I appreciate fully the spirit in which Senator McHugh raises this matter on the Adjournment. I cannot feel that I can be properly charged with being unduly dilatory in producing proposals for an Institute of Agricultural and Veterinary Science, though I concede that the matter has been, in my opinion, unduly delayed, but there may have been good reasons for that. When I left office in 1951, I thought we were pretty near the formulation of proposals. I know that the then Taoiseach, Mr. de Valera, indicated to the then leader of the Opposition, Mr. Costello, that it was the decision of the Fianna Fáil Government to proceed along the lines which had been agreed on by their predecessors in office and I think it was agreed between Mr. Costello and Mr. de Valera on that occasion that both Governments felt that continuity of policy in regard to this matter was desirable. While the Fianna Fáil Government was in office, the handling of this matter was largely undertaken by the then Taoiseach who had protracted discussions with certain interested parties who expressed their desire to discuss the matter with him.
Since I returned to office, I have been most anxious to discuss the matter of this institute with anybody who wished to discuss it with me and have, in fact, had such discussions and have received a long memorandum from Macra na Feirme. I have had a discussion with the authorities of University College, Cork, and when I was last in office, I had discussions with the Provost of Trinity, the President of University College, Dublin, the then President of University College, Cork, and, I think, with the President of University College, Galway, though of that I cannot now be sure. I cannot feel that a round table conference can do anything materially to help in forwarding the completion of this business, but I am in a position to say to the Seanad that the heads of a suitable Bill to bring the institute into existence are being drafted for submission to the Government, and, as soon as they are approved by the Government, we will be available to anybody or any group of persons desirous of discussing the proposals with me.
I think it will be helpful if I try to recapitulate shortly the position as I know it to date. The agricultural institute has been the subject of much discussion since it was first mooted in the middle of 1949. There has been very full consultation from the start with the National University who are very much concerned, inasmuch as the proposals involve the replacement of the existing faculties of agriculture and dairy science in Dublin and Cork by the new faculties to be set up under the institute. That gives rise to one understandable difference. There are those who say that we ought to have four faculties of agriculture, plus the institute—a faculty in University College, Dublin, a faculty in Trinity, a faculty in University College, Cork, and a fourth in University College, Galway, together with the institute. In my opinion, we have not got the resources in this country to man four faculties and the institute.
The whole purpose of my exertions has been to establish an institute into which we could concentrate all the best talent we have, so as to provide the highest standard of higher education and research for scientists who wish to specialise in agricultural science. Successive Governments have given the agricultural institute a good deal of consideration and there have been exchanges of views on it from time to time not only with the Americans and the universities, but with representatives of farming organisations. A measure of understanding on some of the issues involved has been achieved, but there is still a wide discrepancy of view between the various interests. The problem is further complicated by the changing attitudes of some of these interests and by proposals such as that for the setting up of a new faculty of agriculture in University College, Cork.
When the question of the institute was first raised by the Americans, their main proposal was that it should be located at a central campus which would comprise all the necessary teaching and research units, as well as residential accommodation for students. It has been at all times made clear to the Americans that, while some measure of centralisation may be possible in the provision of new buildings for the institute, the intention is to make the fullest possible use of existing facilities and to supplement them, where necessary, rather than to incur the enormous capital cost of providing a central campus. The American authorities have for a considerable time been persuaded that their original idea of a central campus could not, for economic and other reasons, be feasible in Irish conditions.
For several months, the Department of Agriculture has been engaged on the preparation of draft heads of legislation for the setting up of the proposed agricultural institute. This draft is intended to provide a basis for discussion of the institute proposal with the various interests concerned. The draft is to be submitted shortly to the Government for a direction as to the form which such a discussion should take. It has always been the intention to consult fully with anybody willing to consult us.
Both the Irish Government and the American authorities regard the agricultural institute as one of the most important projects made possible through the Grant Counterpart Fund. The institute could have the most beneficial consequences for Irish agriculture and for the Irish economy in general. Accordingly, while both the Irish Government and the American authorities are anxious to have final proposals ready for embodiment in legislation at the earliest possible date it will be their primary objective to ensure that the detailed proposals will be such as to provide the best use of the moneys made available from Grant Counterpart.
In the long run, I would submit to the Seanad that the most satisfactory and most appropriate form of discussion will be held when the Bill embodying the proposals comes before both Houses of the Oireachtas. I would submit to the Seanad that, in the last analysis, the responsibility for the legislation to set up this institute rests on the Oireachtas, and I think that the Oireachtas should take the decision. I think it would be quite wrong for any responsible Minister for Agriculture to refuse to meet any bona fide interest or representative body and hear their views, and to bring the views expressed to the attention of the Government. I have the old-fashioned belief that Parliament is the most representative body in this State. In the last analysis, when everybody has had an opportunity of making representations, the proper thing to do is to bring the proposals before Parliament, when every Deputy and Senator has the right to criticise and advance their views. This would probably bring before Parliament the views of some particular interest who may feel that sufficient attention has not been given to their point of view heretofore. It must be remembered that when the institute takes shape it will require a very considerable annual sum for its upkeep which must, in the last analysis, be provided by the Oireachtas, and borne by the Irish taxpayer. These sums over the years will involve a bill for the taxpayer which will far exceed the contribution for capital purposes from Grant Counterpart Fund, substantial and generous though that admittedly is.
I would call the special attention of the Seanad to something I am tired of saying in public and to which nobody seems disposed to listen. I would ask them to listen now. There seems to be a feeling in certain quarters that the agricultural institute is to be a Government-controlled body. This is an entirely fallacious view. The Government intends that the agricultural institute shall be accorded a measure of academic autonomy equal to that enjoyed by any university in this country. I am tired of saying that in public, and I can only invite members of the Oireachtas, whether in this House or in the other, to wait until they see the terms of the Bill. I would ask their co-operation then to get any provision which runs counter to that undertaking put into line. I want to see the agricultural institute an object before the world, and an institution of which this nation can be proud. I do not think it can be such an institute if it does not enjoy the fullest possible measure of academic autonomy. It is the Government's firm purpose to ensure that it will enjoy that. Therefore, when I hear people talking about who shall control this institute, I confess that every instinct with which I was reared rises in indignation. I do not think anybody should control this institute except the institute itself. The whole purpose of the institute is to seek and teach the truth. It has no other function. When anybody should seek or aspire to control it, that seems to me to be wholly foreign to the whole spirit of correct approach to such work.
