Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Dec 1957

Vol. 48 No. 14

Agricultural Institute Bill, 1957—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

There is just one suggestion I should like to make and it is probably more appropriate on this stage because it concerns a matter of principle. Perhaps the Government, between now and the Committee Stage in January, might consider enlarging the functions of the institute as outlined in Section 4, so as to include the setting up of the institute as an advisory body or council in regard to the disbursements of grants to our agricultural schools and to the universities, and also to constitute the institute, on this advisory basis, as the advisory body to the universities in connection with the operation of the agricultural faculties in the universities. I would suggest the insertion of a general enabling sub-section in Section 4 to empower the institute to act as an advisory body to the Government and to the universities in regard to agricultural education.

The reason I mention the matter is that it was one of the recommendations of the National Farmers' Association Commission made in December, 1955, following on the White Paper issued by the Government of the day. That recommendation was made by a commission which included many prominent university people. I suggest that it should be given serious consideration.

Having been engaged in research on matters dealing with agricultural education for at least 30 years, I have no hesitation in referring to this measure as one of the most important which has come before the Seanad for years. I am particularly glad that the Taoiseach should come here this evening and introduce this measure to us and introduce it so clearly and so well.

All honour is due to our American friends who made this great venture possible, but I have reached the stage when I have more American cousins than Irish cousins, and I suppose it is only right that they should help the old country, their country having been discovered by St. Brendan. Nevertheless we ought to show our appreciation of their action. Taking a line from Senator O'Brien's remarks, I feel all honour is due to certain people of the past, to Horace Plunkett, who was a most remarkable man, to T.P. Gill, George Fletcher and George Campbell. I should think it would be very wrong to discuss a matter of this kind without mentioning the men who gave their lives in the service of our own Department of Agriculture and who were largely responsible for turning my interests to applied chemistry. Whether that was desirable or not is another matter. When these people asked us in the old days what we were studying, and we said, "Chemistry", they would say: "What are you doing with your chemistry? You must apply it." This institute is certainly bearing that in mind. There is laboratory chemistry and field science, and running right through the text of this Bill is the principle that knowledge is no use unless it is applied, and I certainly, for that reason, as a university representative, welcome this measure most heartily and praise the skill which has gone into its preparation.

Most of the points which I wish to raise could be raised more appropriately on Committee Stage, but there is one point I wish to raise now. The pivot of the institute is the council. Having, for no obvious reason, been associated with councils every year for the last 20 to 30 years, I know that councils can be very difficult and councils can be very agreeable and the pivot of the council has, as its ball-bearing, a chairman. I am very glad to see that the appointment of the chairman is regarded as being of such importance that it is entrusted to the hands of the President. The chairman will be a figure who will not only uphold the traditions of the council but who will enable it to function smoothly. We on the Medical Research Council were fortunate in having an admirable chairman and, while he did not do very much talking, he somehow kept us on the rails.

The chairman of this agricultural institute will have an extremely responsible task and indeed, will have a most important office to fulfil. I would think that the best efforts and energies of our administration should be devoted to selecting the right man. Supposing the council is started and put into operation, what then are the problems facing it? One of them is where the institute is to be located. Is it to be in Dublin, in the South or in the Midlands? I can imagine a great deal of difficulty arising in the selection of the location of the institute and getting the most suitable area. The institute will have to be very much larger than was anticipated at first because science is growing at an extraordinary rate and any institute erected will require extensions.

Another point is the question of the relationship between the director, the chairman and the Minister. I would suggest that some sort of provisional, or navigating, council could be got together first to consider these questions —the location, the size and the question of the type and choice of director. That would be quite enough work for the first six months or year of the institute. In regard to the question of marketing, mentioned by Senator Professor, O'Brien, I should imagine that it would come under the heading of promoting agricultural research.

In regard to Section 4, paragraph 40, on page 3 which states: "The institute shall advice the Minister on any matter relating to agricultural research or agricultural science on which its advice is requested by him", I should be inclined to insert the words "the institute shall keep the Minister informed on the progress of its work". As worded at present, it appears that the institute remains more or less quiet until the Minister asks for information. I should like the institute to push the Minister just as much as having the Minister push the institute Senator Hayes referred to agricultur-in the universities. We actually have, and still have agricultural students in T.C.D. I know that because I taught them chemistry. A great many of them gave up agriculture because they said there was no future or prospects in it.

One thing this institute gives us is hope and the feeling that those interested in science are not really working entirely in a vacuum, that they can now train students who will find a field for exercising the information we give them. Now at last there is some chance of opening the doors of the laboratory and of allowing the people inside engage in outside activities. The problem up to this was one of finance. I spoke to T.P. Gill on one occasion and asked: "Why cannot something be done?" The answer, I suppose, is very much the same as the answer given to a man during the tourist season when he was charged 9/- for breakfast in a small hotel. He was told: "We are very sorry, but we need the money. We would do what we could to be reasonable but we need the money." At last, thanks to Providence and to our American friends, the money is available and, for goodness' sake, let us go forward.

Most of us here are either farmers or farmers' sons or grandsons and the soil of the country has a special appeal for us. We all live on the farmer who keeps us healthy and we have now to repay a very old debt that goes back to the Garden of Eden. I am very glad to welcome this Bill.

I, too, join in welcoming this Bill. At the outset I should like especially to congratulate the Taoiseach on the very lucid and clear exposition he gave of the Bill and of its various facets. I should like also to be associated with thanks to the Americans for their gift and for the help they have given us at all stages in developing our scientific potentialities. We had the Scholarship Exchange Bill a few days ago which is just another facet of what we are dealing with to-night. I am also delighted with the spirit of unanimity that has marked the passage of this Bill through the Dáil. If we had to wait a few years perhaps it was well worth while, if we can start with such a spirit of unanimity.

Before turning to the Bill there are one or two points which I should like to clear up. The first is that it has been suggested that I have some interest in certain posts in the institute. I wish it to go on record that I reaffirm what I expressed in a letter to the Press a few years ago— that I have no intention of accepting any paid post in the institute, simply because I do not feel I am qualified, either from the point of view of training in agricultural research or training in the laboratory sciences, both of which are absolutely essential for the directorship of this new institute.

Another point I wish to mention is that I was delighted to hear Senator Lenihan refer to the Agricultural Institute Report prepared by the commission set up by the National Farmers' Association and Macra na Feirme. As Senators all know, I was intimately associated with that project and I can vouch that we did our very best to conduct a scientific inquiry at the highest possible level. Had we been commissioned by the Government or any other body, we could not have taken greater pains to get at the truth. In that respect we must acknowledge the wonderful co-operation we received from everybody here. We had the universities and the agricultural organisations and all were prepared to come and help in every way possible.

We must pay tribute to that outstanding scientist, Professor Walton, the Nobel Prize winner, and Professor Conway, F.R.S., and above all to Professor Cooper of Newcastle, perhaps the greatest agriculturalist in Western Europe at present, who came to us for three years and answered question after question. We felt very happy in finding that he was 99 per cent. in agreement with what we eventually recommended. I am happy to see that the present Bill is again along the same lines, that is the idea of a co-ordinating institute rather than a centralised institute that would attempt to do everything itself. I am very happy to put that on record and I would suggest quite respectfully that before the Committee Stage next month the members might find some useful information in the little booklet issued by that commission. I know, of course, that there was a certain amount of what you might call undesirable publicity associated with it but that publicity was nothing more than an effort by the organsations and bodies concerned to ensure by democratic means that the Government at least marked time until the investigation had been conducted.

Speaking quite frankly, one thing we could not understand then, and that I cannot understand still, is why we did not have an independent commission set up by the Government complete with outside experts to prepare the blueprint for this most important venture. I do not mention this to arouse any discord; thank God we are all united as to where we are going and I just make the point so that Senators will, perhaps, gain something through reading through this report. I see Senator Lenihas has quoted from it already to show the institute's main function as a co-ordinating body of the various agricultural faculties. That is something akin to what was accomplished also by the G.M.C. for medical education and by the Veterinary Council for veterinary education. I believe that is something that can be explored between now and the Committee Stage.

Again, I emphasise that I welcome this Bill very much. Mainly it is an enabling Bill that sets confidence in the future, in the men we are about to elect to the council and in the institutions that we have in this country, confidence in the belief that we shall all pull our weight in developing the agricultural potential of this country, because the first thing we must examine is what the purpose of this institute is. Is it to write our name in glorious letters in the annuals of agricultural science in the world? I think that is a little bit too ambitious at present. Our job is really the job of getting down to agricultural production, getting from this country the production of which we know it is capable. When we have done that we can be more ambitious afterwards.

In the matter of agricultural production, I find in the general survey conducted over the past couple of years one of the most obvious results we have got in recent times fails to be used either to give hope or create despair, as the farm survey has been used to spread despair and can be used to spread hope. I do not wish to dwell on it at this stage, but it shows that with our farmers segregated into three classes, the top-third, middle-third, and bottom-third, if we could raise the whole level up to the level of the top-third as an objective for, say, five or ten years, it would lead, on the present pattern, to a 50 per cent. increase in production.

Perhaps the most significant fact of all is that the main difference between the various groups is in the labour employed, both the family labour and the paid labour—

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not wish the Seanad to wander too far afield on this Bill.

I shall leave the matter now except that I wish to emphasise the institute's first task is to get increased production and increased production calls for sending the information down to the farmers through the advisory services. That is the first priority. We find, of course, we cannot have effective advisory service to the advisers without having some concomitant research so that we must have the fundamental research which, it is the intention of the Government as conveyed in the debates, should be largely carried out in the existing institutions. Then we have the routine research which might be set down to specialist advisory work. We can see there a field in which we are very deficient at present.

Speaking on advisory services, many feel that the institute should control them but I think the approach to these services is rather that they should be decentralised. It is the local control that we want and the institute if it fulfils its function, of channelling down scientific information, will be playing a major part, if at the other end of the pile we have developed local advisory committees and ensured that there is effective co-operation and liaison between the advisers and their farmers, the only type of effective and supervision that can get the best from the adviser and get the farmer to avail of that.

One real bottleneck here at present is our scarcity of agricultural graduates. It may sound strange to speak of such a scarcity when we read in some of the farming papers that there are at least 20 of last June's graduates walking the streets without employment and thinking very much about emigrating. That is just a paradox. We have not yet got the machinery to absorb these graduates but if we are to develop as a real live scientific agricultural country, and if the country is to develop to what we expect it will, we need many many graduates. In fact, a study that I made some few years back with Professor Boyle of U.C.C. shows we need an output of 110 graduates in agriculture each year, for the next 20 years, so that in 20 years' time we can guarantee giving to our farmers the scientific services that are now available in countries such as Denmark and Holland. The task is big and there is an obvious necessity for many graduates in agricultural.

On the task of co-ordination, which is a main function of this institute, it is not sufficient to co-ordinate research alone. The institute most also act as a co-ordinating body, as I have said, to the advisory services and to the agricultural scientists and the teachers in the vocational and agricultural schools, because we must place the agricultural teachers in the vocational schools on the same level as the advisers in the field. We must provide for them the same opportunities, because in the last analysis, the teacher is every bit as important as, or even more important than, the advisory officer. I hope, therefore, that in its development he will be able to ensure that the information is passed down to the teachers in the vocational schools and that they are made to feel in that way part and parcel of the agricultural family.

It is vitally essential that our agricultural schools should keep themselves abreast of modern development. That is evident to all. The farms attached to these agricultural schools might well be used by the institute as demonstration farms, or the institute might get the authorities in the schools to carry out a good deal of demonstration work. These are all problems we shall have to study very carefully. Perhaps it is just as well not to overload the new institute at the outset. In a few years' time, when it has been working, we will be able to review more fully its association with our agricultural schools, our vocational schools, our universities and all the other interested bodies. We should approach this in a spirit of experiment. We must have machinery for periodic review and we must not be afraid, as a result of such reviews, to make adjustments, if and when necessary.

Many of the points I have to make can perhaps be made more appropriately on Committee Stage. There is just one point upon which I feel very strongly. I refer to the constitution of the council. One fact emerges very clearly as a result of the working of many of our present committees, from the universities right down to the creameries. Once a man gets dug in, we do not like to displace him. We should consider here incorporating a provision that one-third of the council should retire every two years and be ineligible for immediate re-election. I have no objection to a man, who has stepped down for one period, coming back again on to the council, if his nominating body feels they should be represented by him. Let us have, however, a certain element of change. Changing one-third of the council every two years would not prove in any way harmful, in my opinion. Indeed, it would give us the new blood which is so vitally essential in such bodies.

The Government might consider nominating some distinguished leaders of agricultural from England or America. There are such excellent people as Professor Cooper, Colin Clarke and many of the Americans who were with us in the early stages. It would be a good thing to know that we had on that council a man who could say: "This is how we are doing it in England and it works in this fashion." As the Taoiseach has rightly stressed, this institute is modelled rather closely on the Agricultural Research Council in England. It would be of great benefit to us to have somebody on the council who knows both the strength and the weakness of the Agricultural Research Council in England.

There will, of course, be a large number of committees operating under this council. One might wish that the Bill had gone in greater detail into the setting up of such committees, explaining where the advisory service will be represented on them and where other interested bodies will be represented. Some ideas along those lines might profitably have been incorporated in the Bill.

With regard to the director, we are all agreed that the institute will stand or fall by the man who is picked. We are all agreed, too, that the task will be a very onerous one. It will certainly not be a 40-hour week job. We will expect a great deal and, for that reason, I think we should look more upon it as a tour of duty: a man will be honoured to come and accept such a tour, knowing quite well that there is very hard work ahead and that he is not excepted to stay in the job very long. He might be elected for five years and re-elected for another five, but, at the end of that period, he should retire to some quieter position rather than continue in the hectic post of director. Being a research man, it might be possible for him to go as a research professor into one of our universities or institutions directly connected with the agricultural institute. The more new blood we can transfuse in the way of appointing directors, the better it will be. Even at the risk of losing a good man, we should ensure that there will be a change, because many an institution here has failed not because of the inexperience of the man in charge but because the man in charge has been too long in the post.

There is just one other point in relation to financing. Here, the stakes are very high. Our present production is £118,000,000. Even if one envisages only a 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. increase, one is playing around with something like £20,000,000 to £30,000,000 per year. If science and research are to play a considerable part in getting that increase, then we must be prepared to spend. In England, at the moment, they are spending 3 per cent. of the total production on research, and that is considered to be very low. It is, in fact, far lower than they are spending in Holland and some other countries. Now .3 per cent. for us would mean something of the order of £500,000.

According to the 1953 Report issued by F.A.O. on the organisation of agricultural research in Europe, we were spending in 1953, £69,000, plus the research done in the universities; in other words, we were spending something of the order of £100,000 to £120,000. We shall have to step that up considerably. England at the moment is spending £6,000,000 on research. We are, of course, faced with one bottleneck when it comes to spending on research; we have not got the men to carry out the work. Granted that we can get some to come from other countries but these will be only a minority. The work that has to be done must be done by ourselves. We cannot buy people to do it for us.

I should like to conclude by saying how satisfactory it is to see again this note of confidence and hope in other institutions, that we can delegate responsibility, that we can get lesser institutions, to do the work for us. Here we are applying the very well known principle of decentralisation of what one might call subsidiary functions. I notice the Minister for Industry and Commerce is striking the self-same note in his programme for industry, putting it up to private enterprise to carry the main portion. Likewise here, it is up to the universities, the technical schools, the agricultural schools, all to pull their weight in a free community, not under dictatorship bossed by an almighty institute, but as partners in that institute in fulfilment of true democratic principle.

That is a very good augury for the future and I have very great pleasure in pledging the full co-operation of our university, especially University College, Cork, and also of the Association of the Graduates of the National University, who again asked me to convey their sincere appreciation of this Bill, and their offer of every co-operation in making it a success. In concluding, I might say that our greatest guarantee for the future is that our scientists who are with us now, those who qualified since the war, are still in the country because they believe in the country. If it was money they wanted, they would be elsewhere.

I certainly welcome this Bill, chiefly because it will tend to put agriculture where it should be in this country. I also welcome it because it will stimulate a greater interest in agricultural education. That is the great lack at the present time. From the schools up to the universities, we should stimulate a greater interest in agricultural education and agricultural interests. I was sorry to hear the Taoiseach say that anything in the way of teaching was not contemplated at present. I had hoped it would come under Section 2 of the Bill where we have outlined those activities which tend to promote or improve agriculture and which are also mentioned in another section.

At any rate, it will stimulate interest in agricultural education and also in the ability to absorb. We must start at the very bottom and give the elements of education to the schoolboy before he is able to appreciate and absorb what he is going to receive later on. Just as, in England and other countries, the atomic bomb has stimulated interested in science, and sent forth a call for scientists, I hope this institute here will act as a bomb and stimulate interest in agriculture. It is in agriculture that the hope of this country lies. There is a tendency to believe that if agricultural advisers and inspectors know their work, that is enough. They can do all the necessary things and, perhaps, not even explain the reasons for doing them to the farmer. They will give him his instructions, tell him that or his should be done, but we want the farmer to explain why he does it himself. I hope that later this aspect will become one of the activities of the agricultural institute.

Though I have, perhaps, as great respect as anybody here for the Department of Agriculture, I feel the fact that the American Government permitted this £1,840,000 to be spent on such a project as the institute rather points that their idea, which I must say I share myself at times, was that our Department was not going far enough, or fast enough, to keep in touch with modern requirements. We, perhaps, tended to become a little conservative and did not depart from old policies that were successful, but at the same time were getting left behind. I feel the Department was content to follow other countries and not get into the lead itself. I feel I might make one quotation from the autumn issue of Studies which expresses better than I can what a Departments of Agriculture, or an agricultural institute should be. It is from an article written by Garret FitzGerald and says:—

"There is a need for a new attitude of mind, experimental, restless, dissatisfied with past achievements, sceptical of present methods, questioning traditional agricultural policies. No matter how sound it may have been when first enunciated, no agricultural policy should be sacrosanct for more than a few years, and should automatically come up for comprehensive review at frequent intervals."

This agricultural institute should more or less work on those lines. Its staff should be always questioning and looking for new fields. In this respect, I would support the suggestion and I intended to raise the matter suggested by Senator Quinlan, that the Minister should not hesitate to go outside the country for some of his staff and even some of his council. We hope we will have the best council possible but, if we from it completely from membership in this country, I feel we may just be creating a new playground, as it were, for the team we have.

Perhaps they had not got the finances or the assistance to do their work before, but we do not want just to create a new playground for that team. I think outside coaches, to continue the metaphore, would be a help. Not alone would they be a help to our workers, but they would come here with ready-made contacts with what has been done in England and in America. An example would be the best way to illustrate that. We have probably done very little, if anything, in the way of research into the ability of new drugs to assist in the growth and increase in weight of animals per lb. of food. The Americans have done a great lot in that regard. When we start and have a team working in that direction, surely, if there is a member of our board who has worked on, or at least been in close contact with, that research in America or England, he would be of great assistance to us here.

One difficulty about bringing in an outsider is, possibly, that he would have to be paid. For that reason, I wonder might we not amend Section 6 so that fees could also be paid to outside members of the council? While members of the council selected from this country might well be either lent from the Department or from a university, a man coming from England or America to act on the council in the way I suggest might have to give up like to see provision made that, if necessary, such a man could be paid. could be paid.

The other few matters I have to mention deal with details which might be raised later on Committee Stage. However, there are a few points I should like to hear the Taoiseach reply on. The first arises on Section 4, where one of the functions of the institute is set out as the publication of the results of agricultural research. I would much sooner see published the progress, not necessarily the results, of the research. That would be another help to stimulate interest in what is going on in the institute.

As regards this vexed question of the director and the chairman, I have read the debate in the Dáil and I am not quite sure that I am satisfied with the present Bill. I feel that I would rather come down on the side of putting all the power in the hands of the chairman, whereas the debate in the Dáil rather elevated the director. I cannot see yet where one starts and the other ends. I am not quite sure that my idea would not be to have directors—that the director would direct some branches of the work of the institute in one direction and that another man, qualified in a different direction, would direct another branch or branches of research. Senator Quinlan mentioned a director who would be a superman and I think it would be a very hard to find a man qualified to direct all branches of research.

The only other point is a small one perhaps, but Section 7, sub-section (9) (b) says:—

"The council, after consultation with the Minister, may at any time remove the director, other than the first director from office for misconduct or incapacity."

Sometimes it is very hard to remove a man for misconduct or incapacity. Perhaps "unsuitable" might be better there. I remember one case in court fairly recently where a man objected to the fact that he was removed for misconduct or incapacity, but he could have been removed if he were unsuitable. The council might find it difficult to remove a brilliant but unsuitable man for misconduct or incapacity.

Perhaps we can raise the remainder of the points on another Stage. I welcome the Bill very much because it brings agriculture to the place it should be.

It is unnecessary for me or any other speakers to join in thanking the American people and the American Government for making this money available to us. I would rather say it is a poor tribute to the American people and Government that we have spent practically ten years discussing the implementation of this plan for a research institute. The Taoiseach mentioned it began in 1949. It is now almost 1958 and I hope we have reached unanimity in regard to the establishment of this institute.

We began on a grandiose scale and I think we have now watered down our ideas to what is contained in the Bill before us. The discussions that took place on White Paper issued during the term of office of the previous Minister for Agriculture led to an appreciation by farmers' organisations and farmers throughout the country of what we could do and what we should do while keeping our feet on the ground. I remember attending a deputation to the then Minister when he told us about having different schools on the campus—a forestry school, a veterinary school, a horticultural school and so on. These things were too grandiose and did not materialise.

We should not go away with the idea that this research institute will be an omnipotent panacea for all our ills. It was not the lack of research that prevented the success of agriculture in this country during the past 100 years. Agriculture in the 32 County area supported 8,000,000 people 100 years ago; now the Twenty-Six County area maintains fewer than 3,000,000 people and we have not increased agricultural output to any great extent. The standard of living of the people living in the Twenty-Six County area to-day is, of course, far better than that which the 8,000,000 people enjoyed 100 years ago but it was the economic situation and outside interference that kept us backward.

I have often said that our agricultural education has now advanced considerably and if we could apply the information which we have at present, an agricultural institute and research would be secondary to the results which would accrue to agriculture from the application of such information. It is lack of finance and lack of knowledge that have operated against success in the matter of agricultural output. This agricultural institute will be a good thing, but we have not anything like the grandiose ideas of farming referred to a short time ago by Senator Quinlan, in this booklet produced by the National Farmers' Association. They were going to take over the work of the Department of Agriculture lock, stock and barrel, perform their functions and provides the advisory officers throughout the country, educate them and supervise them. That was the grandiose idea.

Let me quote paragraphs (6) and (7) on Page 49 of the Agricultural Institute Report:—

"Take over the present functions of the Department of Agriculture with regard to the advisory services, as outlined in the recommendations in paragraph 6;

Take over the present functions of the Department of Agriculture with regard to agricultural schools. This involves the provision of finance, technical guidance, and the co-ordination of courses."

We were just flying our kite too high. It is because we have seen the wood for the trees now that we have this great evidence of unanimity among the representatives of the nation in the Dáil and Seanad.

I understand that there are two types of research—fundamental research and applied research. As I understand it, in fundamental research, you are working on something which may not result in any great benefit accruing to the nation generally. Applied research is made when we apply the knowledge we know and make further research into some established knowledge. Research of that kind would be of a more constructive nature than what we would classify as fundamental research, which, I think, will have to be done by bigger nations than ours. In connection with fundamental research, there is nuclear fission and atomic energy, and we could never in our small nation contemplate conducting fundamental research on that scale. We can always apply ourselves to the use of knowledge which is universal.

We are giving to the institute a certain amount of money to carry on research. We are establishing a council to advise and direct a director of that, so that the machinery seems to be simple enough. We have a certain amount of money. We will have a director who will be an established well-known scientist, with the knowledge and practice of scientific investigation and we will have a council to direct him as to the work he should do, and then allow him to do it.

We are not interfering in any way with what was originally thought of as being the educational functions of the universities. I personally should like to see a greater sum of money made available to the universities for agricultural education in the faculties at University College, Dublin, and in the dairy science faculty of University College, Cork. In Galway they have no agricultural faculty at all. Although there would not be much difference between agriculture in the West of Ireland and in the East or South of Ireland generally, I think a faculty in each of the three colleges would be essential to enable students to go back to their farms fully qualified to run the farms.

It might seem an exaggeration to some people that you would get a person qualifying with a degree in agriculture to go back to his farm. Senator Quinlan referred to the fact that unfortunately 20 students who qualified in agriculture last year were idle. No research can cure a situation such as that. It is a question for the Government of the country to ensure that those people will be absorbed into the service of the community rather than that they should be absorbed into a research institute.

I do not see why ordinary people should not do a good deal of work in a research institute. Some people might imagine that, to be a research officer, you must have some special mental ability. I do not know, but I should imagine that the occasion often makes the man. I presume that the universities will still provide graduates' fees; that the Department will still run its own institutions, and that An Foras Talúntais will provide facilities for research by any of these institutions under its care, and even by the Department.

That need not necessarily mean big buildings. I think it was Senator Fearon who asked where would the buildings be and how many would be required. I think that for the time being buildings would not be required at all and that some of this research, could be done through the existing university facilities and through the Department itself. There you have types of research carried out which have not come to people's minds at all yet in this debate. One such type of research is veterinary research.

I think veterinary research affords an even wider field than research into what I shall call pure agriculture, the tilling of the land and soil science. I think veterinary science affords greater opportunities for research than even pure agriculture or horticultural science. I will not delay the House discussing any particular details of the Bill, but I want to point out that a greater portion of our work must be done economically through the advancement of the agricultural industry and really our research will be ancillary to that in certain details.

I wish to refer to the position of veterinary science. When this institute was mentioned at first, the Veterinary College in Dublin, it was suggested, would be taken over by the agricultural institute and at the same time it was being absorbed into the National University in University College, Dublin. It is still in mid-air. The members of the veterinary profession did not agree to go into an agricultural institute. They felt that their place was as a faculty in the university. It has not become a faculty of the National University and it has not become a faculty in an institute. It is still run by the Department of Agriculture and the two universities, that is National University and Trinity College, give degrees in veterinary science. The teaching institution is not under any university; it is run by the State. That position is unsatisfactory.

For something like nine years the agricultural institute has been under discussion. We have reached a stage where we can see daylight, see good effects to come from the establishment of this institute and, if we have not been too much up in the air as organisations, individually, collectively, or as a nation, I hope to see very good results from the work which will be done, certainly in applied research rather than in anything of the nature of fundamental research, which I think would be beyond our sphere.

This is the second occasion within a week on which we have had cause to thank the United States for great generosity. I should like to join in the expressions of gratitude for that generosity. If this money is wisely spent, it will obviously be of the very greatest benefit to the country as a whole.

I should like to touch very briefly on three aspects of the Bill. It proposes to promote agricultural science at the highest level, to encourage research, and so on. That, of course, is very good indeed but the question has been asked already this evening by Senator Hayes and by others, and I think should be asked once more, whether our undergraduate population in agriculture, so to speak, is sufficient to feed this elaborate institution, to supply suitable graduates for this desirably elaborate programme. Are we, in other words, spending enough at present an the first stages of agricultural science?

A few days ago I glanced through the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture and it seems to me we are spending approximately £162,000 on scholarships to universities on the faculty in University College, Dublin, and on the Dairy Science faculty in University College, Cork. Does this provide enough teaching? Does it provide enough university training in agricultural science to produce enough intelligent and qualified students for the institute? In other words, when this most desirable Bill is passed, will the structure of our scientific training in agriculture in this country not tend to become top-heavy? Will it not be something like a pyramid standing on its apex—£162,000 being spent on the undergraduate level and very much more proportionately being spent on research?

There is as we all know—both in Trinity College and in University College—grave overcrowding in the existing institutions for agricultural degrees in the Republic. These institutions are doing very well considering their straintened circumstances. But they are gravely handicapped in funds and in equipment. So, I suggest, there is a risk that out of this excellent Bill a certain disproportion, a certain unbalance, may emerge in the total structure of agricultural science in this country, and I do urge on the Taoiseach and the Government that there probably will be need for further expansion at the undergraduate level if we are to live up to the generous terms of this Bill. Otherwise it will be, so to speak, too heavy at the top, too slender at the base.

Here, there is no need to remind the Taoiseach or the Government, but there is need to remind Senator O'Donovan, apparently, that there are four university colleges, if you use small letters, not capital letters for the words "university colleges", in the Republic. He mentioned the sister colleges of Dublin, Cork and Galway but there is Trinity College, Dublin, too, and I would remind him that there has been a faculty of agriculture, in co-operation with University College, Dublin, in Trinity College for many years.

I think it is not irrelevant now to remind the House that the Royal Dublin Society, which has done so much for agriculture in this country, was founded by public-spirited graduates of Trinity College, Dublin. I think I could quote other examples of good work which the college and university which I have the honour to represent have done in agriculture. As we pass into this House past the library and the museum and look out over Leinster Lawn to the buildings there, the museum and the art gallery, we should remember that they primarily were fostered by the Royal Dublin Society. It gives me, then, a certain quiet satisfaction as I enter this House to remember that Trinity has done so much in the past for the agriculture and culture of the country. I am sure it was an oversight on Senator O'Donovan's part not to mention the fourth college of the Republic. But I would like him, perhaps, in future, to be good enough to remember it.

I mentioned Trinity College in connection with veterinary degrees and I thought that would be sufficient because the other was ancillary to National.

Would it be unfair to say that he mentioned Trinity in the irrelevant and not in the relevant, part of his speech? There is only one other matter of general interest that I should like to raise. I shall not keep the House long. I wish there were one further provision in the Bill. It may sound fanciful, but I am convinced that much of the agricultural success of this country depends on this. I wish that there could be some means of encouraging our poets and writers and artists to revive a national sense of the nobility of work on the land—not only the financial aspect, not only the economic necessity of agriculture, but the genuine nobility of work on the land. I think our poets and writers could restore a sense of this if they had the encouragement. They could persuade our people that the heroes of Ireland to-day are the people who work our land a little better. Swift's famous definition of patriotism, to make two blades of grass grow where one grew before, is not enough.

I should like to see a spirit of enthusiasm amongst our writers and poets which would persuade the intelligent young people of our cities that it would be a noble thing to go back on the land. It has happened before. Virgil achieved it in his magnificent poem The Georgics, at the instigation of the Emperor Augustus. He wrote that noble epic of work on the land at a time when Rome was fearing the drift towards the cities, as we are fearing the drift towards the cities now. This, perhaps sounds fanciful. This is not a Bill to encourage poets. But it would be well if, in some way, the Government or others could enlist the support of our writers and persuade them not to write about the sordid side of Irish agriculture. Most of the novels and poems I have read in the past few years about life on the farm were discouraging and, in many cases, sordid. If we could change that, it would mean a very great deal. The nobility of life on the land is what we must depict. Ultimately this is a practical need, I believe and not a fanciful suggestion, and I am convinced that what I have suggested might be beneficial.

Finally, I have a question to ask. I notice that in Section 6 of this Bill it is provided that:

"There may be paid, out of the income of the institute, to members of the council such expenses of travel and subsistence as the council may determine."

I have no financial interest in this; I am not personally concerned with agriculture. But in the Gaeltacht Industries Bill, 1957, I notice, in Section 6, that:—

"A member of the board shall be paid, out of funds at the disposal of the board, such remuneration and allowances for expenses as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determines."

Does the provision for remuneration mean that their work will be different from that of the agricultural council? Does it mean they will be a different kind of people? Or what does it mean? It is a small matter of detail and I should just like some explanation of it.

I shall end by joining in the unanimous expression of welcome for this practical and promising Bill. I pledge the utmost support of the university which I represent in working for the success.

I am extremely glad to see so many people in this House who have forsaken the nobility of work on the land falling over one another in their desire to support this Bill. I should also like to join with the Taoiseach and other speakers in thanking our American cousins for their generosity. To show my appreciation of the lucidity with which the Taoiseach explained the Bill, I shall confine my remarks to five or six minutes.

Somebody in the other House said that what the farmers want is cheap lime, cheap manures and good credit facilities. That is very true. They want these. However, they want more. They want research work. I think it was Senator O'Brien who asked if research includes marketing. I hope it does. There is no use in producing the goods, if the marketing facilities are not right. We buy from Britain £134,000,000 worth and she buys £99,000,000 worth from us. If we refer to the other countries we deal with, we find that the discrepancy is much greater. Some effort should be made to even up these things. In 1956, we sent £4,000,000 worth of cattle to the Continent. It was a good job we did so. It was a good job we had that market, as otherwise the bottom would have fallen out of our own market. At the same time, however, Britain sent £12,000,000 worth of cattle to the Continent. I wonder what proportion of those cattle were of Irish origin. That is a point which should be investigated—I do not know if "research" is the correct word-very fully.

Two items come to my mind which have been responsible for the loss of milions of money to Irish farmers—contagious abortion in cattle and white scour in calves. Contagious abortion was brought in by the premium bull, and the premium bull was introduced by the Department of Agriculture to improve the cattle of this country. The premium bull was a communal bull and contagious abortion followed almost immediately. It continued for almost 50 years before a remedy was found. I do not know if it was fair to expect a remedy earlier, but the farmers were clamouring for a remedy for the disease, which was very disturbing.

White scour in calves followed the coming of the creameries. There was no pasteurisation of milk and white scour set in almost immediately. In 1902, the Department of Agriculture brought over a professor from Denmark to look into that disease. He failed to find any remedy. It was in 1953 or 1954 that experiments, carried out by the Department of Agriculture in West Limerick and North Cork, yielded a perfect remedy for the disease and, due to that remedy, we have had an increase in our cattle population.

I shall have to keep my word about speaking for only five or six minutes. I might say that cereal diseases are the bane of the corn-growing farmer-eye-spot, black-stem rust, take-all, and others. Research into these diseases is very badly needed. A few years ago, a wheat-growing farmer woke up one morning and found his crop destroyed overnight by the midge fly. I think that happened in 1951. Research is certainly needed in connection with cereal crops.

We must not forget the beet-growing farmer. He is at a loss to know how to increase his crop sugar content. When the beet plant was first introduced, the sugar content was 5 per cent. Now it varies from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. and some people get 20 per cent. to 22 per cent. Research work into the sugar content of beet would be very important work. I am aware that the sugar beet company has one man employed on research work in beet-growing but that is hardly enough, I think, and it could be doubled, trebled or perhaps quadrupled.

The housing of animals in this country might be described as chaotic. Every farmer is his own architect. In Holland, the housing of cattle is standardised. It is all of a pattern. Here, however, there is no method or regularity in the way we house our cattle. Every farmyard presents a different picture.

Mention has been made of the director. We ought to have the best director possible, even if we have to go outside the country to get him-and, when I say that, I am not in any way reflecting on our own scientists. I know that many of them are men of international repute. We shall probably be able to find one amongst us, but if there is a better one outside the country. I think it would not be wrong to bring him in.

I could refer to the necessity for research in pig-keeping. There is a disease—virus pneumonia—which has robbed pig producers of a good deal of money. Swine fever also requires research. In sheep, braxy, twin lamb disease and foot rot occur. All these diseases need research.

Having welcomed the Bill, I will now wish it good luck. The Bill will be what the new council will make it. I do not know whether there is any idea as to how the £840,000 will be spent. I expect that will be left in the hands of the council and director to spend as they see fit.

Having engaged in farming, among other occupations, all my life, I feel honoured to be in the Seanad when this Bill is being introduced. I also feel honoured in remembering that when our American cousins decided they wished to help us in this respect, they sent a man with Tipperary blood of the name of Carrigan over here to assist us in forming this agricultural institute.

This evening, there has been considerable talk about marketing. I personally do not believe this is covered by the scope of the Bill, but I may say, in passing, that I believe it is well covered otherwise and that the Government is mindful of the problem of marketing. The late Minister for Agriculture set up a committee which is at present functioning on that problem and the Minister for Finance made available in this year's Budget a considerable sum of money for that purpose. I should hate to think that, since there is so much talk about marketing to-day, it might be taken as a panacea. It is a problem which will have to be approached from a practical angle. The new people who are devoting their minds to it will have to remember that many of those who have spent years at it in practice have a contribution to make also, as well as those new people who are asked in to bring enthusiasm and to look at the problem afresh.

I believe this Agricultural Institute Bill will cover research in problems such as the investigation of the processes of ancillary industries—the beet-sugar industry, the bacon industry, the dairying industry, or any industry set up for the purpose of uniform processing or better processing of some agricultural product. That is not quite clear in the definitions or in Section 4, and I should like to see added in Section 4, after (j) and (k) the words "and related subjects." Paragraph (k) deals with publications and it might be no harm if research which might help related subjects were also published.

It is very important that the products of our agriculture be properly processed and manufactured. There is a certain amount of overlapping, as we see in the beet sugar industry, in that they do a certain amount of research and field work in agriculture, in advising how the crops should be grown, and so on. It may be in the background research, in the fundamental research which will take place, that they may come across facets of these subjects which will assist the processing industries.

Suggestions have been made that we ought to appoint some outsiders on the council. That would be very desirable and I should like to remind the Seanad that there are many eminent Irishmen who are professors in foreign universities and who are honouring and gracing this country by the fact that they hold these distinctions. Many of these will probably come back to Ireland again to make their contribution. The idea of a university is that of a place where minds may exchange their views. If one or two people from outside—perhaps from Britain or America, or some of the continental countries—were asked to serve on this institute, and if the Taoiseach could insert a section or sub-section into the Bill to make it possible to pay these people a suitable remuneration, that would be desirable.

Professor Quinlan expressed the view that each two or three years a rota of members should resign and not be eligible for re-election for a further 12 months. I think that would be desirable. In the case of the five members—and perhaps the four from the universities which the Taoiseach mentioned—other persons may not like to oppose them. Owing to their great prestige, others may not like to allow their names to go forward against them. For that reason, this provision may be desirable, particularly in a small country like Ireland, where we all know one another so well and do not want to hurt one another's feelings.

With regard to fundamental research, it struck me that in our case it may be in a very limited field. I understand that one of our workers did fundamental research on diseases affecting potatoes. We do an important export trade in potatoes and have an enormous reputation for them. It may be in a small field like that that we may be required to do some fundamental research but generally I think it will be in the interpretation, the application and the dissemination of the knowledge and research of other countries that this institute will be called upon to act. Apart from research, there is always in agriculture the application to our climatic conditions of information from outside and that opens up to our workers a fruitful and profitable field of activity.

In conclusion, we are very pleased to have the Taoiseach here to explain this measure, with such patience and in such great detail. I feel that, when he leaves the Seanad, he will believe that the Seanad can make and is making quite a contribution to a Bill of this sort. In Bills such as this, the Seanad can help the Government of the day and in that way we can make our contribution to the legislation of the Oireachtas.

Finally, the way this measure has been received and is being unanimously received by the Government, the Opposition and by the farming associations, opens a very bright prospect for the success of this institute. We all wish this Bill God-speed in the very great work which it will do for this country.

I should like to associate myself with those who have welcomed this measure, which is designed to promote and finance agricultural research. It seems to me that its function is actively inspirational, as the duty of the new institute will be not merely to inspire but actively to promote this kind of research for the benefit of our agriculture.

I was pleased to notice that the Taoiseach stressed the value of fundamental research. It ought to be clear to all of us that fundamental research may, in the long run, be much more valuable to our agriculture than specific research on specific projects. What we require in the council of the new institute is the spirit of adventure, the spirit of imagination, the spirit that will be prepared to take some risks in the research field. It ought to be realised that many absolutely necessary experiments in several fields—and in this field, in particular—produce negative results. I do not think this institute should be stupidly and unfairly attacked on the ground that some of the research it finances and inspires turns out to have negative results.

I was a little disappointed to hear Senator Hayes suggest that the research should be such as to "serve our economic needs". If that is interpreted too narrowly, I am afraid a lot of valuable research will remain undone, because it may not be possible to see at the beginning just what needs a particular piece of research may serve. I may be misinterpreting Senator Hayes, because he went on to take a broader view in the second part of his speech— that it is essential this institute should be capable of giving advice, and inspiration, and of encouraging general research as well as individual specific projects. Senator Ryan, on an earlier Bill this evening, made the point that we should not be afraid of having occasional failures—that it is better to make some failures than not to make anything.

I should like just to mention two other points, one briefly, the other at a little greater length. The first point is the question of the relationship between the chairman and the director of this board. I am not quite happy about the notion of a director who is not even a member of the council, and his capacity to put up proposals. I should rather fear his capacity to have them fully implemented, unless he were at least a full member of the council. I should feel happier if he were managing director of the council. This separation between chairman and director may make for difficulties in practice.

The other point relates to the practical application of the results— how are they to be got across to the farmers? I listened with the greatest interest to Senator O'Brien's speech and in particular to his references to the late Sir Horace Plunkett. He did not mention, by the way, that Horace Plunkett was a member of this House, that he was a member of the first Seanad. It is but fitting that a tribute should be paid to him and to the immense amount of groundwork he did in favour of the notion of co-operation among farmers, which, I fear, has not yet been carried to the point where it ought to be, and where it will be some day. It is fitting also that mention should be made of the stress he laid upon the value of agricultural education.

How are the results to be got across to the farmers? Is it through the Civil Service in the Department of Agriculture? I see a separation in the Department of Agriculture Civil Service—as it were, the Civil Service in the field and the Civil Service at the desk. I fear that the Civil Service at the desk are extremely skilled in showing the value of taking no action. I should not like the council to be inspired by that spirit of excessive caution. Too much recourse is had to "the old methods", and I think we should be prepared to try something new.

The Civil Service in the field are very well informed and active. I feel that if they are not chained too closely to the Civil Service at the desk, they will be able to do even better work. In the Dáil recently, the Taoiseach himself referred to the fact that there is a growing realisation that our own policy on land division has perhaps been carried a little too far. I should like further thought along those lines. That is what I have in mind when I speak of new methods rather than of clinging to old ones.

I should like to speak briefly of primary education and the slant given in primary school textbooks to the child in relation to such subjects as arithmetic. How often is the rural child asked to make calculations in relation to the emptying and filling of tanks in towns, calculations quite unrelated to rural life? I have seen in France the rural arithmetic textbooks related to practical calculations in connection with the farms from which the children come. I should like, accordingly, that we would be more careful also in our indirect approach to agricultural education.

One of the best things recently in this country in relation to agriculture is the formation of Macra na Feirme and the National Farmers' Association. Their aim, and I think they have been very successful in it so far, has been to bring the farmers together, to make them vocal, where necessary, and to allow them to study and discuss matters together. The farmers themselves are the people who are best able to tell us how to help them. It is for Macra na Feirme and such organisations to show us how the farmers can be led to co-operate with one another, and, perhaps, to operate pilot farms for the purpose of practical demonstrations and to give practical application to the results of the research that will be carried out under the financial inspiration of the institute.

It is said that the typical midwestern farmer in the United States says: "I'm from Missouri; you gotta show me." I think that farmers everywhere have got that spirit. Of course, that is a perfectly legitimate spirit and the best way of bringing the fruits of research to farmers is to show them, on a well run pilot farm, perhaps under private or perhaps under co-operative ownership, under the guidance of Macra na Feirme. My hope is that the institute will find out and then show our farmers rather than being content to find out and merely tell them.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

At this point, I would ask Senators to keep their eyes on the clock because there is an arrangement by which the Taoiseach is to be given ample time to conclude the debate on this stage of the Bill to-day.

Though other Senators have tried to be brief, when they got under way they were carried away and could not stop. Like Senator Fearon, I have more American cousins than Irish cousins and therefore I join with other members in expressing appreciation of the generosity of the Government and people of the United States of America. The moneys for the establishment of this institute were made available under what was commonly known as Marshall Aid and, in welcoming this Bill, one must reflect that it has been a long time under consideration. Such reflection makes me recollect that originally I had quite a different notion as to the type of foundation we were to have as a result of these moneys being made available.

I had the general idea originally that a university institute would be founded which would, through the co-ordination of our universities, house the Faculty of Agriculture in this country. I also had the notion that the functions of the Dairy Science Institute would be vested in this agricultural institute, and had some idea that the functions of our Veterinary College would also be vested in the institute. I know it was very difficult to plan the project, that many intricate matters arose. I know now of the difficulties, both large and small, difficulties in relation to policy, in regard to vested interests of individuals and associations of people.

I do agree with other Senators that any scheme is better than no scheme at all. Any reasonable scheme, properly prosecuted to finality, is better than all talk and no action. I feel also that in the institute we will have an instrument through which immense good work can be done for the farming community. It can be of immense value to the agricultural community and to the Irish nation as a whole.

From the actual wording of the measure before us its function would appear to be purely of a research nature. I want to find out, as do other members of the House, particularly Senator O'Brien, whether that would include market research and marketing which, in my opinion, is very necessary indeed. I can see the ultimate value of scientific research, but I should not like it to be research for the sake of science or science for science sake. I feel sure that would not be the approach of the council or of the director but that the research would be of such a nature as would be applicable to the everyday life of the farming community. In America what is regarded as scientific research would probably be frowned on by the dons of some of our European universities and the universities of this country. They appear to have a more practical approach to problems in that regard. I hope that will be the outlook in this institute.

The question has been raised of bringing people from outside this country to carry on investigations or to be members of the council. It would be a great advantage if people of high standing could be brought in, people with specialist knowledge who could be remunerated for their expert advice by the council or by the director.

The suggestion has also been made that it might be desirable that some of the work would be done by business firms having an interest in scientific matters. I could envisage firms like the Irish Sugar Company co-operating with the institute in the carrying out of very useful scientific work. It might also be possible to enlist the assistance of such firms as I.C.I. which, with branches inside and outside this country, has done a tremendous amount of scientific research.

In regard to premises, there should be a decentralisation of the institute's premises. I should not like to see a capital sum spent on the erection of one building in one of our major cities, Dublin or Cork. It should be possible to utilise existing premises in the Department of Agriculture in places like Ballyhaise College, County Cavan, the university colleges in Galway and Dublin and Trinity College. If a spirit of co-operation existed between these various bodies all the moneys designated for capital expenditure might not have to be used. However, with the growing demand for premises that might not be possible but in the initial stages useful work could be done by having specific investigations carried out in different places like Johnstown Castle.

In view of the limited time available I must curtail my statement, but I want to refer to education. I agree that there should be co-ordination between the institute and the faculty of agriculture in our universities. One could go down the line from that and suggest, with regard to students who intend to take up the study of agriculture in our univerities, that there should be a certain bias towards that subject. I know from experience that people coming from the conventional type of secondary school where they study subjects such as Latin and Greek, are not equipped for the study of agriculture. Senator Stanford may not like this. Let me say I have no prejudice again Latin or Greek, but I am convinced that that is not the best type of education for a boy who intends to do agricultural science. His secondary education must have a slant towards mathematics. That is why brilliant boys who get the other type of secondary education, which does not envisage the demands of the faculty of agriculture, with a bias towards mathematics and maths. physics, cannot measure up to the required standards. I hope that problem will receive attention.

I feel all sides of the House are in agreement with the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture as to the goodwill of all Parties in piloting this measure through the Houses of the Oireachtas. It marks an important stage in our agricultural activities. We all value the great gift of the American Government in making available to us this large sum of money under Marshall Aid. Following the lengthy arguments of the past two years, it is pleasant to be able to record at this stage that agreement in general has been reached on the outline of this project. Considering the many interests involved, a certain amount of delay was inevitable. That, incidentally, may have been a good thing in the long run, first, because it enabled the Government and other interested parties to decide the shape of the proposed institute; and, secondly, because it has shown that the ambition of some section to have a completely new departure from established practice in regard to our teaching and advisory services was not feasible in present circumstances.

The idea of using existing establishments to do the work they have been doing and can do in the future is wise. The proposal in the Bill to found a central body charged with the duty of distributing the results of agricultural research and, wherever possible, to have it done with the least disturbance, is sound. It follows from what has been said in the Dáil, and here to-night, that the whole scheme as envisaged in this Bill hinges on the council. On it will depend the potential value of the institute. I think it is wise to proceed with the means at hand instead of wasting time and treasure on costly buildings which might not, in the long run, be deemed to give a full return for the money spent on them.

The Taoiseach indicated that part of the £6,000,000 allocated under the agreement of June, 1954, has been devoted to the ground limestone transport subsidy scheme and part divided proportionately between the bovine tuberculosis scheme and the pasteurisation of milk scheme. More of the money went towards the promotion of rural organisations as well as the scholarship exchange scheme between here and the United States. All these schemes are of the greatest importance in promoting the production of our primary products. In regard to the ground limestone——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Ground limestone is not under discussion on this Bill.

I agree, but I am making only a passing reference to it, with respect, if you will allow me to continue. It has done wonderful work in sweetening up thousands of acres of sour pasture land, the quality of which is still very unequal to the demands of the day. If we subscribe to the view that early and late grass is the best and cheapest means of producing early beef, then we should set ourselves a target in this sector in order to hold our place in the markets abroad. With regard to the second point, the eradication of bovine tuberculosis——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator must come to the Bill. Bovine tuberculosis is not being discussed now.

It was mentioned in the allocation of the moneys that were distributed——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are dealing with the money made available for the establishment of the Agricultural Institute.

Section 2, then, deals with research and it is confined to investigation, experiment, analysis and the study of the various activities and sciences related to agriculture. That would seem to suggest that the institute may not go in for the study of marketing or production methods. Perhaps it may be as well at this stage, if it should deal only with matters directly related to scientific subjects. At this stage, the institute, as envisaged in this Bill, will have a considerable amount of work to keep it going for a long time. There is some leeway to be made up in soil analysis and the allied subject of plant disease. In this direction, it could do very useful work indeed, between field instructors in conjunction with pilot farms.

Lastly, I want to refer briefly to the fact that progress in agricultural science, in general, has been greater abroad than here, principally because other countries had the means to devote towards this type of work. Let us hope that the founding of this institute will give our scientists the same opportunities to pursue their studies as are enjoyed by those engaged on the same subject in other lands.

I should like to say just a few words about one aspect of the work of the council. I notice in Section 4 that the institute may do "all of the following", and then there follows a list of 11 things that the institute may do. All except nine of these relate to research and it is only the last two sub-sections that deal with the dissemination of the results of research, the publication of the results. I hope that the council of the institute will pay particular attention to the publication of the results of research. A considerable amount of very valuable research has been done in this country already. The Taoiseach said earlier that we are inclined to hide our light under a bushel, and that is so. I think there is a danger that that state of affairs will continue. Too little, I believe, has been done to keep those interested, particularly farmers, informed of the results of the research that has been done. In spite of the fact that we have various magazines, and so on, devoted to agriculture, I do not think the farming community are getting the full benefits of the research that has been done up to now.

It reminds me a little of what Senator O'Brien said here when we were discussing economic affairs. He said, when it was suggested that some new commission or new body of experts should be appointed, that, in his opinion, we have had plenty of expert reports, plenty of commissions in this country and that we have been told over and over again what we should do to rectify our economic problems. What we want, he said, is a Government that will act on the reports. I may not agree with him entirely in that respect, but I think a somewhat similar situation may arise in a few years' time—that we will have plenty of research done, an abundance of very valuable information accumulated, but we will not have passed that information on to those who need it. It is not only a question of finding improved methods for agriculture but of ensuring that these improved methods will be used.

When I speak of the publication of the results of research, I think it is not merely a matter of publishing those results in a cold, precise manner, of publishing something on the lines of the leaflets at present published by the Department of Agriculture. It is not merely a matter of saying: "We published them; they are there and anyone who wants them can pay for them." The council will have to go a little further and publish the results in a widespread and convincing way that will persuade the farmers that the results of the research, the new methods suggested, are worth while and that it will pay them to use them. I think it would be a great pity and a great waste of effort and money if we found ourselves at the end of five years with a vast accumulation of very valuable information which nobody was using and which nobody was being persuaded or induced to use.

I am very happy at the manner in which this Bill has been received by the Seanad. It is, in truth, a modest proposal. I was fully aware of that. The capital sum that is available is small when one considers the cost of any type of building at the present time. The endowment fund will not yield a very large annual income. So conscious was I of that that, had it been permitted in the early stages when, as one of the members of the Government, I had to consider this matter, I would have wished to devote almost the whole of the £6,000,000 to the institute and to use only a certain fraction of it for capital purposes. But I understood that was not possible. Of course various other Departments had their claims in. The Department of Agriculture was pressing very hard for funds necessary for such purposes as the limestone scheme and the bovine tuberculosis scheme.

I cannot hope to answer all the points raised in the debate. In regard to marketing I would have said, as a layman, that there are types of marketing problems which would lie within the competence of the council and the institute such as, for example, how to deliver certain agricultural products in the best condition in foreign markets, or even in home markets. The marketing of fresh eggs and preserved eggs occurs to me as an example, whether it is a practical one or not. I know fresh eggs are always preferred to preserved ones but I do not know precisely what the difference is. But I can imagine, if it were possible to carry out some research which would enable preserved eggs to be indistinguishable in quality from fresh eggs, then I would say that that would lie within the competence of the council and the institute.

There is really no need to consider the matter at all in the way I would consider it—as a layman. I am assured from the legal point of view that the Bill is sufficiently broad to enable marketing problems to be dealt with by the council. Personally, if I were a member of the council, I do not think I would push in that direction so much, especially now that a body is being set up to deal with marketing problems of a different kind and I believe this question should be left to them and that the more scientific type of problem in regard to marketing should be confined to the institute. I feel Senators can be satisfied that the legal advice I have received shows it is possible, and within the competence of the council and the institute, to deal with marketing problems.

Some Senator regretted that there was no provision for teaching in the institute, but there is, of course, provision for that type of teaching that goes with advanced study in regard to problems relating to research and that generally means, in all sciences, the highest level of teaching. You have teaching in the sense of study and the giving of information at the very highest level, and the teaching down along the line leading up to that, of course, is bound to be affected by the teaching at the highest level. I am quite satisfied that the existence of the institute will have a very great effect on the teaching at the lower levels. When I say "lower levels" I am going right down to the secondary schools.

I do not intend to go into the problem of what direction should be given to our secondary education but I agree with Senators who have said that there should be, in our rural schools, a strong bias towards rural matters. I found myself very sympathetic to the ideas of Senator Stanford when he suggested that we should have our poets and writers extolling the value of life in the country so that the beauties that really surround young people, beauties unfortunately denied to very many who live in the cities, should be brought prominently to the minds of these young people so that they may appreciate them and appreciate living in the country.

When I was explaining the working of the institute I forgot to mention that this question of the publication and dissemination of information was of primary importance and the institute can do that work. To my mind. there is considerable need to try to ensure that there will be a proper flow of the information, results and ideas that will be produced at the highest level so that these will travel down and ultimately affect the farmers' daily practice. I am sure that that will be regarded by those in charge of the institute as of primary importance. The relationship between the advisory services and the institute will of course have to be worked out, and the problem of co-ordination will have to be examined by the institute. The Government and the Department of Agriculture will be keenly alive to the importance of that also. They will have to arrange matters so that the information affecting the farmers' everyday procedure will get down to the farms and the farmers.

I have a number of other notes here but I am afraid it is a case in which one cannot say: "An rud a scríonn an púcha léann sé féin é." I have kept them for reference but I do not think there is any other particular and immediate problem to which I have to pay attention. I should like to say that there are a few points in the Bill as it stands that I might like to amend when it comes to the Committee Stage, for example, the question of the removal of the director, and the circumstances in which he might be removed. It is easy enough to talk of misconduct and incapacity but these are very narrowly defined—legally, at least.

I think that in solving problems of that kind where one can go too far in one direction and not far enough in another, the only safe course to adopt is not to rely on forms of words which have to be interpreted in the law courts but to provide some suitable machinery. The only machinery that occurs to me at the moment which would be reasonable would be that the director could be removed by the council of the institute with the approval of the Government. In other words, you would have two bodies involved. For instance, in the case of Parliament, the existence of a Second Chamber solves a problem. It was found in the Dáil that a percentage majority was not sufficient and it was decided, quite rightly, that when one has concurrent resolutions in differently constituted Houses one gets the sort of vital human machinery which will solve problems in a way in which one cannot solve them when simply putting down clauses which have to be interpreted subsequently. This is one of the matters at which I would like to have another look.

It has been suggested, too, that there should be some rotation in the membership of the council. I have a definite leaning towards that. There should be some method by which membership could be rotated. Of course, I know the objections to that. Sometimes such an arrangement could deprive a body of some of its best workers, the people most essential to its successful operation. Therefore, one has to balance that suggestion with the alternative that one might create a body which would grow stale ultimately.

The personnel of this council will, of course, be nominated by different bodies. First of all, you will have those directly appointed by the Government, then those nominated by the farming organisations and, thirdly, those who will come from the universities. Nominating bodies will be conscious of the dangers and will, I am sure, try to resist as far as possible the tendency always to send up the same nominees. Suppose the head of the faculty of agriculture was regarded as the best representative, it might be awkward to have such an individual debarred from consecutive terms of office merely because of the existence of some mechanical rule governing rotation. I shall give this matter further consideration. I have, of course, considered it already and, as a result of that consideration, I came down on the side of hoping that, because the different nominating bodies would be so diverse themselves, the chances were that there would be a certain amount of change. However, as I have said, I shall give that matter further consideration.

I do not think there is any other point to which I need reply at this stage. We shall be considering this Bill in Committee and I hope that Senators who have given thought to this measure will be able to table amendments which will improve the measure. We shall approach any amendment tabled with a very open mind. We have only one thing at heart, namely, to make this Bill, when it passes into law, as I hope it will, the type of legislation worthy of the pains that have been taken with it over a long period in an effort to get something really satisfactory.

Before I conclude, I should like to associate myself with the expressions of gratitude here for the gift which enabled this institute to be founded. We are all appreciative of it and we hope that the institute, when founded, will in its operations really reflect the gratitude we feel and show itself worthy of the generosity which made its foundation possible.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 29th January, 1958.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

As this is the last meeting of the Seanad before Christmas, I desire, on behalf of the Cathaoirleach and myself, to extend to all the members of the House and the Clerks our sincere wishes for a very happy Christmas.

The Seanad adjourned at 10.45 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 29th January, 1958.

Top
Share