Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 May 1977

Vol. 86 No. 9

National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority Bill, 1976: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The re-organisation of the agricultural advisory service was one of the matters awaiting resolution when I assumed office as Minister for Agriculture in 1973. It had been the subject of debate in agricultural circles for a very considerable time. The solutions put forward were almost as numerous and diverse as their proponents, but if there was any common factor among the many suggestions submitted it was that the advisory service needed to be re-organised.

It seemed to me that if any progress were to be made in this direction, it was high time to conclude the debate and come to a decision. Having carefully considered the many opinions put forward and my responsibility as Minister to the Government, to the Oireachtas, to farmers as well as to the community as a whole, I lost no time in putting my proposals before the Government, who publicly endorsed my views in the form of a White Paper which was laid before this House in April 1975. The measure now before you is intended to give legislative effect to Government policy as outlined in that document.

The explanatory memorandum circulated to Senators gives particulars of the provisions of the Bill as introduced in the Dáil. As you will observe, the measure now before you, following discussions in the Dáil and representations from other relevant quarters, includes a number of amendments and, accordingly, the text of the Bill as it now stands differs at a relatively small number of points from that as originally introduced. I shall deal with these in detail in the course of my speech. A close examination of every section of the Bill is scarcely necessary at this stage. It should be sufficient merely to concern myself with the more important proposals.

During the passage of the Bill through the Dáil considerable exception was taken, both in the Dáil itself and elsewhere, to the proposal that the agricultural research services should be amalgamated with the advisory and educational services. Not only was it alleged that the proposals in the Bill, if implemented, would lead to undue interference in the day to day activities of the research service, but that—and this contention, in my view, was wholly dishonest—the research services would completely disappear.

Far from this being the case, the position is that the Bill proposes to extend the scope of these services by giving the authority additional functions in relation to veterinary research and plant breeding. There is no intention to impede in any way the discretion of research officers in carrying out their duties, nor can any such intention be read into the Bill. The initiation of any programme in relation to research, education or advice will rest with a board among whose members agricultural interests will predominate.

The authority will be a very large organisation requiring large sums annually to finance them. Most of this money will come from the Exchequer and it can scarcely be argued that, as the immediate custodian of the public interest in this connection, the Minister for Agriculture should not be concerned in the setting of priorities not only in relation to the research function but in relation to the advisory and education functions which also come within the province of the new organisation, and it is only in relation to these priorities that the Minister will have any function. The board of the authority will bring their programme each year to the Minister. Naturally, the Minister will discuss the programme with the board and, having reached agreement with him, they will discuss what is possible to do and having received the necessary finance, the board will be completely free in carrying out the agreed programme.

As to the contention that research should be entirely excluded from the authority's functions, it must be understood that much of the work carried out at present by the staff of the Agricultural Institute is associated with that of the advisory service and it is to the advantage of both that they should be in the same organisation. A similar arrangement exists in several other countries for this very good reason.

I am aware, that the Institute are somewhat dissatisfied with the slow uptake of new technology on Irish farms and are considering the adoption of a programme to correct this association with the advisory service. It is quite obvious, therefore, that both services should be in the one organisation.

Differences of opinion emerged in the course of the debate in the Dáil as to the proportion of elected representatives on committees of agriculture. The original proposal was that each committee should be composed equally of elected and non-elected members. In deference to the views put forward since the introduction of the Bill in Dáil Éireann, an amendment has been inserted in the measure to provide that rural organisations will have the right to nominate 40 per cent of the members, the balance, at the discretion of the county council concerned, to be elected members. This amendment is, in my opinion, a fair compromise and will result in better committees while retaining for the elected members a reasonable majority.

Sections 33, 34 and 69 have been amended to meet objections raised both in the Dáil and by staff representatives. I want to say in relation to section 34 that a staff scheme is essential if the authority are to have an integrated staff, and such a scheme can be introduced only after full consultation with the staff. The amendment to section 69 provides that the person appointed to hear complaints from transferred staff will be agreed by the Minister and the person making the complaint. The procedure set out in this section gives any aggrieved person access to the widest possible appeals machinery.

With regard to transferred staff, I wish to emphasise what I said during the Committee Stage in the Dáil that I could not give a guarantee that nobody at any time in the future will be changed from his present position to another. I also said that I would be astonished if the new board or administration would want to kick everyone around from one part of the country to another. It is my hope that should any difficulties arise it will be possible, assuming a modicum of good will, to have these resolved by discussion between the authority and staff representatives.

I would visualise also that the authority will adopt measures on the lines of those in operation in the civil service to mitigate the expense of moving house in the case of staff members whose headquarters may have to be transferred. For my part, I would heartily endorse such an initiative.

The existing advisory, education and research services have the common objective of making the maximum contribution to the welfare of the farming community and, therefore, it is necessary to group them together in one unit and to provide a common direction to ensure the necessary coordination and co-operation between them. The existing network of agricultural colleges, research stations and farm training centres will have the greatest possible influence on farming in the surrounding areas. Training courses at educational institutions will provide young farmers with the knowledge and skills which clearly already exist. The advisory service will continue to keep the knowledge of practising farmers up to date and the task of the research arm will be to generate new knowledge as well as to provide answers to problems arising within the industry.

These are the aims and objectives of the measure now before you. I am satisfied that the Bill if enacted provides the best means of achieving these goals and I am confident that the enthusiastic support and co-operation from all concerned will ensure that the legislation now proposed will greatly benefit farmers and the agricultural industry as a whole.

I commend the Bill to the House.

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.

The Senator should not attempt to suggest that the Minister is not completely responsible for the contents of the Bill.

Of course, the Minister is.

On the advice of his Department.

We all know that. Let us not have any more fictions introduced into the debate; I am talking about reality. The purpose of having a debate in Houses like this is to have a degree of reality in the debate. The reality of the matter is that this is an intrusion by the bureaucracy of the Department of Agriculture into an independent research and development institution known as An Foras Talúntais at one level. It is an incursion by the same Department and its bureaucrats into the committees of agriculture at another level. That is what this Bill is about. I hope the language is not too plain. It is the purpose of people contributing to democratic debate to make the legislation under discussion plain so that people understand what is involved. We are here to explain the real meaning behind measures of this kind. In relation to the financial aspects the Minister has total control. Section 44 provides:

(1) The Board shall prepare, in respect of each financial year, an estimate in such form as the Minister may require of—

(a) the moneys required to meet the expenses of the Authority.

And subsection (3) of section 44 provides:

The estimate when adopted by the Board shall be submitted to the Minister for his approval.

Subsection (4) states:

The Minister, in conveying his approval, shall indicate such (if any) amendments of the estimate as he considers necessary.

When the estimate is submitted to the Minister, he can tell them to cut certain parts and can say what he considers to be necessary. Why have the board at all, weak creature that it will be? Why not let it die entirely? Section 10 is the best liquidation section I have ever seen in a Bill—"the institute is hereby dissolved". That may as well be the Bill. It might have been better to leave it at that and bring in a one-section Bill—"The Institute is hereby dissolved." We would not have been put through all the pain of debating legislation to set up a new authority which will be entirely the creature of the Minister. If the institute is hereby dissolved we can debate that issue and let the Minister and the Department take it over altogether. We could have a two-section Bill—the Institute is hereby dissolved; the county committees of agriculture are hereby dissolved. That is really the purpose of this legislation.

I am sorry for boring the House but I had to deal with the aspect of finance because, basically, this is where the real power lies. Under subsection (4) of section 44 the Minister, in conveying his approval, will indicate what he wants chopped. Then the Board get a little bit of independence —they may:

with the consent of the Minister, incure expenditure that—

(a) is not provided for in the estimate as originally approved by the Minister but is subsequently considered necessary, or

(b) exceed the total net expenditure originally approved by the Minister, if such excess is subsequently considered necessary.

They can provide for something only if it is considered necessary by the Minister at a later stage.

Section 45 deals with the annual programmes and in section 46 the Minister fixes the date on which the estimate is to be submitted to him. Section 47 deals with the county committees, and then we go on to the State endowment of the authority. The Minister is, of course, involved here and he is also involved in section 49 in regard to expenses. He and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, are involved in section 50 in regard to power to borrow. The authority may borrow only with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance. Their audits and accounts must be kept in such form as the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance agree. The reality is that there is total financial control. There are certain consequential and transitional functions later on which I do not propose to go into because the same kind of intrusion continues in the detail of various other procedures.

It is very sad that we should be debating a matter of this kind. I was in this House when the Agricultural (An Foras Talúntais) Bill was introduced by Éamon de Valera in 1958. It was a very high level debate. There was general agreement with the Bill on all sides. Deputy Dillon supported it in the other House. I will be referring to excerpts from it at a later stage. The whole tenor of the debate concerned the importance of setting up this institute on an independent basis. The independence and autonomy of An Foras Talúntais was the most emphasised point when the legislation setting up the now to be dissolved institute was debated in the Dáil and Seanad. It was brought in by the late Mr. de Valera in the Dáil and supported by Deputy Dillon——

Deputy Aiken was the Acting Minister for Agriculture. I am just reading his speech. It is fascinating. He said everything that Senator Lenihan is now saying.

Deputy Aiken was in the Dáil. Seán Moylan who was Minister for Agriculture had died and Deputy Aiken handled it in the Dáil. Deputy de Valera handled it in the Seanad and Deputy Dillon spoke on it in the Dáil and I spoke on it here in the Seanad. There was total agreement on that Bill on the basis that it would achieve what is set out here in the Minister's White Paper. It would achieve striking advances in regard to Irish agriculture. One of the major factors in the progress of Irish agriculture over the past 20 years has been the striking contribution made by this institute by way of the research and investigation, which was done not just on a national but on an international plane; the co-ordination of information and research with all the other leading agricultural countries throughout the world; the bringing in of experts and specialists from New Zealand, Holland and Denmark and the exchange of our people with their institutes throughout the world. The gathering of this knowledge was not inhibited in any way by bureaucratic or civil service interference. When genuine results had been achieved and definite opinions reached, the information was passed on to the Department of Agriculture, the county committees and the farmers throughout the country.

I would like to inquire about who is going to look after farmers' education in the future. The universities have shown no great inclination to invest in this area. They have neglected the whole area of the professional training and education of farmers. In the future the institute, if it remained as it was, could have achieved enormous results in this area. I am told that they had programmes of work in this direction. This whole area has been grievously neglected over the years.

There are many areas in Irish agriculture which need to be investigated. It is fundamentally important that we should have a thriving agriculture backed up by the most expert research and specialists with top-class advice and information, with top-class training and education for farmers and teachers in agriculture and for the whole processing side of agriculture as well as the industrial. To give the Minister credit, he wants that to be achieved as well. But my point is that it cannot be achieved by a body that is hogtied in every section of this Bill to the bureaucracy and the administration; a body that has to submit every project for approval before embarking on it; a body whose programme of activities has to be subjected to the approval of the Minister and his Department; a body who cannot move outside an annual preparation of financial investments and preparation of projects. That is a body which is replacing one that had this relative independence in regard to finance, in regard to its research and development projects and its administration. We are going backwards instead of forward.

The sensible thing to do is to improve the facilities available to An Foras Talúntais instead of embarking on a slow process of strangulation. This is what the Minister's Department have been trying to do to the Agricultural Institute since it was established. The fact that a magnificent man emerged in the leadership of An Foras Talúntais is no reason for any politics of envy in the Department of Agriculture vis-a-vis that institute's activities or that man's capabilities and achievements.

The attempted strangulation over a long period of years has borne fruition in a Bill designed to kill any imagination, any progressive development and any real forward thinking in regard to the research and development that is so essential for Irish agriculture of the future. The Department of Agriculture and Finance between them have been trying for some years to do this and we would not allow it, but they have now succeeded in the form of a Bill which is nearly an Act of Parliament. That is one Bill or Act which will not last long if there is a change of Government.

This time the Minister has allowed himself to be subsumed by departmental thinking, and not just in the Department of Agriculture. I know the institute has been a target of the Department of Finance for several years now and this was resisted years ago by a Government who knew how to resist these people. If the Department of Finance and the Department of Agriculture between them achieve the final strangulation of a worth-while experiment that has been very fruitful as far as Ireland is concerned over the past 20 years, then I regard it as a very sad thing that we should be present at the demise of an institute of which this country can certainly be proud. To see its demise being deplored by the great majority of people employed in it is certainly a very sad aspect of public and personnel relations between the Minister and his Department and these employees. Some of the foremost experts in the world in regard to Irish agriculture put their names to that. These people are experts on agricultural education and research. Their action at this stage cannot be anything but a reflection of the sort of attitude of mind that exists vis-a-vis the administration and any independent body that wants to show its worth and mettle in this country. Independence and autonomy are essential for a body of this kind. It is certainly very sad that, associated with the demise of this body, we see disillusionment on the part of the staff and we see a new body being established that is nothing more than a creature of the Minister. It will be hogtied to the Department of Agriculture regarding financial development and investment aspects and in regard to funds and will be subject to administrative rather than research criteria as far as its work in the future is concerned.

We will certainly oppose this at every stage. We put down a number of amendments. Hopefully we will go through the parliamentary process here and if the electoral process is fruitful we will do what requires to be done with this Bill after the election.

Having listened to Senator Lenihan, one would think from his contribution that the Minister for Agriculture should have no function as far as agricultural production is concerned and that the Agricultural Institute never approached the Department of Agriculture and never put forward and discussed a programme with the people in the Department of Agriculture before this Bill was introduced. Of course they did. Of course the Minister for Agriculture had a say, and so had the Minister for Finance, before the introduction of this Bill. When money was being allocated, naturally the Minister for Finance had to be consulted. Let us forget the argument that this is new. It is not new. The heart of this Bill is good. All that is necessary is in this Bill. It is necessary that production will be developed. When we look back at the great development in agriculture over the last 20 years, we must admit that it could have been better. We would like to see a greater development in agriculture from now on. This board will have an important function in this. All farming organisations and the people involved in production and the sale of agricultural products will be represented on this board and will have a vital say in what is necessary for agricultural production in Ireland.

I think if we look at the whole field of agricultural development over the past few years—I am involved in one section of it myself—we can see that there must be over one million acres land in Ireland that is producing almost nothing. If that is the case, then something must be done about it and some organisation must be set up to examine what has gone wrong and what is necessary in future. I think this Bill will do that.

Research is necessary but unless the results of research go down to the farmer level, then it is no good. There is no point in writing books about research if the farmer has not the opportunity or is not educated enough to read and assimilate the results of that research. This new board will be a very important section of the Agricultural Institute. We also look at animal production in Ireland. Looking back over a number of years we can see that the annual produce from the cow has not improved very much. The yield per cow in the west of Ireland is only 450 gallons. Even in the Golden Vale and the Mitchelstown area the annual yield per cow is only 600 gallons. Nobody can say that is a good yield for cows. We must examine the situation and say why that is so. Research is necessary but the results of that research must follow down the line and the advisory people must go out and advise the farmers. Out of research comes knowledge and that knowledge must be disseminated not just by publishing the findings in documentation form, but by word of mouth in the language that the ordinary farmer of Ireland will understand. That is the important thing. It is obvious that the ordinary Irish farmer must not have understood in full the findings of that research because the development of agriculture in Ireland is at a very low ebb.

I am glad that education is included in the Bill. Education is vitally necessary because without education people will not be able to assimilate knowledge.

The board should be comprised of representatives from advisory and research organisations, from farming organisations and from processing bodies, as well as marketing and consumer organisations. The agricultural sector will benefit by having such representations on the board, as will people in other sectors of the community.

Let us consider the value of one acre's produce. Given one cow per acre, yielding 600 gallons at 50p a gallon, we are talking of something in the region of £300 per acre. This figure would be only £200 per acre in the west of Ireland. Therefore, we must get that 1,000,000 acres in full production so that it will benefit the country in general. It is accepted by everyone that we do not have full development in agriculture. Why is that so? It is because the organisations which I mentioned were not represented on the board so that all available information could be passed on to the ordinary Irish farmer. I hope there will be representatives on the board of the groups I have already mentioned. The consumer has a contribution to make, too, because what the consumer wants the consumer will get.

The heart of the Bill is definitely good. There must be some type of amalgamation of those engaged in research and advisory work and education. There is so much work to be done and the need is so urgent that the Bill should be passed as quickly as possible. I consider that the officials of the Department of Agriculture, who were castigated in the Dáil and here, have done a reasonably good job. I say this because I know many of them through my work. I know the interest they take in the development of agriculture. I know that it is easy to approach them if a person wants advice. I would stand side by side with the officials whom I meet. They are doing an excellent job. When you condemn the Department of Agriculture you condemn their officials also.

Does this mean that nobody in the House can criticise a Government Department?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Butler is entitled to make his contribution.

I did not stop Senators from castigating them but the Senator is trying to prevent me from defending them.

Surely one can criticise a Government Department? We are not criticising officials individually.

I can see it hurts some people, but what I am saying is true. I want to see agricultural development taking place. My heart is in agriculture and I know that so much can be done.

People engaged in the educational sector are interested in this Bill because they have a vital part to play. The people being educated will convey the necessary information through the board of this authority to the people. This Bill is essentially good. It may need an amendment or two but time will tell. We must see the board in action before we can say that this or that amendment is necessary. The agricultural colleges are to be taken over by this authority and it is necessary to do something in that field. I spent a year in the agricultural college in Ballyhaise and it was a most enlightening year. I learned from that college a love of agriculture. I feel that agricultural colleges have a vital part to play in educating Irish farmers. The young farmers are interested in attending agricultural colleges and they would be even more interested if they knew how much they would benefit from attending them. I believe that the future holds good for the young farmers and that they will receive the knowledge they require through the influence of this board. I have spoken about milk production, because this is the area I know best but all other areas of production can be developed to a great extent. It will be necessary for all the interests represented on the board to consider what should be done. I am sure those who will represent the research authority will be able to advise those who will represent the advisory service and education.

It will be important also that the advisory people and those involved in education be able to advise those in research on what they should be doing. A free flow of information is necessary, from the farmer to the board which will represent all of those sections. If such a free flow does not take place we cannot, and will not, get what our land can produce. If our land does not get what is necessary out of this board then we will all suffer, even those who have little to gain from the land. However, we all have something to gain from the land because there is a flow from agriculture into every Department. The greater the flow, the greater the benefits accruing to every Department and to our people. Let us accept that something is necessary to allow this to take place. Having accepted it, let us see what we should do about it. I believe this Bill is a step in the right direction to get all those organisations together around the table to discuss what is necessary for the development of Irish agriculture so that we may all benefit. I shall have more to say on Committee Stage.

If I were Minister for Agriculture I would try to project, to the best of my ability, an image that would be received well by farmers small and large all over the country. It is the duty of a Minister for Agriculture to fight to the last for the wellbeing of the people he represents in Government. As Minister for Agriculture he is answerable to all of our farmers.

It would be very wrong if any Member of the Oireachtas was inhibited in any way from criticising any Department of State. The Department of Agriculture should not be immune any more than any other Department. If some reference is made by a Senator on either side of the House to activities of various branches of the Department of Agriculture it should not be laid at such Senator's feet that they were being disrespectful to any of the officials who work in these departments. It would be wrong to suggest that any elected representative here would not be free to criticise these people if he felt it necessary. The Minister is here to defend them and it is his duty to defend them.

Senator Butler made reference to agricultural production here. Let me remind the Senator that the cattle population dropped drastically in the last four years. Let me also remind him and the Minister that the farming community got a very severe knock since the Minister came to office, particularly by virtue of his representation of us in the EEC. Milk processors here got away with millions of pounds while the ordinary farmers were fleeced. The Minister for Agriculture did not lift a finger to save them. On his return from Brussels recently he dangled before the electorate some great concessions he has won for farmers. Let our farmers not forget that that was the reason they have not advanced in the past couple of years. We entered into the EEC; we were on the threshold of great expansion; that was the time the Minister should have been moving ensuring, as did his Italian counterpart and others, that we got a fair crack of the whip. This Bill relates to various facets of farming and, in particular, production. We would all like to see farming advancing. It is and has been the backbone of this country.

Senator Butler referred to cattle, milk production and so on. He quoted, I think, a figure of 600 and perhaps 200 or 300 for the west. I am sure he realises that there is a vast difference in the quality of soil in different parts of the country. Surely he is aware there are 12 undeveloped counties and that the soil there is not on a par with what is to be found in the Golden Vale or around the east coast or southern parts where there is a climate more suitable to dairying. Let us remember that the people in the west have tried very hard to eke out an existence on their very small farms; they are very hard-working people. If the figures for production were compared it would be found that it was the farmers who had the greatest production. Senator Butler—being in the milk field—should be so aware. I am in total agreement with anything any Minister for Agriculture could do to advance the interests of our farmers.

Let us not forget that the Government, as far as I am aware, are trying to drive a wedge between the farmers and ordinary workers, which is bad for the nation as a whole. The farmer is an essential component in the make-up of this community. It is wrong for any Government—no matter what they think about gaining votes— to try to pretend that price increases and so on are going into the farmers' pockets. They are not. Workers are very essential; we all have friends and relations, workers, in unions; we like to see them getting on well. But remember that many of their jobs are dependent on agriculture. This Bill will, we hope, benefit agriculture and, in time, produce extra jobs for our people. It is in the field of agriculture that the greatest advance will be made because it takes up to £5,000 to put a worker into an industrial job.

An Foras Talúntais was set up in 1958 to do a specific job. They were very highly educated men in their field. Their main object was to undertake research into agriculture and subjects pertaining to it. If we now have better herds of cattle, more and healthier cattle to sell, it was that body which was responsible. The same could be said regarding the other areas of agriculture where great advances have been made in the scientific field. These men have carried out experiments over a long period. It was necessary that there be a long span between them so that they could tabulate the results of their research in an intelligent manner to be deciphered by and implemented for the benefit of farming in general. They did their job very well. They were an autonomous body. They were given a certain amount of money which as we know was backed up by the American people at that time, later helped by the ordinary taxpayers.

The benefits accruing from that experiment were of vast potential and importance as far as Irish farming was concerned. Indeed we should feel proud that our men in that institute were associated with other well-known figures in farming all over the world. We have a particular climate, soil and various other advantages. It was very important for our farmers that we should have personnel dedicated to their advancement, the improvement of techniques, output and so on and, at the same time, the retention of a fair proportion of our population on the land is of great importance.

It is sad to see an efficient body such as that being gobbled up in this new type of board the Minister is about to launch. While members of the board may be senior officers in the Department of Agriculture and are highly educated, there should have been room on the board for the ordinary man in the field. We are too fond of getting away from the man who drives a tractor, ploughs the land, reaps the harvest and milks his cattle seven days a week. It is very important that farmers, being the large body they are, holding such a key position so far as production is concerned, should have a much bigger representation on the board. Elected representatives of the county committees of agriculture should also be represented. There is nobody with the same freedom, who can criticise in as helpful a way, without ruffling the person being criticised, the public representative. These people go before the electorate to gain appointment to a committee of agriculture. It is unfortunate that the Minister did not ensure that they had at least 50 per cent representation on the board.

I am from rural Ireland. I have met people all over Ireland and, indeed, Europe, who have been at universities, people with strings of degrees longer than their names. Yet one can meet a rural man who would have more common sense, an essential ingredient for any board, who would ensure that it functions well for the benefit of the country as a whole.

For that reason I am very critical of the composition of this board, certainly very critical of the fact that An Foras Talúntais is being swallowed into it. There are to be 24 members on this board. As far as I know, every one of those members will be appointed by the Minister—I am subject to correction on that. In other words, the Minister will select the whole team himself countrywide.

The Minister is setting himself up as the be-all and end-all of all agricultural expansion and production here. He will be almighty so far as agriculture is concerned; he is the person who will save our farmers and our country by forming this wonderful board that he thinks will do all these wonderful things. As Senator Lenihan has said, in every section of the Bill, he is involved to ensure that every time the board go in or out they have to report to the Minister and say: please, sir, have I leave to leave the room? The board would appear to be one which will be hand-picked by the Minister. I am sure I will be pardoned if I suggest that the Minister already has a fair idea of whom he will appoint. Very often it may not be the best players who are picked; many players find themselves on the sideline or even among the spectators, while incompetent persons are picked because of the colour of their hair. This board will be deliberating on behalf of all our poor farmers from Inishbofin to Kerry and Cork.

Naturally one would expect that the Minister for Agriculture would know something about the necessary finances. Bearing in mind the part farmers play in our economy, the Minister might have allotted the board a certain amount of money, as was done in the case of An Foras Talúntais, and let them go ahead in their own way. There is a vast field of research to be completed if we are to advance. Our first line of advancement must be through our farms. That is the source of the raw material for by-products from milk powder to canned beef and so on. If I examine my own constituency in County Cavan I notice that most of the successful industries there, as is the case throughout the country, are based on agricultural produce. But for the small farmer who produces the milk, there would be no cheese factories, no milk powder, no tractors being bought, no new milking machines and so on and there would be thousands of people out of a job. The Government seem to be classifying these farmers as the richest sheiks in Western Europe. I always agreed with taxing rich farmers but the majority of ours are far from rich. If able, they have been paying their rates and their just share of taxes. Let us not forget that under the EEC directive, where a farmer was supposed to show that he would have an annual income of £1,800, he was unable to do it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

These remarks are not relevant to the Bill before the House.

I was merely making a reference to transitional farmers who would fall into this category. According to the Minister he is appointing a board with the sole aim of improving and advancing agriculture.

The Minister has brought the advisory services under the umbrella of this board and is abolishing the committees of agriculture. The committees of agriculture have done a fair job down the years. They are comprised of many elected representatives. Both the ICMSA and the NFA have representatives on the Cavan committee, which has been doing a fairly efficient job down the years. However, the Minister belongs to a Government the majority of whose members are city-orientated, who would not credit the committees of agriculture north or south with the ability to assist local farmers amongst whom they work and live. According to the Minister they would not have the ability to help or advise them in any way, or even to instruct the advisory services instructors on what they should do for farmers.

It seems to me that the Minister is in complete control of the advisory services and that An Foras Talúntais will be merged into these. The agricultural colleges have played a very important part. There were not sufficient of them. Neither were there sufficient scholarships offered by county councils, committees of agriculture and so on to help young farmers to enter these colleges.

In the past it was unfortunate that when people entered these colleges they took up advisory or other jobs but would not go back and work on the farms. We must remember that now we have very well educated young farmers taking over land and succeeding to farms, people who had the chance of going to a secondary or vocational school. They are a different type of farmer to those of 20 years ago. The farmer must now be well educated to cope with the many changes taking place in methods of harvesting, sowing crops, breeding stock and so on. It is important that these colleges should be extended or that more young farmers have the opportunity of doing ordinary courses, as they have been doing in my own county, under the committee of agriculture to extend their knowledge and bring them into line with modern techniques universally approved for doing such jobs.

We on this side of the House, as Senator Lenihan has said, are committed to repealing this legislation, we hope, in the very near future.

The previous two speakers have referred to agricultural production in recent years. Senator Dolan referred to lack of production and Senator Butler to the need for improvement. Figures published as late as today indicate that there has not been a sufficient improvement in production. Any improvements which have come about in monetary incomes in farming have been the result of improved prices at EEC level. Farmers seem too dependent on that as a source of improvement. Therefore, not enough thought has been given to possible increased production. Any measure that might assist must be welcomed. In an endeavour to implement such improvement in production the Minister was faced with what has been over a number of years the thorny question of the reorganisation of the agricultural advisory services.

A lot of emphasis is placed on the value of the agricultural advisory services and what they realise in increased agricultural production. This area of legislation has not been very effective, has not produced what successive Ministers wanted in this area. This type of legislation was initiated and was the subject of debate and discussion at many levels in the previous Government. At all times, when the then Minister for Agriculture tried to grasp the nettle, he let go. The present Minister at least must be given credit for having grasped it. I do not know what his reward will be. I know he is a dedicated Minister. I hope what he has envisaged emanating from this legislation will come to fruition, that the most important section of our economy, that of agriculture, will benefit from the co-ordination of all the people involved in agriculture whether it be in the advisory, educational or research fields.

There are a couple of different headings under which I have some knowledge or experience. I hope the Minister will accept my views, not as being critical of the Bill but in an endeavour to be constructive in trying to improve sections of it. I should like to have an opportunity of discussing any amendments I might suggest with him. While these amendments may not fundamentally change the purpose of the Bill they could change specific areas of it where democracy has to be seen to be justified. I should like a commitment from the Minister that he would be open to suggestions for amendment, whether they come from this side of the House or from the Opposition, and that he would not be afraid to go back to the Dáil if we had something constructive to add to the Bill.

Hear, hear.

The first section of the Bill which concerns me is that on the county committees of agriculture. The Minister himself came through this very valuable section of the community, the county councils and their elections of county committees, straight through to the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. County councils and their elected members are the people who go before the public, through the ballot box, and place before them their policies, ideologies and ask for their support. Having got that support they take on themselves the power to elect county committees of agriculture. They also have political interests. We are all politically minded. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with members of the county committees of agriculture who are nominated by the county councils having political beliefs. If they were put there for political reasons, it was because of their political and agricultural expertise.

This democracy, as it is in action at grass roots level, has played a significant part in our advisory services—in the formulation of educational programmes, the awarding of scholarships to young men for agricultural colleges, the setting up of winter farm schools, the designation of staff and people engaged in advice to farmers at field level. In recent times in meeting the challenge of the farm modernisation scheme, and all the bureaucracy that that entails from Brussels, the county committees of agriculture have not been found wanting at membership or staff level. Local democracy has been seen to be competent and active in this field. One of the main reasons county councils appoint county committees of agriculture is that they are statutory bodies and are set up with the right to strike a rate for agriculture in their county. That rate demand is made and the members are responsible, not alone to the county council but also to the public in the ballot box. This is democracy as it should function. Anything which waters down that power should be subject to scrutiny.

I welcome sincerely and thank the Minister for having made a significant amendment to this section. If we accepted it as outlined in the White Paper, paragraph 3.1, that only 50 per cent of county committees would be members of county councils, we would have handed over that power in one piece of legislation to people who have no commitment to the public, through the ballot box, for any suggestions or recommendations about the spending of money whether it be in their own industry or another industry. I am glad that at least the Minister has responded to the pleas of the General Council that it is vital we retain control, because we are responsible.

I am glad the Minister has responded to these and the General Council of Committees of Agriculture, that it is vital that we will retain control. No committee of agriculture in Ireland that I am aware of, and I speak regularly to representatives of all the county committees in Ireland, were against the principle of involvement of expertise at county committee level. No committee objected to the inclusion of these experts if they want to come into the recognised farming bodies as opposed to being nominated by themselves. The important thing is that we were open to the suggestion, and agreed to the ratio of 75:25 so that the best possible expertise and brains in the industry would be available to us.

Having the majority in a 60 per cent situation, I would like confirmation from the Minister that the county councils are still the responsible bodies for the appointment of these committees, that the nominees of the select few, as they will now be, must be elected and answer to the public. The others can select themselves and submit their names to us. At least this power should remain with us. We should appoint them and we should and can question their right to be represented. I can foresee a situation where many pseudo farming organisations could spring up overnight and demand representation at county committee level. I would be worried about a development of that nature. I would also be worried that those of us responsible for the collecting of the money would then find ourselves in a situation that we could be dictated to by people who have no such responsibility either at local or at national level. That is my interpretation of democracy.

In the 1975 White Paper at paragraph 3.3 the formation of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture is outlined and it is stated:

The Council will become a statutory body and its membership will consist of two members selected by each County Committee of Agriculture. It will have representation on the National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Board.

As it stands at present, each county committee can nominate three members. I represent a very small part of this country. It is small particularly in this field of agriculture and also in terms of numbers on county committees of agriculture. I would be concerned that my party, who have a significant part to play in agriculture not alone as workers engaged in the fields but those of us who have other knowledge and other faculties in industries allied to agriculture, would be denied the right to representation on the county committees and again on the General Council because we would be outvoted by the bigger parties and by the nominated members who are selected by the chosen few.

I am anxious that this representation would remain at three and I am also anxious that the proviso would be allowed to remain that if committees so wish they can appoint one of those three to be CAO, because there are several CAOs on the General Council of Committees of Agriculture, and I would say that the functions of the General Council are made possible by the expertise of the CAOs appointed by various committees for their expert knowledge of administration and their knowledge of stock and breeding and all the various aspects in which the General Council involve themselves.

The General Council have the right, according to the Minister, to have at least one representative on the new board. I accept that at least the Minister has quantified the representation that the General Council are entitled to—he said at least one member. I am concerned that it would be only one because I feel that one representative could not adequately reflect the views of 27 county committees of agriculture. I feel—and I would like a commitment from the Minister that he would feel this way too—that there should be something like four, that we would have a representative from each province on the General Council on the new board. That is the minimum that should be given to the General Council based on the fact that they are responsible directly to the county committees which in turn are responsible to the county councils for the striking of the rate and the collecting of money which is vital to the funding of the board. Most of the money assigned to this board would be State money and in that regard I would reserve the Minister's right to have a say and an input, and indeed the Minister for Finance also. Any Minister responsible for a Department must, if he is to play a part in this, have an input. I would accept that the Minister, because he puts up the vast majority of the funds, should have a say in this board, in the appointment of the chairman and in that kind of matter which is only natural and normal in many of these Government boards we have.

I am concerned because of our responsibility—this is the only reason we are still in being as county committees —for putting up 50 per cent of the total budget for the county committees. This is why we are required, not because there is any love for us by anybody in the Department or otherwise. We are an instrument through which money can be collected and that is why we are retained. The functions of committees are mentioned in various sections of this Bill. That is one of the functions that will be retained and because of that I am looking for adequate representation for the county committees on the General Council and for the General Council on this board.

Accepting the principle of the board and respecting democracy as I have outlined it—which I am sure the Minister having come up through the same channels himself will accept—we should not be unmindful of the concern of staff in this field. I read with interest the advertisement in today's newspapers and the signatures thereto. I agree with Senator Lenihan that they represent some of the foremost brains in research in this country and I would not likely discard what they would have to say. I welcome from the Minister a commitment in his speech to us this morning that there would be adequate and complete consultation with the staff in any matter arising as a result of the introduction of this board.

He admits that it is essential for the authorities to have an integrated staff and that such a scheme could only be introduced after full consultation with them. In addition to these experts who have signed their names to this advertisement, other unions represent many other sections of the staffs in these centres and I am pleased that the Minister has agreed that adequate staff consultation will take place. He has given this commitment to us and I respect him for it because without the co-operation of the full staff we will not get the improvement that he has hoped would be forthcoming in the drafting of this Bill. Representation of staff on the board is important because the Houses of the Oireachtas recently initiated legislation regarding industrial democracy. I would like to see the principles of that industrial democracy forthcoming in the relevant sections of this Bill to ensure that there is adequate representation of the staff on this board. It is a function that must have recourse to expertise and the real experts in this field are those engaged in the research. I am not speaking entirely of agricultural research. I am also concerned with veterinary research. There is a term used in the very first section of the Bill, "basic veterinary research".

I am concerned about the interpretation of the words "basic veterinary research". In my opinion, and indeed the opinion of many other people the term "basic veterinary research" is negative and meaningless. It is a very restricted one, too. There is no such thing as basic veterinary research. Veterinary research is no more than a part of the wide field of biological research. By its very nature it must be termed "applied" as opposed to basic and therefore the word "basic" before "veterinary research" will have to be deleted where it occurs in the Bill. Present veterinary research is tied up with biology and involves diagnosis, investigation, consultancy, applied research and basic research. That is veterinary research.

The veterinary profession man the advisory services which service the farming community with tremendous knowledge and expertise throughout the county through their regional veterinary laboratories. These laboratories are 100 per cent available to give advice on animal disease and control. In the two areas of compulsory disease eradication like tuberculosis and brucellosis if veterinary research is to be really effective it should be brought within the scope of the Bill and there should be provision in the Bill for the fullest possible co-operation between the veterinary research people and the other research institutions, and that veterinary research should not preclude the examination of animals at flock level or farm level as opposed to just examining one animal biologically in a laboratory. There should be wide scope available to the people involved in veterinary research and I hope the Minister would agree that they should be brought within the ambit of the Bill so that there will not be duplication but there will be complete integration of the services.

There are many other sections in the Bill which have created controversy in various quarters and I do not intend to go into them. Research is so important that one of the first functions of the board would be to appoint a co-director in charge of research.

I will deal briefly with the question of the autonomy of the institute, which has been referred to. For all intents and purposes, the Bill abolishes the institute. For me, as a democrat, autonomy is a word I am not very happy about because it confers on people certain rights without any recourse to them available to those to whom they are responsible. I am concerned about the Civil Service Appointments Commission, in relation to agriculture specifically, because they have such autonomy that county committees are precluded from making recommendations to them in regard to the appointment of staff who they know from experience have provided expertise at local level and who have been accepted by the community, as is proved in the case of the agricultural instructors who have become completely integrated in the community. However, if a county committee made a recommendation to the Civil Service Commission, they might feel that a certain temporary agricultural adviser was not competent to be permanent in Tipperary but would be competent to be permanent in Wicklow where he might not fit in at all because the people there might have programmes of special local application.

So, autonomy for me can be quite a dangerous word. When you are dealing with an ongoing process, like research, whether it be of the agricultural institute or veterinary research or otherwise, there must of necessity be a certain amount of freedom for those involved irrespective of the financial implications. Persons in this field could be on the threshold of a major breakthrough and if because they did not have autonomy research had to stop pending permission, tremendous damage would be done.

I know that this is not what the Minister has in mind. I realise that once the programme is set out the board will work to a programme, but I would like to have it in the legislation and have it as clearcut as possible so that the people working in these conditions and in this field would feel secure in carrying out worth-while research into animal husbandry, crop husbandry, veterinary research, disease control and eradication. Research should be assisted, and the board should be charged with the responsibility of ensuring that there is no dead hand laid on research. If I could get that assurance, the word "autonomy" would not worry me. Autonomy does not necessarily remove the anatomy or the spirit and the soul of research provided the Minister is progressive and helpful and that sufficient funds are made available by the Minister for Finance.

This is where we all have a challenge and responsibility. This is where the farming bodies have responsibility; this is where the taxpayers have responsibility. We must be prepared to provide sufficient funds, and I say this particularly to the farming bodies who question every move that is made to bring their representatives into the tax net—all we are asking for is an increased flow into the Exchequer to make sure that sufficient funds are available.

Of course the Minister will say: "If you give me enough money I will ensure that there is enough money for research". This is legitimate. I have no objection to his having control of the board because he as Minister is responsible for not alone the expenditure of money in his Department but the formulation of policy. His policy in the past four years in Government and indeed the continuation of the policies since we entered Europe should not be lightly knocked by people, whether they be consumers or otherwise. Consumers are dependent on the agricultural section and the agricultural section are dependent on the consumers. The vast majority of our agricultural produce is exported, to the EEC nations and to Britain. It is imperative that the producer get adequate compensation and in respect of any changes in the value of money at international level that creates devaluation of the green £, it is only right that the farmers would get their fair share of what is coming to them.

We as a Government must ensure that we are progressive enough not to rule out food subsidies, particularly for the poorer sections of the community. I do not accept what Senator Dolan said that this Government are driving a wedge between one section and the other. We are not. Any wedges that are there are being conjured up by one section agitating that the Minister give more and another that the Minister give less. The Minister has done an excellent job in this field. The recent announcement of food subsidies satisfied me that the section that deserves will benefit, and that the farming community grow the crops and produce the milk and the meal will be adequately compensated. The section of the community who have benefited should contribute to the Exchequer to ensure that the Ministers responsible have adequate finance available so that the board will not fail for want of finance. If these principles are acknowleged by the Minister I will welcome and compliment him on his courage in this field.

The matter of representation got very little debate in the other House. Whether Deputies are not as involved as Senators in county councils and other local bodies I do not know, but the Dáil debate was disappointing apart from the Opposition spokesman, the Minister and one or two others. I should like the Minister to consider the amendments I have suggested which are fundamental to democracy and to the principles I have expounded.

This Bill is being introduced at a time when there appears to be no public demand for it. I cannot understand the reason for the introduction of a Bill which will have such far-reaching effects on agriculture, our greatest national industry. The Bill proposes to abolish an institute that have served this country remarkably well. An Foras Talúntais enjoyed the confidence of the farming community because of their selectiveness and independence. I am not convinced that this new body will have the same degree of independence. It took some time for the agricultural advisory services to realise the importance of An Foras Talúntais but the changes that have taken place in agriculture in recent years have brought home very forcibly to those engaged in agriculture the importance of that body. It is with a degree of sadness that I speak of the steps being taken by the Minister and the Government to abolish that institute. Only today we saw an advertisement by the staffs involved directly in the institute expressing dissatisfaction with the proposals which the Bill incorporates. I would appeal to the Minister for a change of heart. Ministers are not prone to making changes as a result of pressure from staff organisations and so on, but because of the importance of agriculture to the Irish economy a re-think and a re-look at this legislation is necessary.

What additional benefits can this Bill bestow on the agricultural community? Agriculture is going through a new era of excitement, expectancy and revolution. The way all those engaged in agriculture have responded to the challenge which has confronted them is a tribute to them. The challenge which has arisen in our main export industries, the new markets and outlets which membership of the EEC has given.

In spite of farmers' willingness to avail of all the services at their disposal, it is unfortunate that we have not had any marked increase in the volume of agricultural production. It is to be regretted that cattle numbers have declined in recent years and that there is no immediate signs of any upsurge in our cattle population because of the disastrous situation in which Irish agriculture found itself in 1964.

What is needed is a body that will go all the way towards inducing our farmers to increase production by the implementation of the most modern and up-to-date agricultural techniques available. A revolution has taken place in that field in recent times. In the old days a farmer talked about his family. He decided he would send Johnny to school, he would send Mary to college and he would keep Paddy at home. He felt that all Paddy required in those days were brawn and muscle. Great changes have taken place since then. The farmer of today is highly educated. He is an intellectual, a scientist, a theorist and he has the ability to operate all the new mechanical devices which have come the way of agriculture in recent times. There is a need to have a board, an authority or an institution that will be able to assist those younger farmers to secure the maximum income through the amount of ability, brains and skill that they have put into the development of Irish agriculture.

It is important that greater emphasis be placed on the role of the small farmer. Something must be done through research to ensure that pig production is restored to its rightful place in Irish agriculture in the farmyards of small farmers. Pig production is becoming a highly competitive enterprise with the result that many small farmers are not in a position to market or farm properly because of the changed situation. What is needed is a body with the necessary drive and incentive to encourage the small farmer to go into intensive methods of production to ensure that he will have a future in Irish agriculture.

There is nothing in this Bill to encourage an increase in cattle or sheep numbers or in pig production. Farming today is a highly sophisticated business, one that can no longer be looked upon as just a way of life. It is a business that is subject to stresses and strains, to upheavals in other countries and to changes in policy. Long-term planning is needed. This National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority Bill will not meet the needs of the changing situation in agriculture. We need to improve the existing arrangements, the arrangements whereby we have a county committee of agriculture composed of a CAO, his staff, and a body who in most cases are the elected representatives of the people. They went before the people at local level and secured an endorsement in the ballot box. Those people are in daily contact with the farming community and they realise the needs of that community. The needs of one area will vary a great deal from the needs of another. The requirements of the farming community in Donegal differ a great deal from those of the farming community in Westmeath, Tipperary, Cork or elsewhere. Therefore local advisory services under the auspices of county committees of agriculture should be strengthened and given new powers so as to be in a position to deal adequately with the changes that are taking place.

Many useful and worth-while schemes were introduced by county committees of agriculture and they have brought success to many areas. Therefore, it disappoints me to think that county committees of agriculture will be nothing more than talking shops without any real power of decision or authority to improve the lot of the farming community. County committees of agriculture are dedicated people. I am a member of a committee and I know that, irrespective of party political affiliation, they are dedicated people who have always expressed concern for the needs of the farming community.

Any Minister, irrespective of his party, would be well advised to seek the advice and guidance of the members of county committees of agriculture who work in close liaison with the local advisory services and the CAOs. Those people have produced the perfect combination necessary over the years to achieve the results required in agriculture, namely to improve farm incomes and the lot of the agricultural community. It is true to say that farm incomes have increased in recent years but it is also true that expenditure has kept pace and, in some cases, has outpaced the rise in farm incomes. Farmers will have to be kept advised of the changes necessary if they are to play their full role in Irish society. We must bear in mind that agriculture is our greatest industry and is responsible for our greatest share of exports, earning for us much needed and highly valued currency from abroad. Our entry into Europe has presented agriculture with a challenge which must be met because the earning of foreign currency is something which is very important for us in view of the diminishing value of sterling.

I was pleased to note that Irish agriculture has secured for itself a foothold in the European markets where foreign currency is available. However, markets are not sufficient if we have not available at all times the type of product demanded by those countries. It is in this area that education and research will play a very important part. Research is important because our farmers need to be highly educated and fully informed of all the changes that are taking place. The only way this can be done is through the local agricultural adviser, who, in turn, shares and pools his knowledge with advisers from every part of the country. We all know that from time to time our advisers hold seminars and exchange views and ideas. They must create new ideas. This is necessary if agriculture is to play the role expected from it in the European Economic Community.

Education and research must be improved and made available to those who wish to participate in agriculture. The agricultural colleges have been a great help to the younger farmers in recent years. They have enabled them to play their role in the advancement of agriculture. The night and day schools operated by the county committees of agriculture have also been worth while, and had it not been for those classes agriculture would not be in the highly sophisticated situation in which it finds itself today. Unfortunately we still have in our community those engaged in farming who are not inclined to avail of the services which are available. For reasons unknown to most of us, they feel that farming is just a way of life and what was good enough for their fathers should be good enough for them. That is a situation we must change and the only way it can be done is through the continuation of education and research and the making full use of the local agricultural officer. He can act as the public relations officer through the farming community. He can secure their confidence quicker and easier than an official in the Department of Agriculture or somebody who will be on the board envisaged by the Minister.

I am opposed to this legislation because this is not the time for a change. We are in the midst of an agricultural revolution at present and it is only now that the work of An Foras Talúntais and the agricultural advisory services is bearing fruit because of the good public relations work carried out by the advisory services under the auspices of the county committees of agriculture.

It is disappointing to discover that it will be mandatory on local authorities to give 40 per cent of the representation on those bodies to organisations who have never sought an endorsement in the ballot box. If such changes were contemplated with the vocational education committees there would be an uproar. If such changes were envisaged with the health boards there would be an uproar because the local people have confidence in public representatives, irrespective of political affiliation. They have confidence in the people they elect. He is the man first to know of the problems and the man best equipped to give advice on the changing situation or to place them in the way of seeking advice from the advisory services. Veterinary research, as mentioned by previous speakers, is very important if we are to produce top quality agricultural goods. Losses which occurred through disease and otherwise in recent years have cost our economy millions of pounds. I refer not alone to the eradication of brucellosis and the eradication of tuberculosis but to all the other diseases which affect the livestock industry from time to time. We have swine fever and hoose in livestock and all the diseases associated with the sheep industry. Those diseases can cost Irish agriculture millions of pounds and, indeed, more will have to be done to ensure that the farmer has some sort of veterinary service available other than he has at present through his veterinary officer.

There is need for some form of directive whereby a type of dispensary veterinary service could be made available to the farming community. We must bear in mind that the manufacturers of antibiotics in recent years have been pushing their products continuously and they have succeeded in encouraging farmers to avail of a wide range of drugs. I have often queried the wisdom of the widespread use of antibiotics. Has it any affect on the end-product, milk, beef, mutton, pork or whatever the case may be? Every farmer is inclined to make use of these antibiolics and I wonder if he is upsetting the balance of nature and producing an end-product which would be affected by the excess use of them.

By and large, the legislation will not serve the purpose envisaged by the Minister. He is abolishing An Foras Talúntais for the sake of creating something new. If an authority serves a useful purpose and is performing an adequate role in the agricultural sector, it should be allowed to remain and even improve. To dismantle an organisation which has served Irish agriculture and the economy is a retrograde step and it is for that reason that I am opposed to the Bill.

It is fair to say, at the end of this discussion, that comment on the whole, with a few exceptions, has been favourably disposed towards the Bill. Senator Lenihan, leading for the Opposition, could see nothing good in the Bill and was totally opposed to it. He stated that Fianna Fáil would, at the earliest opportunity, repeal the Bill if it became an Act. I stated in the Dáil that I was happy about such a situation because I felt it would be a long time before that opportunity arrived and that a great amount of good would have been done before we reached that point.

The main burden of the Opposition, from wherever it came, lay in the fact that we were abolishing the Agricultural Institute. The Opposition were relying a good deal on public comment in relation to this and quoted from an advertisement in today's paper to which 179 names are appended. I should like to inform the House that we are talking about an authority with a staff of approximately 2,500 and of that figure 179 people do not like some part of this legislation. I do not think we should be unduly upset about this because there will always be people to oppose any change whatsoever, whether it is a progressive step or otherwise. Senator Lenihan has very little support for his view, that there is no demand for this legislation. He is not supported by the vast majority of the population and he is certainly not supported by the majority of the staff being integrated into this authority. There are 179 objectors out of 2,500. The chairman of the study group of the IFA commenting on this in The Nationalist, Clonmel, on 25th March, 1977, stated:

Finally, might I add IFA requires that the bulk of expenditure made by the new Authority should be spent on direct services to farmers. The Minister must be congratulated for introducing this Bill to streamline the operation of the advisory, education and research services to farmers. With a few minor amendments this Authority will be very capable of meeting the challenges of the 80s.

That is what the IFA had to say about the Authority. They welcomed it.

There is an immense amount of confusion in the minds of the Opposition and this was also obvious in the Dáil. Senator Dolan said that the composition of county committees should remain 50 : 50. There was the same sort of confusion in the Dáil. Some, obviously, wanted changes while others did not. Certainly, the least they were prepared to accept—this was supposed to be Fianna Fáil policy in the Dáil— was 75 : 25. Therefore, at the end of the Second Reading in this House I do not know what Fianna Fáil want in relation to the composition of county committees of agriculture. There has been a good deal of discussion about the composition of them and the figure in the Bill was originally 50 : 50. I made what I considered to be a fair compromise in making it 60 : 40, giving the balance of power to the elected representatives. Senator Ferris seemed pleased that the amendment was made and felt it provides a sufficient safeguard for democracy.

I am convinced that the quality of county committees will be improved by bringing rural organisations into these committees. I was the first member of a county committee to propose that this should be done and this was carried out in County Dublin where I was a member for many years. My proposal for a change was seconded by a well known Fianna Fáil Deputy and it was unanimously decided that this was the right thing to do. I hope that, as a result of these amendments, there will be satisfaction about the composition of county committees.

To say that there was and is no demand for this legislation is ridiculous. When I assumed office I received many demands for this type of change and reorganisation in the service. I went through those volumes of demands very carefully and I felt we had to do something quickly to satisfy the people. I put my recommendations before the Government as a result of which we had a White Paper in 1975. It is fair to say that that White paper was well received and that there was practically no opposition to it. There had to be some gentle noises here and there and some criticism but, on the whole, that White Paper was welcomed. What we are doing now is implementing the recommendations in it.

A point made by Senator Ferris should be explained. He complained that we are now proposing that only two representatives of each county committee will compose the General Council, which we are making a statutory body. That is not written into the Bill. That suggestion, was meant to be a guideline and it was contained in the White Paper. With three from the 27 county committees of agriculture we would have a very unwieldy body. I am sure Senator Ferris would be the first to admit that. We are leaving it to the county committees, to the General Council as it now stands, to decide. We are leaving it to their discretion and are simply suggesting as a guideline that, if this number be reduced but still give fair representation, it might be a more effective body.

My aim in this Bill is to bring all the agencies that provide a service for agriculture together to work as a team in the interests of agricultural development and to kill the unhealthy rivalries and the suspicions they have of each other. There was considerable concern among the staff of the agricultural Institute that the findings of their research were not being accepted and implemented as quickly or as well as they expected. One of our hopes is that by bringing these services together there will be one organisation, and it will not be a question of who does what. My aim is to remove all these barriers, these lines of demarcation, so that whatever is good should be used with the greatest possible expedition. There is no other reason for bringing these agencies together. Nothing could be further from the truth than to say we are demolishing or abolishing the Agricultural Institute

That is what the Bill says.

I am legally advised that this is what the Bill had to say.

The Bill says "The Institute is hereby dissolved".

I appreciate this. I went back a second time to the legal people to ask them why this was necessary and they said this was the only way the Agricultural Institute could be integrated. It first had to be technically abolished to have it integrated into the new service. It was never part of my intention, and it is no part of this legislation, that there should be any question of diminishing or discontinuing in any way the excellent work the Agricultural Institute is performing for Irish agriculture and has been performing over the years.

Senator Lenihan said the present director of the institute was an excellent man. I agree entirely but I should like to remind him that he was appointed by the Government in exactly the same way we are proposing to appoint the new director of the new organisation. We have not changed in any way the method we propose to appoint the membership of this authority. It is an exact replica of the way appointments were made in the past under previous legislation. It is outrageous now. Fianna Fáil were outrageous in the past.

Look at the Act and the Bill side by side and one will see that they are obviously and patently different.

Of course. There was criticism of the fact that now everything would be decided by officialdom and by the bureaucrats in the Department of Agriculture. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. We are getting all these services outside the Department of Agriculture that are there already. Nobody has more respect than I have for the contribution being made by the officials in the Department of Agriculture to agricultural development today. I am glad to be able to say that Agriculture House was never as open as it is at present. None of the agencies we are talking about would agree with the criticism that they do not get the fullest possible co-operation from the Department of Agriculture and that it is not an open house. On more than one occasion recently they have admitted that this is so. Because of our membership of the EEC the Department of Agriculture are becoming a collossus and I am as anxious as anyone to get enough of this outside the Department and get agencies working on it. On this new body we have all the agencies that have been providing a service for agriculture represented in one combined authority. This is the best and most effective way it can be done.

I cannot say that there is anything we are requiring An Foras Talúntais to do now that they have not been required to do previously. I have been in on discussions year after year for the past four years with An Foras Talúntais when they presented their programme and sought money to carry it out. I discussed the programme with their director, their chairman and the Minister for Finance. The only difficulties that arose were in relation to money to pay for the operations. There was never any dispute. Questions were asked such as "Is it necessary to continue? Have you gone as far as you think? It is wise? Can you drop this? Can you start something else?" If the Minister for Agriculture is not concerned about agricultural developments and has no say whatever, and if some autonomous body makes all these decisions for him there is no need for a Minister for Agriculture, the Department or public accountability.

We must have public accountability because payment for these services in 1976 amounted to £6.9 million and £3.7 million of that was a Department grant. Education in agricultural schools cost £2.7 million and £2 million of that was a Department grant. Expenditure for An Foras Talúntais was £8.4 million, of which £5.6 million was a Department grant. To say that we should completely opt out, give complete autonomy and have no accountability for any such organisation is democracy gone mad.

I agree with Senator Ferris about this. To think that there will be any undue interference once this body is set up is simply saying that we have no confidence whatever in the membership of the new authority. The only stipulations made are that the Minister for Agriculture will have at least one appointee on the board, that the Minister for Education will have at least one and that the General Council of Committees of Agriculture at least one representative. The remainder of the board will be composed of nominees of the various rural organisations. There will be quite an amount of discussion among the existing rural organisations, the county committees and the various agencies coming into this before we make a firm decision on the exact composition of this board.

It is reasonable that we should have such discussions before we make firm decisions, because we want people on the board who will act responsibly. They will have all the decisions to make. The taxpayer will have to provide most of the money and consequently there must be accountability. If we are to have an agricultural policy, it is not unreasonable or wrong that every year the programme of work for this new authority should be looked at by the Minister for Agriculture. We need a national policy and this is one of the things that have been absent for far too long.

The Opposition are talking about the terrible things that we are doing to the county committees of agriculture. Last October Deputy James Gibbons produced a document and asked the question: What is wrong with Irish farming? I would like to quote from that. He states:

The advisory services need to be reorganised. Ideally, these should be controlled by properly run co-operatives, but since these do not yet exist, Government participation remains necessary.

That was last October. Further down he states:

Control of the advisory services by "Committees of Agriculture" has become an absurdity because most committees are made up, in part at least, of people from outside the industry. This anachronism should be ended. New county committees, elected by farmers, co-ops and farm workers might be considered as an interim measure pending the establishment of a co-op run service.

That was the policy of the Opposition as late as last October.

No, it was not policy. A discussion document is not policy.

This is it. They still have not made up their minds on that side of the House as to their agricultural policy. If the Opposition are confused, they cannot complain that I am also a bit confused as to what they are looking for. Senator Lenihan put up a very good performance in ridiculing this Bill and in criticising it in every possible way. It might be a good thing for him to have done, seeing the constituency he hopes to represent and which I represent at the moment.

Section 12 (1) of the Agriculture (An Foras Talúntais) Act, 1958 states:

For the purpose of assisting the Institute to carry out effectively its functions under the Act, there shall be paid to the Institute in every financial year, out of monies provided by the Oireachtas, a grant towards the expenses of the Institute the amount of which shall be determined by the Minister for Finance in consultation with the Minister and the Council after due consideration of any information furnished under subsection (2) of this section. Subsection (2) states:

The Council shall furnish to the Minister such information regarding its income and expenditure as he may from time to time require.

That is part of the Act on which Senator Lenihan spoke very favourably in this House at that time.

That was a global grant. There was no question of a programme of work.

He approved of that Bill but he condemned the Bill which I am now bringing in to provide an adequate overall integrated service for the agricultural industry.

Not the programme of work and the details that are required by this Bill.

I think this will do an immense amount of good for the industry.

Deputy Dillon entirely disagreed with what the Minister is saying 20 years ago. We will quote Deputy Dillon at the next Stage.

I should be very pleased to hear any quotations from Deputy Dillon.

He spoke of the importance of a global grant.

As long as the vast majority of Irish farmers are in favour of this legislation and as long as the criticism of the Bill comes from 179 out of 2,500 staff, I am perfectly happy that I am doing something that the people want done. I strongly recommend acceptance of the Bill.

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 15.

  • Blennerhassett, John.
  • Boland, John.
  • Butler, Pierce.
  • Codd, Patrick.
  • Daly, Jack.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Garrett, Jack.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Horgan, John S.
  • Kilbride, Thomas.
  • McCartin, John Joseph.
  • McHugh, Vincent.
  • Markey, Bernard.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mullen, Michael.
  • O'Brien, Andy.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Toole, Patrick.
  • Owens, Evelyn.
  • Prendergast, Micheál A.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Robinson, Mary.
  • Russell, George Edward.
  • Sanfey, James W.
  • Whyte, Liam.

Níl

  • Browne, Patrick (Fad).
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
  • Garrett, Jack.
  • Hanafin, Des.
  • Keegan, Seán.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • McGlinchey, Bernard.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • Martin, Augustine.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, William.
  • West, Timothy Trevor.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Sanfey and Harte; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Garrett.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to take Comittee Stage?

I must object to taking the next Stage now. This is a most important and fundamental Bill and we propose to put down a number of amendments. I understand independent Senators also have a number of amendments in mind. I should like to say to the Minister that this will be a long drawn out Bill.

Has the Senator any counter suggestions?

I would suggest that on account of Senators Lenihan's many commitments abroad, like myself, perhaps we could take it next Tuesday.

I am agreeable.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 10th May, 1977.
Top
Share