Our view on this Bill as expressed in the Dáil, and which will be reiterated here, is that it was wrongly conceived and that it is a Bill which Fianna Fáil, if returned to Government, are committed to repeal. It was not asked for in the form in which it now is in the White Paper which was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas in April, 1975, to which the Minister referred, dealing with the whole question of agricultural advisory education and research facilities. All the farming bodies concerned gave their views on the White Paper and I quote from the second paragraph on page 1:
An Foras Talúntais is already an autonomous organisation established in 1958 to review, facilitate, encourage, assist, co-ordinate, promote and undertake agricultural research.
This is the key sentence.
It was held at that time that agricultural research should be detached from the Department of Agriculture so that research could be initiated in any area of agriculture without fear of being hindered or prevented from doing so by Departmental or other pressures. It also became clear, however, that a great need in agriculture was to get existing knowledge applied in the solution of problems of under-production, processing and marketing. This influenced the programme followed by An Foras Talúntais after its establishment and striking advances have resulted.
That White Paper, to which everybody subscribed on its production in April, 1975, on the first page emphasises the fact that (a) An Foras Talúntais, as an autonomous, independent organisation, has achieved striking advances by reason of the independence which they were guaranteed in the area of research and development under the Act establishing them in 1958.
That was made possible by the generosity of the American Government at the time who gave the funds initially to establish the institute. The terms of reference for the giving of those funds initially, and the basis on which the then Taoiseach, the late Éamon de Valera, who took a personal interest, introduced the Bill in the Seanad and the Dáil, was to establish an independent research institute. That was the view held by his predecessor, Deputy James Dillon, who was Minister for Agriculture. He had the same view in the preparation of the Bill establishing the institute throughout 1956 and 1957. We happened to come into Government in 1957 and in 1958 the then Taoiseach took such a personal interest in it. The whole basis for the Agricultural Institute Bill of that year was the establishment of an independent institute. They have made, in the Minister's own words in the White Paper, striking advances in the years since their establishment and yet we now have the Bill which has been introduced here which, to put it bluntly, is removing that independence which would properly attach to a research and development institute such as the Agricultural Institute.
In case anybody thinks that this is just Senator Lenihan giving his views, we have in all of today's daily newspapers a display advertisement from the research staff of An Foras Talúntais. It is a very unprecedented step and certainly it must be an unprecedented measure that has forced people of this calibre to set out, to use their own words, "their grave reservations" about the Bill before the House. I quote from the advertisement:
We have consistently objected to the principle of abolishing An Foras Talúntais, for which no convincing reasons have been advanced.
They say that they have made representations to the Department of Agriculture and have failed to get the Minister to amend the most undesirable features of the Bill. This research staff are going to be the key people on whom the whole future of agricultural research and development will depend. The people who signed the advertisement in today's daily papers have written to the Minister confirming that they are personally and professionally committed to the role of research in agricultural development. They reiterate their fears and suggest certain specific matters which are again frustrated by a number of sections in the Bill, as I propose to illustrate. They want statutory provision for the appointment of a deputy director in charge of research. In other words, they want to take research away from the maw of the Department of Agriculture. They want the allocation of a clearly identifiable research budget, again to take research away from the maw of the Department of Agriculture and their bureaucrats. They want determination of the programme by the board of the authority and not by the Minister for Agriculture and his bureaucrats. They want the appointment of staff to be left to the board of the authority in accordance with the Industrial Democracy Bill. That is reasonable enough. They want consultation between the Minister and the board on matters of general agricultural policy. They want industrial relations in line with those of the existing negotiations framework in the institute.
That advertisement was signed by headquarter's staff, by the staffs at the Economics and Rural Welfare Research Centre, the Kinsealy Research Centre, the Dunsinea Centre, the Western Research Centre, Johnston Castle, Oakpark and Moore-park Research Centres. It is outrageous that in a democratic community a Bill as important as this— this is a major Bill—can advance to the stage of being debated and passed through various stages in the Dáil and come to the Seanad and we find that practically the whole expert professional research staff involved in this totally new situation—the abolition of their institute—have not had basic dialogue leading to some sensible decisions on the part of the Minister of an Irish Government.
It is also outrageous that a bureaucratic machine, using the Minister as a label, can steamroll a measure of this kind through the Oireachtas. This represents the greatest danger to democracy. I will go into the merits of the Bill afterwards, but it should not happen that at this stage practically all the staff involved in this Bill should make such a definitive statement and express it in the public press, having expressed it already in letter form to the Minister and to most of the Members of this and the other House. That should not happen. I am sure those people feel that they have been "conned" because there is nothing in the White Paper, which was published in 1975, to indicate that this sort of drastic surgery would be carried out on an institute which had served the country very well and indeed in a striking manner.
The White Paper on the first page refers to an institute that have gained an international reputation, that have done remarkably good as far as Irish farming is concerned in the past 20 years. I should like to include in that the man who supervised that institute over a number of years while that development took place, Dr. Tom Walsh. He was a man of outstanding integrity, ability and comprehension, both in the intellectual sense and in the practical sense, and who surrounded himself with people of excellent quality and built up an institute that could not have been built up were it not for their autonomy and independence, particularly in the area of research.
In my view there is an overwhelmingly powerful argument to maintain an institute such as An Foras Talúntais independent from a Department of State. It is all-important that people engaged in research should be able to follow through on projects without hindrance or interference. It is important that they should not be switched away from work which they consider of great fundamental importance merely at the whim of administrative bureaucrats who decide that some other course is necessary and possibly that the money could be spent better. That would mean diverting resources and directing people engaged in research and development work into areas which may appear to be appropriate to the bureaucrats of the day but may be absolutely wrong from the long term research and agricultural development purposes with which these people are concerned.
This is the classical example of departmental interference with an autonomous institution which can do its research excellently well if given an overall budget as heretofore and is set to get on with the job. It is part of the craze which has arisen since the Devlin Report on the re-organisation of the public service, part of a general craze on the part of the administration and bureaucracy to put their hands on all the independent institutions which have rendered good service. Nowhere is it more ill-deserved or ill-thought out than in the case of this institution engaged in the work of research. By reason of the nature of the work involved this is a type of work which cannot be subject to the day to day minutiae and directives of civil servants in Government Departments. Research is work which, inevitably, has to be of a long drawn out nature, particularly in the area of agricultural research.
I do not have to be an agriculturalist to emphasise that this is the type of research which takes years to work out. It cannot be simply defined on a departmental file to produce results in "X" weeks or months. Research in the area of genetics and breeding is not the sort of thing one settles overnight. It is a matter of checking and working out on an empirical basis over a number of years the particular strain necessary, or the type of food input necessary or fertiliser required. They must test out various strands of grasses and so on. There are so many variables of investigation and research involved in this type of work that it cannot be subjected to day to day departmental direction or interference.
The Minister may say I am raising a hare that does not exist in the Bill. I will go through the Bill section by section to show that the hare of ministerial interference or direction is there in many sections. There is no personal reflection in this; it means bureaucratic interference and direction. Section 10 states that The Institute is hereby dissolved. Under section 9 a body to be known as the National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority is established. An Foras Talúntais is an independent institute with no ties to the Minister other than a grant. A combination of financial support from the American Government, initially under the Marshall Aid Funds and, subsequently, from the Minister as is the case with every independent university. That independent institute devoted to research is dissolved. We then have a new animal created by this Bill we are examining. The authority has general functions under section 11. In subsection (1) of section 12 we have the transfer to this authority of various agricultural educational functions which were being exercised by the Minister and committees of agriculture. Subsection (1) (e) states:
provide scholarships to students of agriculture at institutions of higher education, or such other institutions as may be approved by the Minister;
Subsection (2) provides that the authority:
shall not, except with the prior approval of the Minister, provide courses in higher education or courses which in the opinion of the Minister are of an equivalent standard....
Under section 13 the authority must co-operate with other educational institutions while section 15 deals with the advisory functions. In regard to the advisory services we have a situation where the Minister now proposes, through this creature of his, to absorb the advisory services at present administered by county committees of agriculture. That will be done under section 15 which states:
Without prejudice to the generality of section 11, the Authority shall, in relation to agricultural advice and instruction, have such functions as, immediately before the commencement of this section, were exercised or performed or were capable of being exercised or performed by committees of agriculture or by the Minister....
It is proposed that the authority take over the functions of the committees of agriculture in regard to advisory services. I intend to return to the other take-over aspect later. Section 16 deals with the question of liaison with other agencies.
Section 17 involves the research functions and under subsection (1) the authority is given the function to deal with agricultural research and basic veterinary research. Subsection (2) deals with the whole series of powers the authority may exercise in conjunction with the carrying out of this function in regard to agricultural and veterinary research. The various provisions set out in subsection (2) are excellent.
Subsection (3) states:
In case of doubt as to whether any activity in relation to veterinary research is or is not proper to the Authority, the decision of the Minister shall be final.
That, in fact, effectively brings this body totally under the control of the Minister as far as that major area of research is concerned. There is nothing so blunt or bureaucratic as that simple statement in subsection (3). A whole series of admirable functions are set out under subsection (2) but subsection (3) states:
In case of doubt as to whether any activity in relation to veterinary research is or is not proper to the Authority, the decision of the Minister shall be final.
That means that the Minister can direct the type of veterinary research to be carried out by this body. Instead of an agricultural institute functioning as it is at present through the various centres involved in very advanced and progressive veterinary investigation and research, under this new creature of the Minister his decision, the Minister's, shall be final. That will be a bureaucratic or administration decision. The Minister will direct that a particular line of veterinary research shall be stopped if he so wishes. The Minister can direct the new body not to spend money on a particular programme of veterinary research and his decision is final. This can happen like that in the way the Minister has chopped the staff in the course of bringing in this legislation. This can be administered at the drop of a hat by the bureaucracy at any stage in regard to any programme of veterinary research in which this new body would be engaged. The wording could not be clearer; the decision of the Minister shall be final. That is the end of that story as far as this body is concerned.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce is brought into this with the Minister in subsection (6):
If there is disagreement as to whether any activity in relation to research is proper to the Authority or the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards the matter shall be determined by the Minister and the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
The two branches of bureaucracy are brought into it in that subsection to decide whether or not there is an impingement by this new Institute on the work of another Institute, the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. That is a totally wrong sort of impingement because it is obvious that in the area of research one cannot contain research in a single channel. The work of any genuine research institute, such as the Agricultural Institute, will bear on other areas such as those administered by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. The Devlin Report cannot be applied to institutes of this kind. That report deals with Departments of State and administrative efficiency. One cannot impose administrative efficiency of that kind on an institution of this kind or the work involved in research and development assigned to an institute like this.
Under section 19 there is the assignment of specific activities and the Minister tells them specifically what to do under this section:
The Authority may, on such terms and conditions as the Minister may with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, approve, arrange for the performance of any activity in relation to any of its functions by the Minister or by another agency.
Under subsection (2):
(2) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, prepare a list of activities of the Authority which may at the request of the Authority, be performed by the Minister or by another agency....
We have the Minister coming in again on the assignment of specific activities under that section.
Section 20 which relates to the assignment of additional functions states:
The Minister may, subject to the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, on such terms and conditions as he may determine, by order assign to the Authority such of his functions as he may think fit in relation to Council Directive...
The Minister for Agriculture, and the Minister for the Public Service, may assign functions on their terms to the authority. Section 26 sets out the composition of the board of the Authority and deals with the appointments by the Minister and the Minister for Education. There is complete control by the Ministers in regard to appointments and nominations, apart from the members representative of agricultural and rural organisations, but the Minister, and the Minister for Education, are in on the actual appointments.
Section 27 deals with the chairman and his conditions, again subject to consent of the Minister for the Public Service. Section 30 deals with the powers and duties of the board. That section states that the board shall—
(a) exercise general supervision over the work of the Authority and be responsible for the attainment of the objectives of the Authority and the completion and implementation of such educational, advisory and research programmes as may, in accordance with section 32, he adopted with the approval of the Minister,
The board, under section 30, must:
(f) afford free access, at all reasonable times, to its lands and premises to any duly authorised officer of the Minister, give him such information as he may reasonably require for the satisfactory discharge of his duties in relation to the finances of the Authority and allow him to examine such documents and records as he may reasonably consider necessary for that purpose.
The Minister's authorised officer must be given free access to go in and generally move around the institute. Section 31 deals with the director of the authority, the key man, the sort of man it is hoped will be able to do a job similar to the magnificent job done by Dr. Tom Walsh over the years as Director General. This director will be chief officer of the authority, but under subsection (3).
The first Director shall be appointed by the Minister....
There is no such thing as consultation procedure or examination procedure or other educational, university, research or farming organisations being brought into it. The first director shall be appointed by the Minister, and that is that. Everything will be determined by the Minister in regard to terms and conditions. Subsections (3) (4) and (5) all relate to the director to be appointed by the Minister. That is the final chop off in relation to the independent, autonomous work that has been done by Dr. Tom Walsh and his excellent staff in the Agricultural Institute over the years. From now on this man will be appointed by the Minister and his Department. The institute is suitably coralled in its early years by section 31 (3). It is not just for the early years that the coralling will be effective because subsection (6) states:
Every Director, other than the first Director, shall, subject to the approval of the Minister, be appointed by the Board.
The first director will be appointed directly by the Minister without consultation. There will be no advice or anything of that kind. Every subsequent director of this new institute, replacing a fine institution, can only be appointed with the approval of the Minister. That is some board. If ever a board was appointed to be merely a creature of the bureaucracy this board is one. This body is expected to emulate the magnificent work—"the striking advances", to quote the Minister's own White Paper, already made by the Agricultural Institute. This new organisation is now expected to emulate this and while, at the same time, is being hogtied and spancelled to the bureaucracy of the Department of Agriculture in regard to the appointment of the first director and the appointment of each subsequent director.
There will not be much imagination or investigation into research or development for the benefit of Irish farming if we are going to translate some administrative person who is in a cul-de-sac in the Department of Agriculture, put him in charge of the Agricultural Institute and tell him to get on with the job. “This is what has to be done and here is your budget.” That is not what research or development is about nor is it looking into the problems of Irish agriculture. That is transferring the dead hand of bureaucracy into an autonomous independent institution that should be doing work for Irish agriculture. Section 31 effectively hogties the director for years.
Section 32 deals with the annual programme of activities. We are now bringing them totally within the civil service maw in that normally a research body has a number of years in which to prepare programmes and work them out on a planned basis, the only way research can be done. But in respect of each financial year, under section 32, the board shall prepare a programme in such form as the Minister may require of the projected activities of the authority in that year. We are bringing the major research institute here into our major industry, agriculture, and that is what it should always be called, an industry. We are bringing this institute into the sort of situation that would obtain in regard to running the gate to the Minister's office, or something like that. The section states that the board shall prepare, in respect of each financial year, a programme, in such form as the Minister may require, of the projected activities of the authority in that year. What do the board do? The board produce for some principal officer in the Department of Agriculture for the next year, as required by the Minister, the activities for the coming year. The section continues:
The programme as adopted by the Board shall be submitted to the Minister for his approval. The Minister may, in conveying approval, indicate such further amendments of the programme as he considers necessary.
The board are given some independence, however, because they may:
with the approval of the Minister, make such alterations in the programme as it subsequently considers necessary.
The board have got this independence that they may, with the approval of the Minister, make such alterations as they consider necessary. After submitting the programme to the Minister for his approval they may then, with his approval, prepare further amendments. This is gobbledegook of the first order and bureaucracy gone mad. This has been ill-considered by the democratic representative of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Minister in charge of agriculture has allowed a totally bureaucratic piece of legislation to be imposed on him to the detriment of Irish agriculture, education and research.
The Minister, who cannot get out of any part of the Bill, is referred to in subsection (4), which states:
The Minister may fix a date on or before which the programme in respect of the succeeding year must be submitted to him.
The Minister is referred to in every subsection of section 32 in relation to the preparation not just of a programme of research but of an annual programme of activities of what is supposed to be a major research institute.
Even on the question of staff, dealt with in section 34 the Minister comes in in respect of remuneration and allowances, with the concurrence of the Minister for the Public Service. In regard to staff schemes, under section 34, similarly the Minister, and the Minister for the Public Service, must approve of them. The same thing applies to superannuation also.
Committees of agriculture are referred to in section 36. We have a situation in which, effectively, the committees of agriculture are being subsumed in this situation. Along with the Minister putting his paw into the whole area of research and obliterating An Foras Talúntais as it now stands and effectively as I have outlined taking over research, now the other paw is going into the advisory services and eliminating the committees of agriculture, democratically established institutions of our country, from the scene as well. Of course they will always be there and will go through procedures and have them elected and so on. There is no interference with that, but they will be mere lillies in the pond to be gazed at without any power because the real power is taken from them by section 36 (4) of this Bill. I do not know what they are going to call the new body although I believe it is some disastrous name, NAAERA but it will subsume and take over the committees of agriculture. The Act of 1931, as amended under section 37, and various sections subsequent to that, effectively copperfastens and buttons down the committees of agriculture to be nothing more than fronts in which the people, and in particular the ordinary decent elected representatives, are gulled into the notion that they are on committees of agriculture with some power when, in fact, they have no power.
It would be more honest to have eliminated them altogether, because the Minister has effectively truncated and emasculated them and left them with no power. They will have their meetings in the county town, have a few drinks, and go home, but they will have no power and the Minister knows that as well as I do. The Minister is dishonestly pretending to have regard for local democracy and local members of county committees. It is a rather futile arrangement for these people to waste their day travelling to the county town to meet and have no power of appointment, or control, or direction in regard to the advisory service. They have been effectively emasculated by the Bill.
This is a two-pronged attack by the bureaucracy. It is an attack by the Department of Agriculture to take over the independant autonomous areas of research which were the purview of An Foras Talúntais heretofore and also an attack by them on local democracy to emasculate and truncate the powers of county committees of agriculture. At two levels the bureaucrats have effectively moved and incorporated the two-pronged attack into one Bill here before this House.