year. The Minister said that at that stage it would be impossible to prognosticate about things that might not be contemplated at that stage. We are talking about some document that would be presented in the first two months of a year. It would be a queer body that could not tell the public what they intended to do during the remaining ten months of the year. That is not asking them to look into the dim and distant future but only as far as ten months ahead, or 12, at the most. That is not an unreasonable request.
If they only say what they did in the past and do not say what their plans are, there is nothing against which performance can be measured. It is all looking back, and that sort of report is not really useful. If there was a report which said "this is what we did last year and this is what we will do next year" and then the following year we had a report saying what they did, we could compare what they hoped to do with what they did and we would have some way of seeing whether they were living up to their expectations. At the moment that is not possible. In any assessment by this House of whether value for money is being obtained in relation to money spent on any semi-State body, the information is not being given in a form which enables the House to make a sensible judgement about what is happening. This amendment is necessary and should be pursued as strongly as possible.
The Minister complained about forward publicity in relation to what might happen. The greater area of functioning, as far as the board will be concerned, will be through the county committees of agriculture. The comhairle will have got the programmes from the various county committees of agriculture at least three months before the end of the year. At the moment the Department require the programmes from the different committees at least two to three months in advance of the end of the year, so the reports will be in the files. The Minister claims that the comhairle might not have contemplated this, that or the other, but they will have to have contemplated it. They will have the information we are asking for available three months in advance.
I know Deputies wish to pursue this for their own reasons. We all remember the volume of criticism, real and implied, about civil service control and political control over the new body. The Deputies are trying to perpetuate this political control. I acknowledge, without any apology, that political control in a democracy is necessary. Political control derives from the functions of the Minister, whoever he may be. The process of reporting to the House and thereafter presumably to the country through that mechanism seems to me to be adequate. To strengthen it further would be to impose obligations on AnCOT which would be inconvenient and prejudicial generally to the good running of the comhairle. One could envisage the dropping of other activities in order to prepare the report within the deadline of two months.
Deputy D'Arcy seemed to be saying he wanted to be privy to what passed between the Minister, who might well be from his own party, and the comhairle. That is a matter for the discretion solely of the Minister of the day. It is not possible for me to see how the imposition of these strictures or requirements on the comhairle would in any way improve their performance. I can readily see how their performance might be impeded by the imposition of obligations which would seem to me to be unreasonable.
The Minister keeps saying this amendment intends to interfere with the body and to exercise political control over them. There is nothing in the amendment about political control, or control in any form, over what the body may do. I have to repeat that because the Minister has repeated the accusation. All the amendment is concerned with is a report on what they did, not that we should direct them on what to do, but that they should tell us what they did and what they plan to do. We are not concerned with controlling their activities.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 36 is consequential on Amendment No. 22.
It was a separate issue. We can put down an amendment on Report Stage.
That is quite possible, but the Chair could not advise the Deputy on that.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
Section 14 is very similar to the section in the previous Bill. I notice that some members of the board will be appointed for three years, some for four years, and some for five years. I cannot figure out why this unequal term of membership should exist, which seems to suggest some members are more equal than others, and that there are three different categories of members. It seems to suggest that if you get a five-year term you are a better type of member than the person who is given a three-year term. It seems to make fish of one and flesh of another, and I wonder why. I know it was in the previous Bill and the question could have been asked of the Minister's predecessor. I do not know whether it was. Perhaps the Minister could tell me why there is this staggered membership.
It is necessary that there should be rotation in the membership and in the availability of chairmen possibly from the ranks. This provision obtains only in respect of the first board. Thereafter there will be no question of some members being more equal than others, and they will all have the same duration of membership.
Why is there this differential? The same applies in the ACC. I never found out why some were appointed for four years and some for five years. Why is there a differential at all?
There would be no real room for anybody to be replaced. We will not get the rotation unless there are some movings on. There could be nothing sinister, because with the exception of the chairman, that is the first chairman, the appointments will come from sources other than the Minister for Agriculture.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
Am I to take it that the cereal station in Ballinacurra will now be the responsibility of the Agricultural Institute, or will it remain under the Department of Agriculture?
It is the general intention that the Ballinacurra operation should be transferred to An Foras Talúntais. The complication arises from the fact that it is not totally a Department of Agriculture project. It has been running for years in participation with Messrs. Guinness. When the technicalities have been dealt with, cereal research will become the responsibility of the research establishment.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendments Nos. 38 to 47, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 7, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following paragraph:
"(i) by the substitution in section 39 (7) for ‘in section 1 (1) of the Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1974,' of ‘in section 2 of the Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1958, as amended.';".
This and the other amendments to section 17 are merely to provide for necessary clarification or correction in regard to some provisions in the 1977 Act which in practice could prove difficult to implement.
Here a change of reference is being made following consultation with the Parliamentary Draftsman's office. The 1974 Act, referred to at present in section 39 (7) of the National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority Act, 1977 merely inserted an amending subsection into section 2 of the Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1958. The present change is being made so that the reference in section 39 (7) is to the 1958 Act, as amended, rather than to the amending 1974 Act. It is a rather technical amendment and that is the reason why Deputies will understand that it is more convenient and advisable to read the note that has been given. It is a question of clarity and that is all there is to it.
It is as clear at the end as it was at the beginning of the Minister's address.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 7, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following paragraphs:
"( ) by the substitution in section 56 for ‘or, as the case may be, the Minister' of ‘or the Minister,';
( ) by the deletion in section 58 (a) of ‘and other assets' in both places where those words occur;
( ) by the substitution in section 58 (c) for ‘the principal and interest paid' of ‘the amount of the principal repaid';
( ) by the insertion in section 59 (1) after ‘section 53' of ‘(in this section referred to as the net value of the transferred assets)';".
The first of these paragraphs related to section 56 of the 1977 Act which as it stands at present would transfer all the liabilities of committees of agriculture to the new body. It would be unfair to pass to the new body liabilities in respect of functions which will continue to be the responsibility of county committees. The effect of the amendment is to confine the transfer to liabilities in relation to functions and property transferred.
The reason for the deletion of "and other assets" in section 58 (a) of the 1977 Act is that it is tautological, as the term property covers all the assets transferred and we are advised by the Parliamentary Draftsman's office that inclusion of the phrase could cause interpretation problems in relation to section 59 (3) (a) (i) which refers to property only and has a cross reference to section 58 (a).
If the reference to interest in section 58 (c) of the 1977 Act were allowed to remain the result would be that any interest paid on a loan which was outstanding at the time of the transfer of property would be included in the "net value of transferred assets" as defined in section 59 (3) (a) of that Act.
As Deputies are aware interest paid on a loan is not an asset, hence the reference to interest is being deleted. The insertion in section 59 (1) is necessary because there is a slight difference in the wording between the phrase at present used in this subsection and the definition in subsection 3 (a). It is necessary to clarify the intention that both phrases should have the same meaning. Again it is a matter of drafting amendments for the sake of precision and clarity.
The Minister referred to liabilities which would be transferred from the county committees of agriculture to the comhairle and he said that the liabilities which would be transferred would, as a result of this amendment, not be all the liabilities of the county committees but only liabilities arising from those functions which were being transferred to the comhairle. Could I ask the Minister what functions in respect of which liabilities exist would remain with the county committees?
There would be a variety of rather small matters, for example, the amount outstanding in relation to county committee scholarships and things of that kind. To import these and the liabilities that accrue from them on to the new comhairle would be unreasonable and that is the only intention of the amendment. I think it will be perceived by all concerned, including the committees of agriculture, as being merely for that purpose. I would anticipate the conducting of schemes such as the small livestock schemes as coming under the aegis of the comhairle in the future. This would be in accordance with the general policy of the comhairle which they themselves would determine. That they should become liable for debts, however small, incurred in ways like this would be to start the comhairle off at a serious disadvantage.
There is one other question I want to ask. The Minister, in the third of his three amendments which are being affected by this omnibus amendment changes "principal and interest" to "principal" only in section 58 (c) of the 1977 Act. Would the Minister indicate the significance of this change? I think he may have done so in his initial address but, quite frankly, I could not grasp everything he said.
Interest, as I have already said, is not in itself an asset. The Act speaks of the transfer of assets only. Interest is not an asset.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 not moved.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 7, after line 43, to insert the following paragraph:
"( ) by the insertion in section 59 (3) (a) (i), before ‘was raised' of ‘, the whole or part of which is still outstanding,';".
This is a drafting amendment. It relates to the definition of the net value of transferred assets. The existing definition provides that all property on which a loan is raised is excluded from the valuation of assets. Clearly, property on which a loan has been raised and fully repaid should be considered as part of the assets. This amendment provides that only property on which a loan is outstanding will be excluded from the valuation.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 8, subsection (3) (a), line 20, to delete "individual".
This change is being made following discussions with the draftsman. Its effect is to ensure that the exclusion from the definition of basic veterinary research covers diagnosis on a herd or flock basis as well as individual animal diagnosis.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 8, between lines 25 and 26, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"(4) Section 4 (2) of the Act of 1958 is hereby amended by the addition of the following paragraph:
‘(1) arrange for the exchange of staff on a temporary basis with An Comhairle (established under section 8 of the Agriculture (An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta) Act, 1979) and for the undertaking of joint projects with An Comhairle.'".
This amendment is designed to allow for the temporary exchange of staff between the comhairle and the Agricultural Institute. Obviously, there will be staff working in the comhairle, particularly specialist agricultural advisers, who will have the competence in work that is similar to work being carried on by the Agricultural Institute in their research role. It seems sensible that there should be the possibility for an exchange of staff, that a man could move, say, for a year or two from the comhairle to work in the institute and vice versa. But if this can take place on an ad hoc basis and if there is no need to amend the legislation, I shall be happy; but first I should like a firm assurance that such exchanges can take place.
Perhaps I am mistaken but this seems to be an attempt on the part of the Deputies to give statutory confirmation to something that is perfectly feasible, to the free-and-easy rapport that exists and which I hope will continue to exist between the advisory people and the foras. I can see Deputy Bruton's point, and it is valid, that with the development of increasing numbers of people in the specialist areas, more of these people will be going to Moore Park to do certain work, first, for a basic briefing and possibly for a more extended period subsequently. I have no wish to see the arrangement enshrined with its intended limitations in this legislation. The arrangements that exist can be expanded easily as expediency and good sense require. It would be unnecessary to batten the matter down further. Deputy Bruton has indicated that this assurance would meet his requirement. He may have the assurance that there is no intention of building a stone wall between the foras and the comhairle because the free flow of information that exists between the two is necessary and can be procured easily in the present circumstances.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 18, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I should like some clarification here as to what the Minister has in mind in referring to "basic veterinary research". What would nonbasic veterinary research be?
That is a very academic question. Part of it was envisaged in the diagnostic work on a herd or flock basis. We discussed that matter recently but applied research is by definition rather specialised and basic research in that sense connotes the same thing. The history up to now has been of rather scattered efforts on the veterinary side, efforts scattered between the foras and the Department. It is envisaged that in future this dividing of effort be rationalised and concentrated where it as well as other research belongs with the foras. There is no intention on the part either of the foras or of the Government to intrude into the realms of private practice but in the case of general research into vital matters such as infectious diseases, animal parasitology and so on, the need for basic research and determination of the practices calculated to deal with them must be plain for all to see. Any division that would occur in the efforts made to determine from a research point of view the overall approach to these national difficulties is not to be desired. That is what we are providing for here.
There were certain odds and ends that were left loose in the 1976 Act and this is one of them. I have never been able to understand why cereal research was not taken over in 1968. I am afraid that consequently our cereal research has not had the same concentration of effort or the same effectiveness as it might otherwise have had. The same could apply—but I am not aware that it applies—in the matter of basic research applied to specific problems which they, after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, are best fitted to determine.
As an individual, I should like to see research into the infectious cattle diseases which are a serious national problem and also certain animal parasite diseases. By the implementation of this section I want to ensure that the proper organ of the State will be legislatively permitted to go about this most important business and will be able to use in their pursuits the best research means available. They have it already and they need the concentration of effort that will be given and the application of specialised means to the determination of cures for these difficulties and thereafter their implementation with the co-operation of the comhairle.
I should like to find out a little more about what this section really means. Do I take it that basic veterinary research was being carried out up to now by the Department of Agriculture?
Yes. Certain research work has always been undertaken by the Department of Agriculture. There is an unsatisfactory and untidy situation in regard to cereals and veterinary research and this concentration under the foras is a tidying up. It is necessary that the products of the research work should be applied immediately to the problems in question.
Has the Minister given any thought to the relative responsibility which will now exist between the veterinary faculties of the universities and the foras? Up to now the foras have been responsible in general for research but this is the first time they have been given responsibility for what has been described as "basic research." I do not see among the functions of the institute the term "basic research." In giving the institute responsibility for basic research in respect of any matter it would seem that one is prima facie cutting across the traditional functions of the universities. In the past an institute like the Agricultural Institute or the IIRS carried out applied research, but basic research was considered to be primarily a matter for the universities. Under this section basic research is being given for the first time to an institution which is not a university and this seems to be an unusual departure. Has the Minister had consultation with the universities in relation to this matter? Have they agreed that basic veterinary research will be carried out by the Agricultural Institute and do they see in this any incursion on their traditional function in relation to basic research?
Tiger Poincaré is reported to have said in relation to generals that war is too serious a matter to leave to generals. Animal disease is too serious a matter for any particular class of people, such as university faculties, however responsible and however great our debt to them may be. It is quite considerable. There is not an intention or inclination to encroach on their role but there is an acceptance of the responsibility that eventuates on the desk of the Minister for Agriculture in facing up to the very real problems in this field. They are of necessity political. I do not in any way disparage the generals of the universities. This is a matter on which Deputy Bruton and his colleagues will rightly question me in the future. It has been obvious for some time that there should not be any avoidable scattering of research efforts in this regard. It will be limited by the implementation of this section to such a point that it will make no practical difference.
I am not very familiar with the practice of the veterinary faculties of the universities but I would imagine it would contain a certain research element of its own, possibly to the same extent as the small demonstration plots of individual committees of agriculture. The basic research into major veterinary matters will now be concentrated in An Foras where it belongs. I would be at some pains to recognise the part that the universities have played in this matter of research in the past with their, of necessity, limited resources. It is in no way to disparage them that I do this, but merely in recognition of the reality that we have some very serious problems to deal with. Some of these problems I have named but a veterinary surgeon or, I would hope, An Foras Talúntais, would be able to tell me of others. This is a very necessary and beneficial part of this Bill.
Is there any danger of the Agricultural Institute and the universities doing the same work?
Not much because I would hope that the research effort of the foras would be almost by definition very much more substantial, nor do I see any need for competition or duplication. A little bit of intelligence and note-comparing would be all that would be necessary. I do not see any reason why a university man doing some work on his own might not avail of the information of An Foras Talúntais.
The Minister may be over-hopeful when he says that a little bit of note-comparing should do the trick. The National Science Council thought there was a need for science research to be co-ordinated and for that reason they issued the report which led to the National Board for Science and Technology Bill being passed in this House. The subject of scientific research occupied the time of this House. The Minister cannot dismiss the possibility of duplication as lightly as he is doing. I do not propose amending the section but I think the Minister should keep the possibility in mind. So long as I am satisfied that this section will not be used as an excuse by the Higher Education Authority or whatever body is responsible for the funding of the universities to reduce the amount of money being made available to the universities for veterinary research I would not object to it.
There is nothing as sinister as that in it.
I know that is not the Minister's intention. However, the Minister does not have responsibility for funding higher education. The funding of the veterinary faculty does not go through the Higher Education Authority, is that correct?
Yes.
As a result of the transfer of basic veterinary research to the institute, will staff currently employed by the Department become employees of the institute and, if so, how many staff would be involved?
These things are done on a voluntary basis. I do not anticipate difficulty in this matter any more than I would anticipate difficulty in the transfer of staff from committees of agriculture to AnCOT. The numbers are limited and are concentrated in the animal disease eradication scheme.
Will Abbotstown be transferred to the institute?
No. It is the biggest part of the brucellosis eradication scheme. The research work done there is limited.
It is mainly diagnostic?
Yes.
Will any stations or buildings be transferred?
No.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.
Section agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 are related. The Minister must move amendment No. 59 but we will discuss amendments Nos. 59, 62 and 63 together.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 8, before section 20, to insert a new section as follows:
"20. —Section 7 of the Act of 1958 is hereby amended by the substitution for subsections (4) and (5) of the following subsection:
‘(4) Subsequently, the Director shall be appointed by the Council and shall hold office for such term and on such terms and conditions (including terms of remuneration) as may be determined by the Council. A determination under this subsection, in so far as it relates to remuneration, shall not be made without the approval of the Minister and the Minister for the Public Service.'".
This amendment may be taken in conjunction with the amendments in section 25 because all relate to the superannuation of the present director of An Foras Talúntais. The need for these amendments arises from the special position of the present director of An Foras Talúntais who was the first director appointed by the Government when An Foras Talúntais was established in 1958 but who was subsequently appointed director by the Council of An Foras Talúntais. Accordingly, as it is not clear whether he is in law the first director or a subsequent director, or both, it is necessary to clarify the position by providing that all directors, including the first, will come under the general provisions relating to superannuation in section 18 of the 1958 Act.
Am I to take it that if we discuss and agree what is behind the amendment the section is gone? I agree with what the Minister is trying to do if it is intended to guarantee superannuation rights for the existing director. We all appreciate the work he has done and he deserves consideration.
I should like to refer to another point in relation to this matter.
In relation to the amendment?
Yes.
We must dispose of the amendment. It is really a new section. When we are discussing the amendment we are discussing the section.
Apart from what is in the amendment, the new element in the section is that a determination under this section, in so far as it relates to the remuneration of the director, cannot be made without the approval of the Minister and the Minister for the Public Service. This is a new development. We all know that problems can arise when there is control over the director's salary by the Minister for the Public Service but no control over the salaries of his subordinates. It has been suggested to me that in an individual semi-State body a situation arose whereby the deputy director whose salary was not controlled by the Minister for the Public Service—and there was nothing in the Act establishing the institution in question about control of his salary—was able to earn more than his boss, the director. This agency was the responsibility of the Minister for Finance. I am nearly certain that my information about that is correct, and anyhow it is a situation that can arise where a director's salary is controlled.
We need the best people we can get in these institutions, and particularly we need the best of the best as directors. Is the existence of this sort of control going to give people the incentive to seek promotion within the institution or to apply for the position of director if it becomes vacant? If a person is the deputy director and by virtue of this sort of control it is not possible for him to get very much increase in his salary by accepting the additional responsibilities and accompanying difficulties entailed in becoming director, because the salary of the director is controlled whereas his salary in his existing position is not controlled, this will discourage people from competing for promotion and therefore will affect morale and output generally in the institution.
I wonder how this control came to be introduced. Is the Minister happy that the Minister for the Public Service should be involved in this? I would have thought that it would have been necessary only for the Minister himself to have control. Why must the Minister for the Public Service also have control? Is it possible that the Minister for the Public Service does not trust the Minister for Agriculture to deal adequately with this matter?
I do not believe that the anomalous situation described by the Deputy will occur. Section 24 of this Bill provides for the control of AFT remuneration and therefore this should not arise. I do not think that when we deal with section 24 further elaboration will be necessary on this point and on the point that the Deputy has raised now. In recent legislation such control is reposing in the hands of the Minister.
Why is it necessary to have the Minister for the Public Service involved as well?
Because this is the public service.
I know, but the Minister and the Minister for the Public Service are both members of one collectively responsible Government. Presumably they both follow the same policy. If the Minister for Agriculture has control of a salary presumably he will effect that control in conjunction with his colleagues on the basis of an agreed policy. It seems odd, and it is almost a suggestion that the Minister is not to be trusted, if another Minister has to be put in as well who is going to have the job statutorily measured.
I leave that to the Deputy.
It seems that you have to put in another Minister as well who is going to have the job statutorily—this is written into the Act—of looking over the shoulder of the Minister for Agriculture. We have been listening to the Minister for Agriculture all day here telling us that this, that or the other amendment was not necessary because in practice there would be no problem, it could all be worked out, there were no obstacles and so forth. If that is the Minister's attitude why is he insisting on saying that he will not be free to determine the director's salary without first consulting with the Minister for the Public Service and insisting that that be written into the Act? Why is he insisting that he be not allowed himself to make a determination about the director's salary without the Minister for the Public Service also agreeing? Surely he will consult anyway with his colleague, the Minister for the Public Service, one way or the other. Is there some suggestion that otherwise the Minister might not listen to the Minister for the Public Service?
If there is, I regret it, but I do not think there is. This situation has been in every institution that I have known to be set up since the Governments of the past began setting up things. It is plainly necessary.
It was not in 1958.
The Government have a very large responsibility in this and so has the Minister for Finance who doubles as the Minister for the Public Service. I do not know of any provision that has been introduced where this control does not exist in legislation setting up the authorities. I am advised that precisely the same provision was, sensibly enough, in the 1977 Act of the Coalition.
Amendment agreed to.
Acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of section 20 of the Bill.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 9, between lines 17 and 18 to insert the following:
"(3) Borrowings as provided for under subsection (1) of this section shall only be for purposes of a capital nature which are likely to yield a rate of return either to the Institute or the country as a whole equal to or greater than the annual rate of interest being paid on the borrowing.
(4) The Minister shall lay before Dáil Éireann within one week of the borrowing having been undertaken a statement concerning each such borrowing including the amount borrowed, the currency in which it is borrowed, the rate of interest, the purpose of the borrowing and the conditions, if any, imposed by the Minister".
This is in relation to borrowings. Money should be borrowed by the Government or by any other body only to finance projects of a capital nature which will yield a rate of return sufficient to enable at least the interest on the debt to be paid and, of course we hope, more to be earned than that interest. If that is not achieved it is hardly worth while borrowing the money in the first place. Where a body responsible to a Minister are undertaking a borrowing they should give information to the House about such borrowing. When a body who are guaranteed by the State are undertaking a borrowing they are saying to the taxpayer "If we cannot meet this debt you will have to meet it when it becomes due". The House is the representative of the taxpayer and the guarantor of the loan and should be given information promptly about such borrowings being undertaken.
I also have some doubt about whether it is right that a body who are not a commercial body, namely the Agricultural Institute, should have the power to borrow. To the best of my knowledge only one or two other non-commercial semi-State bodies in the entire public service have the right to borrow. CERT and AnCO have the right to borrow money; otherwise the bodies having such right are only those who are themselves commercial and who are, supposedly at least, making a profit. There is no doubt that the Agricultural Institute in the direct sense are not making a profit. They are concerned with the expenditure of public money. Somebody else may make profits out of the results of their work but they themselves do not make a profit. Therefore they do not earn anything with which the debt can be repaid. This unusual character in giving the body like the institute the right to borrow makes it all the more necessary that the controls that I am suggesting here be inserted.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.