Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Nov 1957

Vol. 164 No. 6

Agricultural Institute Bill—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Dillon

Before embarking on the discussion of this Bill, I cannot forbear from saying a word about the lamented passing of the late Senator Moylan. His absence from our discussion here to-day is the cause of profound regret to every member of this House. He was an energetic participant in the public life of the country and a political opponent of mine throughout my whole participation in politics here, as I was of his.

I would avail myself of this opportunity of putting it on record that he was a good man, but what is so precious in the public life of the country, he was a man who held his beliefs courageously and vigorously and in holding them thus still was able to conduct pretty formidable controversies in which he was involved from time to time with courtesy and kindness which adorned his participation in public life and which contributed materially to the elevation of conduct of those who have partaken in public life and may very well serve as an example to those who follow after him.

That much being said, Sir, I have to draw the attention of the House to what the Acting Minister has already said, that this is in fact a Bill which I introduced last December, save in respect of Section 7, which is an addition. I want to agree cordially and emphatically with what the Acting Minister said in regard to the genesis of this whole institute proposal and various other schemes for the improvement of agriculture to which he referred.

Many of them would have been impossible, all of them must have been long postponed, but for the princely generosity of the Government of the U.S.A., who made the funds available and thus made it possible for us to undertake these enterprises now.

In the special context of the Agricultural Institute, I should like to recall with emphasis a name mentioned by the Acting Minister also, that is, Mr. Joseph Carrigan, who came here as the first representative of the Economic Mission to Ireland under the Marshall Plan. I was then Minister for Agriculture and I should like to place it on record how deeply indebted this country is to Mr. Joseph Carrigan, how invaluable a friend he was of every agricultural interest in Ireland and with what delicate courtesy and skill he discharged the important functions of the mission entrusted to him by the Government of the United States.

I should like to recall the fact that he attained in this country, by the force of his personality and by the delicate tact with which he discharged his mission, the position that we looked upon him as one of our own. When I say that, I do not mean that we looked upon him as one who gave approval in anticipation to everything we proposed —far from it—but he attained a position in which he felt free and was free to speak to us with the same frankness and the same emphasis that would normally be allowed to one of our own people.

I remember pressing upon him with confidence the invitation to come into our Department of Agriculture and to speak to me or to any officer of it as though he were in his own Department of Agriculture in Vermont or in Washington, in the certain knowledge that we would similarly speak to him, we knowing that he would understand our attitude and we knowing that he was motivated by nothing but the desire to promote the interest of Irish agriculture, the mission upon which he was dispatched here by the United States of America. If and when this institute comes to be established, those of us who know the history of this will for ever associate it with the name of Joe Carrigan and will gratefully recall all the work he did during every day of his association with us.

In making that reference to him, I do not want in any way to detract from the distinguished successors who subsequently replaced him when he was called back to his duties at the University of Vermont; but I should be less than frank if I did not assert that Joe Carrigan is the name which comes first to my mind in regard to this.

We shall not forget, when this institute is established, the very material contribution that was also made by a man who was subsequently the Ambassador of the United States in this country, Mr. William Howard Taft III, for he was Mr. Carrigan's assistant here in the early stages of the Marshall Plan and contributed very greatly to the work of which this institute forms part. Of course as we all know, though it is not relevant to this occasion, he subsequently contributed greatly to the mutual good will which binds us to America and America to us, when he came back as American Ambassador.

I cannot find any fault with the statement of the Acting Minister in introducing this Bill. I think what he said was a pretty reasonable record of all that had passed. At one stage he said there were those who felt, when this matter was first considered, that the most desirable form that this institute should take would be an independent university on the lines of Wageningen in Holland. As the Acting Minister said, there is a good deal to be said for that point of view. I am not prepared to dissent from that observation of the Acting Minister. I am not at all sure that, if we were dealing with an ideal solution, that is not the ideal solution. As the Acting Minister pointed out, the proposal fell short even of that ideal. It evoked a protracted controversy and a variety of interests expressing the strongest possible views.

I know a number of people are inclined to say it is a strange thing that one should accept less than the ideal, but unfortunately in the world in which we live it is not always possible to attain to the ideal because one cannot always persuade everybody that what one believes to be the ideal is the best thing. The difference between our form of Government and the authoritarian form of Government is that, while the Government may have certain views or individuals may have certain views, the process of democratic government is to try to get substantial agreement for the decision which the Parliament of the country ultimately takes.

I believe this Bill represents the nearest that could be arrived at to a substantial implementation of the various views that were pressed by those whose representations were entitled to a hearing. In so far as it is that, it has in it many of the flaws of compromise but we must bear in mind that life on this side of Heaven is going to be an imperfect thing and those who hope to find Heaven on earth are scheduled for disappointment. All we can hope to achieve here is the nearest approach to perfection that it is practical to reach.

That brings me to paragraph 11 of the Acting Minister's statement. I agree with him entirely when he says that the whole scheme of the Bill revolves round the council and it is not too much to say that the potential value of the institute will be directly proportionate to the efficiency of the council in discharging the heavy responsibility entrusted to it. That is profoundly true. I have always believed, and I still believe, that neither Parliament, the Government nor the Minister can run a university nor, indeed, any teaching establishment. You have got to try to get the best governing body you can. You have got to give them the resources and then you have got to trust them to do the job and if they do not do it there is not very much you can do about it.

Our concern must be to try and get the very best council that we can. As to the five members of the council, they will be chosen by representative bodies of farmers. These representative bodies have on them a very grave responsibility to choose the best men because if they do not then the whole of this considerable enterprise can be placed in jeopardy. I trust and believe that the universities will be as circumspect and I hope the Government will be concerned to pick persons on merit to carry out the heavy responsibility that the Government representatives on this council will carry.

Section 7 provides that there shall be a director who will, in effect, be the executive officer as distinct from the chairman. It is one of these matters upon which I found it very difficult to make up my mind. There are two views. One is that we should make the chairman of the council the executive officer or make the chairman of the council a part-time chairman, having a director as distinct from the chairman. My recollection is that I leaned to the view, after protracted consideration, that it was better to have all these functions centred in the chairman but I am not prepared to say I regard it as a matter of principle. It is a matter upon which I would have been prepared to consult the House and accept the combined wisdom of the House either one way or the other. Both views have much to commend them and have inherent in them certain dangers. I have no convinced view on the proposal to provide a director in addition to the council itself.

I think there will probably be a blast of criticism against the Government in their proposal to appoint the first director, leaving the appointment of his successors to the council. I am prepared to support the Government in that proposal. I think they are right to reserve that right to themselves because they will have to answer to this House and posterity if they choose the wrong man, but in launching this I think the Government are entitled to take reasonable precautions to see that it gets off with a good council and a good director. Then they have not only the right but the duty to say: "Now from this out you are on your own and it depends on yourselves whether you succeed or not."

I do not suppose there is any more difficult task for a Deputy in Opposition than to make a speech about his own Bill and I find myself in that difficulty at the present time. I want this institute proposal to be a success. I believe it has a potential for great good for the agricultural industry. If the proposals outlined in this Bill are to succeed, the institute must have, and is entitled to expect to have, the wholehearted co-operation and goodwill of the universities.

I want to say this to the universities. This Institute Bill, as drafted, has in it the possibility of great benefit and great advantage for the universities who pull their weight and do their part in making the institute a success. If the institute does its job as it should do it, it should reciprocate a thousandfold whatever goodwill either university shows towards it. I sincerely hope and pray that no situation will arise in which there could develop any misunderstanding or lack of co-operation between the universities and the institute. Every interest for agricultural education in our universities could best be served by collaboration between the institute and the colleges—Trinity, Galway, Cork and U.C.D. I hope that will be forthcoming in abundant degree.

Some may ask: How is it that at this stage of our history these steps are being taken only now? The answer is that higher educational research in agriculture has not adequately been catered for heretofore. It is an unprofitable inquest to conduct in public as to why and how enough has not been done to date. The important thing is that I believe the means to do what is requisite in the future are now available.

There is one point now that I think has to be faced—and I notice that the Acting Minister did not refer to it. In the course of the controversies that ranged round these proposals, there was a good deal of argument as to whether the institute should not control the advisory services. Of course, a great deal of the argument was strangely ill-informed as most people work themselves up into a passion on the assumption that the advisory services throughout the country are controlled by the Minister for Agriculture—which is entirely false. The fact is that the agricultural instructors, as they are called, are the servants of the county committees of agriculture. The only direct control which the Minister for Agriculture exercises over the county committees is that they submit an annual scheme of the work they propose to undertake in the coming year which is subject to the approval of the Minister for Agriculture and which, in fact, is invariably approved, subject to consultation and discussion relative to minor matters in which, as a rule, the chief agricultural officer of the county committee is as anxious for advice as the Department is to give it.

There does survive from the old Congested Districts Board days the parish agent in the congested areas. However, with the passage of time, their advisory function, in the ordinary acceptance of the meaning of that word, has tended to decline and in many parts of the congested areas to-day they function largely as the administrative officers of the farm buildings scheme and certain other schemes of that kind. In the Gaeltacht proper, such as Connemara, they do retain advisory functions. In fact, I think in West Galway the county committee of agriculture leaves most of the advisory work to these officers, but they represent a relatively insignificant section of the purely advisory work in the country as a whole.

I myself, as Minister for Agriculture, established the parish plan. Under that, where parishes organised themselves in groups of three to seek advisory services in excess of what the county committee of agriculture was in a position to provide, they could apply to the Minister for Agriculture for an advisory agent and they got him. I am bound to say that I found that that system worked very well. I take the view—and in this I know I differ from the accepted practice in the United States—that the advisory services should, directly or indirectly, be under the Minister for Agriculture. In so far as they function as the servants of the county committee of agriculture, I think that system works reasonably well, if it is properly supervised, if the instructors are required to do their work, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, they are enabled to do it. However, there are many parts of the country in which the instructors are spread so thinly on the ground that a great deal of their time is spent moving from place to place and trying to fill up their diaries, and there is not time to do really constructive advisory work of the kind that is so urgently necessary.

I believe, and I never believed it with greater conviction than I do to-day, that if advisory work is to be put upon a satisfactory basis an adviser ought to have a fixed area for which he is personally responsible, so that he can see for himself the fruit of his own labour. I believe the ultimate ideal to aim at would be to provide one adviser for every rural parish in Ireland—and there are 800 of them. But, ad interim, I was prepared to aim at one adviser for each three parishes in rural Ireland, thus providing approximately one adviser for every 1,000 farms. In so far as I realised that objective, notably in Longford, Leitrim, Monaghan, Cork, Tipperary, Waterford and Roscommon, for example, I think the results abundantly justified the procedure. Where a parish agent had three parishes for which he was personally responsible, and kept in constant contact with all the farmers, large and small, in the area, the results were abundantly there to see.

Anyone who wishes to study the result of the operations of a parish agent, with the cordial co-operation of everybody in the parish, need only read the history of the experiment in the parish of Bansha, West Tipperary. But, over and above Bansha, I would now be prepared to invite anyone who wanted to test the validity of that procedure to visit any of the three parish units where a parish agent appointed by the Minister for Agriculture in the course of the past three years has been operating and to judge by the success or failure of the procedure of any one of these three-parish groups. I think, if a fair and impartial judgment were made in respect of any one of them—and they are not all equally good—an honest critic would be obliged to concede that that is the right line to proceed upon.

I have a profound conviction that, unless there is a common purpose from the Minister for Agriculture all the way down to the advisory services, you will get growing confusion and mutual frustration. I know there are some who could argue if I say that, that what I mean is that the Minister for Agriculture is going to exercise day-to-day supervision over every instructor in Ireland, and that the bureaucracy of the Department of Agriculture is going to paralyse every man's desire to serve. Anybody who has an experience knows that kind of talk is all cod. The great objective is to get a good man into his own area, and give him the widest possible discretion to serve the people whom he is sent to serve in that area, to the best of his ability. The test of his success or failure will not be reports or diaries; it will be nothing but results, with the clear understanding that there are no alibis and no use in coming back and saying the people are very difficult to get on with.

Part of the good instructor's job is to get on with difficult people. There is no use in coming back and saying the soil is too poor. Part of the good instructor's duty is to know how to exploit poor soil as well as good soil, and to get on with conservative people as well as radical people. In so far as county committees of agriculture were prepared to put that service into operation it was all to the good. In so far as they are not in a position to do it I think it is the duty of the Minister for Agriculture.

I believe the function of the institute is to direct research and contribute to higher education where that is necessary, either directly or indirectly through the universities. I know the American system is to associate and, indeed direct, control of what they call "the extension services" through bodies analogous to what this agricultural institute is intended to be. I do not believe that the American practice is suited to our circumstances. I believe that something between the British system of a national agricultural advisory service and the American system is what we require but, if I had to make a choice, I would lean more in the direction of a national agricultural advisory service rather than in the direction of divorcing the whole system of instruction and advice from the Department of Agriculture where it ought to be.

I want to make this last point. One of the most important Departments of State in this country is the Department of Agriculture. On the success or failure of its mission the whole economic life of our country depends. It does not matter how good the Department of Agriculture is, if it does not get the wholehearted co-operation of the farmers of this country a great part of its efforts is frustrated. I do not believe the Department of Agriculture in Ireland is perfect. I do not believe any department of agriculture in the world is perfect but I want to record again, in the most formal possible way, something I have had occasion to refer to in public many times before. It has always been a source of dismay and horror to me to hear some of the public statements, in criticism of the officers of the Department of Agriculture, which are made in this country.

I have represented this country at many international conferences as Minister for Agriculture, at all of which I have been attended by staffs of administrative and technical officers of the Department of Agriculture. Again and again it has been my experience that I have been approached by various committees of international bodies asking for the services of the administrative and technical officers who accompanied me as my advisers. While I felt it was our duty, in so far as our resources permitted, to extend that co-operation whenever we could, again and again I have found myself in the position of saying we cannot meet all the requests pressed upon us because we have not got the men. At the moment officers of our Department of Agriculture are occupying highly responsible positions in international committees, because bodies representative of up to 70 and 75 independent States in these international conferences, working with these men, listening to them and judging the contributions they were capable of giving, have sought their assistance, not for any love of Ireland, but simply because there was not anybody as good, and certainly nobody better, to do the job that was required to be done.

What is it about us that makes us denigrate our own? We have some of the best material in the world in our Department of Agriculture. Let us be clear on this. There is no Department of State in any democratic country in the world in which there are not a few duds and we all know that. We are all conscious of the fact that in a great public service there are bound to be the good, the indifferent and, we hope, a microscopic minority of the bad; but it is important to emphasise that the Department of Agriculture in this country is capable of giving the people of this country a superb service, provided it receives from the people whom it serves that degree of confidence and co-operation which it is entitled to expect.

What is important to bear in mind is that the co-operation which I now bespeak from the universities for the institute is essential to the success of this enterprise. Something that is equally vital is that the universities and the institute will work in close and cordial co-operation with the Department of Agriculture and the Minister for Agriculture, who represents ultimately the sovereign power of this House, and who is the Minister charged with the responsibility of coming to this House looking for the means to carry on the work of this institute, and of the universities themselves.

The Acting Minister rightly said that splendid as is the endowment which it is possible to make available to the institute, from the moneys made available to us by the Government of the United States, he looked forward to Dáil Éireann appropriating from time to time such additional moneys as may be necessary adequately to lubricate the machinery of this institute. I bespeak from our people on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, whoever he may be and whatever Government he belongs to, and especially from the farmers of this country, their support, their understanding and their co-operation. It is right that in this House and, indeed, outside it there should be controversy on policy where genuine difference exists. Nobody objects to that and nobody complains of that; but what is calculated to do great damage to the fundamental interests of this State is that a policy should be pursued of trying to create distrust and misunderstanding between the agricultural community and the Minister for Agriculture for the time being, whatever Party he belongs to.

Whether the Minister for Agriculture belongs to the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party, or any other Party, from time to time, as an individual, I proceed on the assumption that he is doing his best to serve the interests of that section of the community for which he has undertaken responsibility. I reserve the right to criticise and challenge the policies which he submits to the House, but there is all the difference in the world between criticising the policies he is proceeding to implement and criticising the desire that he has faithfully to serve the farming community of this country.

If we can get from all Parties the kind of co-operation that we ought to get, then this institute should do great good and, from this side of the House, I can assure the Acting Minister that anything we can do to help to that end will be faithfully done.

Mr. Desmond

May I also say that the Acting Minister can be assured of the full support of the Labour Party in relation to the proposals he has put before the House? The outstanding feature of the Acting Minister's statement yesterday was that the late Minister, Senator Moylan, God rest his soul, found so much agreement with the proposals that had been prepared by his predecessor, Deputy Dillon. Considering that it was always thought by people outside this House, rightly or wrongly, that the late Senator Moylan and Deputy Dillon were poles apart in relation to agricultural policy and that both of them held very strong and very clear views, the fact that such a measure of agreement can be shown in relation to the proposal before the House is an indication that from the very beginning the institute will have the full support of the people.

There is little that I can say on behalf of the Labour Party. There is little that need be said at this stage. Like Deputy Dillon, I sincerely hope that the various interests which will be affected will give their full support to the institute because, unless there is 100 per cent. co-operation by all concerned, difficulties will continue to exist in relation to agricultural research. Agricultural research plays a very important part in the development of agriculture as an industry and the improvement of the financial position of the farmers.

Like Deputy Dillon, I hope that, in appointing the personnel of the institute, it will not be a case of appointing persons who will not be able to give the service expected of them. I hope that the appointments will be made on merit alone. The various agricultural interests must realise that their representatives must not be merely friends of somebody or advocates of some isolated point of view. Naturally, problems affecting the entire Twenty-Six Counties must be dealt with. The farming community and farmers' organisations must understand that, through this institute, many advantages will be offered to agriculturists. If they are prepared to avail of those advantages, they must co-operate.

We know that for the past few years there have been many complaints and many wild statements made about the proposed activities of this institute. It is clear now from the statement of the Acting Minister and from the views expressed by Deputy Dillon that the time for those complaints has gone. There are too many complaints throughout the country in relation to the supposed failure of agriculture. Let us hope that in future there will be no complaints about failures, but rather that through the institute agriculture will prosper and that, through agricultural prosperity, the country will prosper.

Dr. Esmonde

I should like to give a welcome to this Bill. Also, if I might be permitted, I should like to express, as an Irish representative, my gratitude to the United States of America for their generosity. Europe owes a lot to the United States of America and this fund that is placed at our disposal is just another milestone in the history of their donations to a war-scarred Europe.

The bringing together in a council such as this of informed agricultural opinion, that is, of those who work on the land from day to day and those concerned with the higher education of this country, must make for a great advance in agricultural science. We move in a highly scientific age and I am sure all of us are in agreement that it is highly desirable that Ireland should play a full part in the march of science. It is necessary nowadays, having regard to the increased costs of production, to get the very last ounce out of the land. We can hope to do that only if we are fully conversant with all the recent advances in science.

The Bill provides for the appointment of a director. That, I understand, is virtually the only change in the proposals resulting from the long negotiations and discussion and hard work in relation to this Bill by the late Minister's predecessor, Deputy Dillon. I do not know if that is a matter of controversy or not, as I have only just been able to come into the House and did not hear the debate. If we are to have a director of organisation, I feel that he must be a person with the very highest qualifications, someone entirely conversant with agriculture from a theoretical and a practical point of view. In order to get the best possible person, we must ensure stability of office for him.

As I read the Bill, the director is to be appointed, in the first instance, by the Government and to be subsequently reappointed by the board; but, if the board do not agree to reappoint him, they cannot get rid of him without the consent of the Government. That seems to me to create a rather involved situation. It means that the director will be in office at the pleasure of the Government for the first three years and that he can be maintained in office at the displeasure of the council for the subsequent years. In my view, it would be better to give the director definite standing so that he may be retained in office for all time—to have it one way or the other.

Let me see what is in the Bill. No, I have read the Bill wrongly. It does seem he has to be reappointed.

Mr. Dillon

The next director.

Dr. Esmonde

Perhaps the Minister would clarify that point. I am afraid I have read the Bill wrongly, as I raised the matter hastily.

Mr. Dillon

I cannot clarify it. I took it to be that. I may be wrong and perhaps the Minister would clarify it.

Mr. Aiken

I think Deputy Dillon is right.

The Taoiseach

That is a shocking admission.

Mr. T. Lynch

He is always right.

Dr. Esmonde

The only other point that occurs to me is that, as far as I can read the Bill, we are to have a continuation of the agricultural faculties as they exist in the universities and that the institute itself is going to deal with higher studies only. It seems to me to be natural that there had to be a compromise between two sections to bring them together in unison to get the best results. It does seem to me—perhaps I am wrong again—that a considerable sum of money will have to be expended in building the institute. That may not be the case. Has the Minister in mind any particular premises for the institute? Has he in mind where this institute is to be set up? I take it that an institute such as this, although it will be dealing with scholarships and grants, must have some head office or control centre. If you want to build anything nowadays you have to spend a large sum of money and is that large sum of money to be spent in building the institute in rural Ireland or in Dublin?

I suggest that there is an opportunity here. If we are to have an institute, and to have a separate autonomous body to deal with agriculture, it is highly desirable that we should have it outside the City of Dublin, wherever it may be. It may be, of course, that all Deputies at once will think I am suggesting we should have it in County Wexford. I should be very pleased to see it there, but my main point is that I want to see it outside Dublin because rural Ireland is the very heart and foundation of all agriculture. Perhaps the Minister would give us the Government's ideas on that point.

Another point which I should like to raise is that we cannot have enough education on agricultural matters in Ireland. It has always been a matter of amazement to me that in such a predominantly agricultural country, where practically everybody is connected with agriculture, either directly or indirectly, we do not start to teach our citizens agriculture, and everything appertaining to it, on a full scale from early youth. The ideas we develop in early youth will be the ideas we will carry through our lives. I see in the Bill—I think I am in order raising this matter—that research means dealing with every aspect of agriculture and it may be possible to evolve some scheme whereby those attending our primary schools could be taught the rudiments of agriculture which, after all, is the profession which a major number will follow.

I welcome the Bill and wish it every success. I congratulate Deputy Dillon on all the work he put into it and also the late Minister, Senator Moylan, R.I.P., for his share in it.

Mr. Wycherley

I, too, welcome this Bill and assure the Minister, as a farmers' representative, that he will have the full support and co-operation of all the farmers. I feel that this agricultural institute, if it is to be a research department, will bring tremendous benefits to the farmers in the distant future. When I think of the immediate future, I wonder about what is to happen. I know, being a farmer myself and coming from a poor farming area, that the farmers are striving to increase production under the advice of the county committees of agriculture. In County Cork, we have set up a wonderful advisory service, having an instructor for every 900 farmers. I am in close contact with the instructors and the farmers, and the instructors tell me that the greatest difficulty they have is to get the farmers to invest in fertilisers and lime.

The land of this country is starved of fertilisers. I believe that to be the case not because the farmers do not know it but because they have not the capital to invest in the land. What the land requires and what the farmers require is cheap fertiliser and cheap lime. Fortunately, they are getting cheap lime.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Wycherley

I am very glad to say that it is appreciated very much. It is being used extensively, but liming of land without manure will keep the farmer and his farm poor. I know and appreciate what our American friends are doing for us by granting this money and we are deeply grateful to them, but if something could be done in the immediate future to provide cheaper fertilisers for the farmers, I have no hesitation in saying that production from the land could be doubled within three years. It will be much longer than that, perhaps, before the institute will be functioning. I am not so concerned about who the director is or who the manager is, or who gets a good job in this institute. What I am concerned about is that the best benefits from the money expended will go to the farmers of rural Ireland and so provide them with a better living on their farms.

Thousands of pounds can be spent on the institute. It is for research and it will be of great benefit. It will bring closer together the farmers, the universities and the scientists, and there is quite a good deal to be done in this scientific research in agriculture, not alone in this country but perhaps in every country in the world. What they learn in other countries we can learn from them. I would like to bring home to the Minister for Agriculture the immediate necessity of fertilisers for the land and to have them provided cheaply. It would be the greatest incentive to increased production in Irish agriculture.

Mr. MacCarthy

It is a very pleasing feature that after a great deal of criticism, controversy and conference unanimity has been achieved as to the basic scheme for this institute. Seeing that there is at the present time, so far as I can judge, a scarcity of the technicians who might be needed to achieve the ideal to which reference has been made, I think it is a very wise thing to start off with what we have, to use these institutions connected with the university to the best advantage and to extend them as opportunity offers. We can train, in the meantime, the technicians we need and get perhaps from abroad, should the occasion arise, the further help that may be needed.

That is the central idea, but the success or otherwise of this institute will depend on the extent to which it is brought home to the individual peasant farmers of this country— because the increased production and the advantages the nation is to get from the scientific knowledge must come from them—that they must apply this knowledge in their own holdings. Consequently we should not be concentrating, say, on dairy science in Cork where you have mixed farming of all descriptions and where you have very industrious farmers, but every branch of agriculture and of forestry, which is included in the work of the institute, should be brought as intimately as possible into contact with the various organisations representing the farming community in the different counties, regions, or parishes. This will enable them to apply in the best possible manner whatever facilities are put at their disposal for soil testing, and so on, and to throw their energies into their work, with the knowledge which this institute will give them, to the best advantage of the country.

Mr. Haughey

One thing I should like to know about this Bill is whether or not agricultural research, as mentioned in Section 4, will include market research. It seems to me that possibly the biggest problem facing Irish agriculture and our national economy is not so much the necessity for an increase in agricultural production as the means to sell that production when it is produced.

Agricultural research in this Bill should include the idea of market research, the studying of trends in foreign markets, the type of products that are likely to be required in these markets over the long term, and the placing of the results of such inquiries at the disposal of the agricultural community. I feel the institute could do a very important job in that respect.

It has always been clear to me that if the Irish farmer is given a price for his products he will embarrass you with his production. The primary national need at the moment is to set up some method whereby you can sell that produce. In that respect the definition of "agricultural research" should certainly be broadened to include market research on a worldwide scale for Irish agriculture.

Mr. Manley

In the first place I should like to endorse the tribute paid to the late Senator Moylan by the former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon. Personally I admired very much the late Senator Moylan for his objectivity, and as a formidable opponent he had one thing that was very striking, a generous heart and a generous mind. I think the same can be said for his erstwhile predecessor, Deputy Dillon, and it is a nice thing to find to-day after his death a tribute being paid from one who was his formidable opponent in the past.

This institute is being made possible through the benevolence of the American Government. The world at large, as Deputy Desmond has said, should feel appreciative of the generosity of the American people. In this age of scientific research it is only natural that in our most fundamental and vital industry all the research possible should be applied to it. The Bill is wide and must be representative in its scope, since it will be controlled by a council composed of a chairman and 12 members. The very election of the council gives opportunities and possibilities for a representative type of guiding or directing body in this institute. There is a good deal of indefiniteness in the Bill at the moment but I suppose that will be clarified as time goes on.

I assume that the council will have the decision as to where this institute is to be located. I sincerely hope, like Deputy Desmond, that the money available will not be dissipated in the building up of buildings which are so costly at the moment. I think the institute should be located in some place like Thurles, Roscrea, or even as far away as Athlone. Since the institute has to deal with agricultural matters entirely, with crops, animals and with forestry in general, services like those should be located in the rural areas. We all hear a great deal of talk about centralisation, but with all the talk there has never yet been anything attempted in the way of decentralisation of our most vital industry. It would be a very nice gesture if at this stage we were able to locate this industry in some central part of the rural areas.

When we talk about increased production we should qualify our remarks in that regard. The position at the moment is that we are over-produced in grain to a certain extent this year and will probably be more over-produced in future years. There is no use in producing goods of which we cannot dispose. There is no use growing crops unless we have a market for what we produce off the land. When we speak, therefore, about increasing production, we should qualify our statements in that regard. At the moment, we could increase our livestock population; prices are attractive and there is a market for them.

Deputy Dillon spoke about the parish plan. Deputy Dillon's first parish plan was entirely Utopian. Such a plan would not be practicable at all. He wanted an adviser in every parish and there are 800 rural parishes in the country. He was compelled ultimately to trim his plan down to one adviser for every three parishes. I think such a plan would work most efficiently if it were operated through the co-operative creameries. These creameries are highly organised and if they can be encouraged, with the aid of a little grant, to pay for their own advisory services that would be the best approach. We have such an organisation in Barryroe in West Cork. A most efficient service has been provided there and the people appreciate it. They can approach their adviser at any time quite independently and without having anything at all to do with the State. It is something like that we want to make our people independent and give them a realisation of the fact that they can stand on their own feet and provide their own services. That is a step in the right direction. In these days, when people depend so much on Governments and public bodies, we are inclined to subordinate our individual independence and initiative to State control and control by local authorities in general.

This Bill certainly marks an important advance. It is a pity it did not come earlier. It has great possibilities. The fact that we are so backward in research is, I suppose, the reason why we have so much swine fever in the country to-day. This institute will be able to deal with matters of that kind and give our people a greater assurance and a greater insurance against the recurring losses which they have had to meet in the past.

Mr. Corry

I should like, first of all, to welcome the Bill and thank the people who are giving us the money for its implementation. I admit I might be somewhat cynical in approaching this matter, but I can assure Deputy MacCarthy that the farmers have never found themselves short of advisers— advisers with polished shoes and collars and ties, when the farmers are out in the muck. As far as advice goes, we sometimes wonder where we are. That is why I should like this institute to be devoted very largely to research, to finding out what is needed and where potential markets lie.

This body is to consist of a chairman and 12 members. I suggest the 12 members should be members drawn from agricultural organisations. It is time we got rid of the professor in agriculture. Let us get down to business now.

All Parties have from time to time stated categorically that the farmers are the people who are not producing more and, if the farmers would double agricultural production, the country would be all right. We heard Deputy Dillon at that when he was Minister for Agriculture. I remember coming in here during the months of October and November one year wondering whether we had grown our oats to fatten the rats, or what? The farmers were advised to grow oats, and they grew oats. Having grown them, they had no market for them. We were told to grow more wheat. We grew more wheat, and I remember Deputy Dillon assuring me that he had a headache night and day for three months wondering where he would dispose of the surplus. That was his trouble. The cure was to crucify the unfortunate fool who grew wheat by cutting the price when he had it in the ground, and there was no way out for him.

Farmers are up against very grave opposition—opposition that it is almost impossible to overcome. It is all very well for a Minister to stand up here, wave his hands and tell us: "Oh, you are getting your raw material at the same price as the world price and, therefore, you should do as well as your neighbour. The bulk of your agricultural produce goes into competition with your friends across the water." I have here a little bible which I would advise every person interested in agriculture to read—Guide to Farm Prices and Grants. He will find that his neighbour across the Border and in Great Britain gets £7 per acre for prime grassland of three years' standing—a grant of £7, free, gratis and for nothing. Does that put the Irish farmer on the same level as his neighbour when it comes to prices? There is the man, then, who gets a subsidy of £6 15s. for every ton of sulphate of ammonia that he puts into his land; he gets a subsidy of £17 12s. 6d. for every ton of triple superphosphate that he puts into his land. The day a calf is born, he gets a present of a “tenner” from the Government. These are the people with whom we are in competition.

In Northern Ireland, the price for milk ranges from ¾ per gallon in April to 4/4½ per gallon in January. Those are the people with whom we are to compete. There is a guaranteed price for feeding barley of 22/- per cwt. or 58/- per barrel as against our 40/-. I hold that is a lead our neighbours have over us—a lead which will take the dickens of a lot of research to bring us anyway near it. I suggest, therefore, that the first market which should be looked after is the home market. We should produce for that first and make certain we are not allowing the foreigner to produce for it.

I should like a bit of research, too, into the reason why the millers and bakers cannot produce a proper loaf from Irish wheat. I should like a bit of research into the reason why it is essential we should pay a few million pounds every year to foreigners for wheat in order to satisfy the palates, or perhaps the ignorance, of the bakers in this country. A bit of research into that is vitally essential at the moment. A bit of research is vitally necessary into the reason why we pay 47/- a barrel to the foreigner for feeding barley when we pay the Irish farmer somewhere between 36/- and 40/-. These are the things in which we need research.

I said at the outset that the farmer is not short of advice. He can have a gentleman coming into his yard any day he wants him to tell him what to do. I admit they have a difficult task because the farmers have been advised so often as to what crops they should grow and all the rest of it and, then, when they come to put the crops on the market, they come to a bitter realisation of what the situation is.

I welcome this institute. As I said at the start, its success or failure will depend on the chairman and the 12 men who are to guide its destiny. Unless there are amongst those 12 a very definite majority of practical farmers—and by practical farmers, I mean men who are earning their livelihood by farming or working on the land—I am afraid that this institute will not confer on the agricultural community the benefits that our friends who gave us the cash to put it up hoped it would confer. I hope I am not being too cynical about this. We ordinary farmers have had very bitter experience over a considerable number of years. I would almost be prepared to say that if Governments took their hands off the farming community and gave them fair prices for their produce we would want not subsidies, grants or advice.

The situation has been exposed here already. I exposed one instance where one of the smallest and hardest working sections of the community the small farmers living on poor holdings—was crucified for over £1,000,000 for over three years in order to find the flour subsidy for others. It would take the dickens of a lot of research and advice to show the pig feeders how they were to make up that £1,091,000 which it was admitted had been grabbed by the Government for the flour subsidy. There is very little good in throwing them sops—throwing them a penny when you have taken a £1 out of their pockets. That is why the agricultural community is cynical about all these matters and it is hard to blame them.

Captain Giles

I welcome the unanimous approach to this Bill. It is a very good thing to see that both sides of the House are more or less united. This institute is better late than never. We have got to make up for years of neglect and the Bill is a step in the right direction. The pooling of the resources of our agricultural industry is something very urgent. That is what we lack in this country. In this organisation, all will be unified from the technicians down to the different types of farmers. That is all for the good.

The first thing we must do is remove prejudice and ignorance. This country is steeped in it. We must get a balanced outlook on things. The land of the country has been starved over a long number of years. We must bring it back into a proper state of fertility. If we are to advance, we must break up trading rings, which are hampering agriculture. I hope the institute will be able to do something like that. These rings have the farmers of the country crippled.

It is hard to bring the farmers to the right line of thinking. Over many decades, they have been deceived and they are sceptical of any new idea. To overcome that, we must educate our people. I quite agree with some of the previous speakers that much can be done with agriculture; but this is a small country and very little effort can bring over-production. That is the whole snag. For years, I have seen over-production in pigs. Good prices are given and for a few months everybody goes into pigs, and flop goes the trade. We are back again where we started.

We have no proper marketing facilities in this country and they are urgently needed. We have no co-operative effort whatever. We must realise this is a nation of small farmers. I hope it will ever remain the same. The only hope for this country is the small farmer. I hope when we get going in agriculture in a big way, we will not tend to the ranch system. If we do so, we will doom our little nation. I hope every effort will be made to group small farmers together in co-operative effort. If we do that, it will be an immense improvement.

The small farmers are the people who are most sceptical about anything new. It is amongst them we find prejudice and ignorance. Many of the bigger farmers were educated here or abroad and big money was spent on them. Very little money was spent on the small man. We have to make every effort to see to it that he is as enlightened as his bigger neighbours around him.

When we do advance, we must start in every town and village small industries based on agriculture. We must cut out the idea of big industries like iron, steel and coal. We must get down to bedrock and do what other small countries in Europe have done: base our whole industry on agriculture. Agriculture can absorb all our population. They have followed this policy in Denmark, but Denmark is 100 years ahead of us. Now it is not so much an agricultural country as an industrial country, but it has based all its industry on the products of agriculture.

I am one of those who do not believe in marching anything out of the country on the hoof. We should retain all the by-products in this country. We get a fairly good price for cattle and sheep. When there is a war situation, you can get a good price for anything —even an old cat. At the same time, I believe we should aim at killing our own live stock in this country, if at all possible. Instead of shipping them across the water, we should let them go in tins and packets. It would be a step in the right direction. If we do not do that, we will have no industry based on agriculture. It is good to see this unity in the House. The best thing that could happen to farming would be to have pooling of resources amongst farmers, to see such organisations as Muintir na Tíre and Macra na Feirme co-operating with their agricultural technicians. Unity of purpose always brings good.

We are aiming at that unity of purpose thanks to the outlook of the late Senator Seán Moylan and his predecessor. They were two men with balanced outlooks and, thanks to them, we have got unity at last. I hope it long remains so. I could not pay a sufficiently high tribute to the late Senator Moylan. He was the ideal Irishman. There was no humbug about him; he was full of patriotism, manliness and courage. We can ill afford to lose a man of that type. I hope that in his place will come a man of equally balanced outlook who will help us to build up the country and bring hope in the future to the agricultural community.

As I said earlier, a beginning must be made somewhere. That beginning must include provision for the small man. The big man will always fend for himself. My advice is that we should not produce without first providing a market for our surplus. One of the first things we must do is to seek markets everywhere, to explore Europe, Asia and Africa and get markets for any over-production we have. We should not ask our farmers to produce at a fair good price to-day and have the bottom fall out of prices as soon as over-production occurs. We must aim at a balanced way of farming, at proper marketing facilities and also concentrate on storage, particularly in connection with grain.

I am glad that we have reached the position where we are now producing all our own grain requirements together with a little surplus. It is not easy to get a market outside for grain so we should strongly endeavour to provide storage facilities for our possible over-production in one year in order to cater for the lean year. National granaries are essential if we are to keep up grain production, because grain production, like pig production, will flop if we lack markets. It is very easy to over-produce in a small country like ours, I welcome the setting up of the Agricultural Institute as a step which will give real hope to the farming community.

Mr. Booth

I should like to follow something along the same lines as Deputy Corry though I would not go quite so far as he went on some points. First of all I should like to express agreement with him that the point of view of the farmer is that he has too much advice. That is what the farmer says, though I do not agree with Deputy Corry's interpretation of the point. I do not think anybody could say the Irish farmer has too much technical advice. I think he has had too much ill-considered advice and criticism from townspeople, possibly like myself, who do not know what they are talking about, but surely the statistics which we have of the availability of technical advisers for farmers show us we are very much behind other European countries in that regard.

I do agree with him that there might be a danger, if the advice tendered were coming purely from what he called the white-collared men with the polished shoes. That, I think, is a very legitimate criticism. If the farmer is to have confidence in the advice he is receiving he must have confidence that the man who is advising him is a practical man, a man who is adopting a down-to-earth attitude and who is not dealing purely with high theory.

I think from that point of view, therefore, the question of the composition of the council of the institute is one of the very greatest importance and I welcome the proposal that five of the members shall be nominated by the agricultural and rural organisations. We are tremendously lucky now, as we have not been in the past, in having a strong farmers' representative body—the National Farmers' Association. It is not simply a collection of average farmers. It is becoming a highly technical body of men with well qualified technical advisers. It is also a very representative assembly.

For that reason I welcome the provision of five of the members by, I presume, the National Farmers' Association and other similar organisations. Deputy Corry appeared to prefer that all the members of the council should be practical farmers. I would not go as far as that with him as I believe the universities have a function to perform in this case. But I agree it is right that the practical farmers should have five members and that the university representatives should be limited to four. I would hope that by that means, and by the appointment of the additional three members of the council from the ranks of practical farmers, it would not be so much a case of keeping the universities in their place as of giving the farmers confidence in the council as such.

I would hope that the universities would give their full co-operation but that the initiative in deciding what lines of research should be pursued should come in each case from the practical end rather than the theoretical end. I hope that the representatives of the practical farmers will be able to approach the universities with specific problems and say to them not, "what do you generally advise?" but "here we have a problem; how can we solve it?"

Let the practical man give the university staffs a problem and they may be able to solve it. It is up to the practical farmers to decide what are the problems to be solved and that should get priority. In order to keep the confidence of the farmers I would hope that any headquarters or office of the Agricultural Institute would not be on university or college premises. I feel that if you have farmers going into a university they will go there with a feeling of inferiority. They may fear they may be out-talked or out-thought, whereas if they meet the university representatives on more or less neutral ground they may have more confidence in their own ability to argue their case and maintain their point of view.

Those are the main points I see in this matter. At all costs, the confidence of the farmers in the institute must be maintained, not only as a highly technical body but as a highly practical body. There is and always has been, I am afraid, reluctance on the part of Irish farmers to accept technical advice. That, I think, is now broken down. In the past, the farmer has been given advice which subsequent events have shown to be impracticable.

In connection with the appointment of the three additional ordinary members of the council, I would hope that the Government's wisdom would ensure that the balance of power would be weighted in favour of the practical farmer rather than the universities. As long as that is done I think the universities would be not only able but willing to co-operate to the maximum of their ability. In that way I think any advice which they will give will come with greater force and be more readily accepted by practical men.

Mr. T. Lynch

If we ask ourselves why we had to wait until so late in the day for the setting up of the Agricultural Institute we might say one of the reasons was the attitude of people like Deputy Corry who have been crying down everything that might prove an advantage or that might be of scientific value. Men like Deputy Corry have always been saying that if a man goes to his farm dressed in a collar and tie and wearing polished shoes it is something to be held against him. I have heard that all my life at farmers' meetings and I am glad we are getting away from it.

This is the second occasion on which I have spoken on agricultural matters in the life of this Government. There has been far too much political bedevilment of everything to do with agriculture. Even the idea of the Agricultural Institute was subject to political bedevilment and canvassing. There was so much of that going on that I was under the impression the Bill would be introduced to a contentious House.

I want to join in the tribute to the late Senator Moylan. He has put a hallmark on this Bill; he has left us this Bill. He took the Bill from his predecessor and made one or two adjustments in it. He saw the reason and the right in it, and the House on all sides has seen the reason and the right in it. That is the way we should approach it. I have no doubt that this institute will be a success and that it will produce some genius with a collar and tie on him and polished shoes, who will produce some type of seed which will give increased production, and that will be able to produce the article more cheaply for us. We ought to get away from the old ideas. According to the old school which we heard here to-day, and which is fast dying out, that method should not be used, and we should have nothing to do with the men with the collars and ties and polished shoes.

In the work of this institute, as I see it, I am sure there will be great advances in the field of research in Ireland. Many of the great advances which were made scientifically in agriculture were not made through any great Irish effort, but they were something which had to be brought in and then experimented on here. We heard of them only in a second-hand manner. We heard of great crops being grown in other countries, but it took ten, 12 or 15 years before the seed could be made available to Irish farmers. I think that, out of an institute such as is about to be set up now, world advances will be brought to Irish farmers much more quickly. We have in this country at the present time, thanks be to God, very many young people who are in farming. They have the modern outlook and they look to modern techniques. They are not as hidebound by conservatism as the older type of farmer. That is all to the good, more especially now that this institute is about to be established.

The matter of where they will place the institute is not actually a matter of contention, but I think it would be actually the wish of the House that this institute would be in the country and that an agricultural institute would be surrounded by the fields of Ireland. I am not approaching this to-day as people usually do, bringing a small mind into the matter, to try to boost it for my own constituency. It reminds me of what our American friends do: they go to conferences and congresses, and make a boost for Bute, Montana or Cedar Rapids. I say we will boost it for the fields and try to bring the agricultural institute out into the country.

Section 5, sub-section (9), of the Bill says:—

"One person shall be nominated to be an ordinary member of the council by each of the following:

the Governing Body of University College, Dublin,

the Governing Body of University College, Cork,

the Governing Body of University College, Galway, and

the Board of Trinity College, Dublin."

Well, Sir, there is an Irishman who asked: "I wonder was it a man from National or a man from Trinity, who actually placed them in that order?" It would appear as if it were a man from National who put down the Governing Bodies of University College, Dublin, Cork and Galway in that order and then Trinity last. But another man said: "No, I take it that it was a Trinity man and, he being a Trinity man, had the good manners to put his own university last"

The Minister will appoint the director. I agree with Deputy Dillon that it is a good thing that it is the Minister who will do so and take the responsibility. I think there are people on the other side of the House —they are not present now—who, if the positions were reversed, would make a whole brass band out of this, and would want to know why the Minister should have the appointment. I think the man who is Minister or Acting Minister should have that responsibility; it is a good thing to put the responsibility on him. I have no doubt that when the responsibility is placed on him he will do everything humanly possible to get the right man and the best man.

Lastly, Sir, I would say with Tiny Tim in Dickens: "Here's to the founder of the feast." We in Ireland in many generations have often had to seek aid outside, and we got plenty of it. We received generous aid from "Uncle Sam" whenever we needed it. This is just another example of the generosity of America towards Ireland. I want to add my word of appreciation because I noticed, in meeting people from other countries, that all countries in Europe—or practically all of them —have received much at the hands of the United States and they did not seem to be grateful for it. We here in Ireland are not grateful for it in a subservient way, but in a friendly way; because we know that the Irish people who went to America contributed much to the United States, and we consider that if they are giving us something back, it is only right. I am very glad that most Deputies who spoke did say a word about that aspect and we endeavoured to show that we were grateful, and that we do not look on American donations as other countries do.

Major de Valera

Like Deputy Booth, I am a city man and represent a city constituency, and it is with some hesitation that one in such a position rises to talk on a Bill of this nature. On the other hand, there are few measures which come before the House which have the same intrinsic importance and intrinsic interest. Indeed, anything pertaining to agriculture must be of interest to all of us. In this case, we are not only facing an executive measure but also facing one facet at least of a very fundamental national problem. For that reason, it is no harm for all of us to take an interest in the contents of this Bill.

At the outset, it is only right we should all express our appreciation of the co-operation and assistance of the United States Government in this matter. It might be no harm, as one of the fundamental things in the Bill, for us to ask ourselves and reflect for one passing moment, before we get into the details of the Bill, as to the purpose of all this. Why is it of such importance to us—and, perhaps, to a much wider area and a wider range of communities than our own—that we should develop our agriculture and make it a successful project, in the first instance for our own community? The reason is simply this, that in these days of trial for traditional institutions, we are actually trying out in this country the experiment, as to whether a community of our size, in our island, can provide for its own livelihood under modern conditions. The key to the provision of that livelihood, and indeed to its survival, is the efficiency and the proper organisation and exploitation of our agricultural resources. That is fundamentally what is involved in this and other educational issues. In a nutshell, it is the question of free living with free institutions in the modern world.

It is, therefore, imperative for the whole national effort here, for the whole survival of our people, that we should consider also the idealistic and practical aspects of the problems of agriculture. Therefore, in thanking the United States Government and in appreciating their effort, we must see that our own effort is of great importance also, and that there is, over all, apart from our own problem, a contribution to proving the faith that all of us have in human freedom, and the faith we have that an economic development on the principles of freedom and representative government in the long run is the best for a human community.

Coming down from that plane—but I make no apology for mentioning it, because sometimes one sees more clearly a practical problem if one pauses to look at its fundamentals—to the issues we have here; I understand —and I use that word advisedly, because I am no expert in these matters—from the information available to me, that it is considered that we are somewhat backward in our agricultural development, in certain aspects. I also believe that our resources should be adequate for the task which is envisaged. Although a good deal of progress has been made, there is an educational and a fact-finding or research problem there still in regard to agriculture. There is, therefore, a need for a co-ordinating body or unit which will be also an impelling force towards activity in the desired direction. That is apparently what this Bill is designed to provide.

It is designed to direct or give the necessary impulse towards agricultural development and research on the one hand, and to help, after that, to educate our farmers in the promotion and development of their own industry. Taking the Bill, therefore, in that light, I have one criticism to make. It is no harm that we should voice our criticisms. We can welcome a measure and support a measure and still see defects and imperfections which are in it. There is no measure which goes through a House like this— or indeed any practical problem in life —where one will not meet defects and problems.

In this Bill I see certain fundamental defects. Let me hasten to say I am in agreement personally, from what I have seen of it, with the decision now taken to put the Bill in this form; and with the decisions which were taken by Deputy Dillon in regard to the part I am going to talk about now, with regard to its form at the beginning— and I will try to give the reasons. But let us not get away from the fact that the Bill has this disadvantage. It is an enabling Bill—in particular, it enables the spending of money—but everything will depend on how the powers given under the Bill function, as to whether that money will be profitably expended or whether any proper result will come from the enterprise.

Let us be quite clear on it, that this Bill sets up an institute and gives it certain powers and, in the best way in which it can be done in the present circumstances, it enables the objects of the Bill to be achieved. It does not, however, go into the details which will guarantee action upon a particular line —as was envisaged, perhaps, in the first Bill. To that extent, this Bill lacks, so to speak, the driving force within itself, that the first measure would of necessity carry. Therefore, it is of some importance, at the very start, that members of this House, once the Bill has passed its Final Stages, should make themselves acquainted with the purpose of it, and let the unanimity which has been expressed here on its Second Reading, be a unanimity in practice. Then the members of this House in particular, and others who have studied it, should do their part in active co-operation outside, to see that the working of the measure is a success.

In the Bill itself, Section 4, sub-section (1) states:

"The functions of the institute are to review, facilitate, encourage, assist, co-ordinate, promote and undertake agricultural research."

Now, in all the discussion which we have had and heard about agricultural research, the words "agricultural research" have been something taken for granted. I myself have heard very few people come down to detail and ask in any specific manner just what is involved in agricultural research.

In conversation with people who are interested in the measure and even listening to speeches in this House and elsewhere, one would perceive that there was by no means a unanimity in regard to the acceptance of what that term meant. To some it was laboratory research. They visualised workers in white coats in a laboratory with test tubes or something like that getting results for them and promulgating some information which in an unspecified way was to be the motivating power in some agricultural action. Others thought in terms of experiments on a large scale, something like some of the experiments carried out by the Sugar Company and Bord na Móna and thinking more in terms of economics. Market research was also mentioned but they thought particularly in terms of research as to the production of marketable stock.

That is a very fair interpretation in its own way. I do not sympathise with Deputy Corry regarding part of the idea he has but there is the development of seeds here to suit our requirements and the development of live stock suitable for our requirements. In other words, breeding. Research into that can very well be called agricultural research. A lot of people regard agricultural research as being mainly that. Others think of it particularly from the point of view of the minimising of losses accruing to the practical farmer through plant or animal diseases. On the extreme end, going out of physical research, other people talk about market research. I think a lot of the controversy to which the last Deputy referred in connection with the first Bill may in many respects have arisen from a lack of clarity in the mind of many as to what that term was meant to connote.

Frankly, at the moment I am not quite clear as to the content of the term "agricultural research" but I can certainly see a number of different branches, all of which can be called research which could be legitimately grouped under that head. May I repeat myself to this extent? I would group them somewhat as follows. You would have fundamental research of a more or less scientific nature. That would correspond to the test tube research to which I referred. What I mean by fundamental research is research such as is properly carried out in research schools, universities and elsewhere, into finding out how things work, the ascertainment of knowledge primarily. Very often what seems a nebulous and promote thing at the stage at which it is done—fundamental research is a prerequisite to progress. That is one type of research to keep in mind.

The next stage in regard to research is that you have large-scale organised experiments, the stage when you come more or less to any problems of industrial size. It will very frequently follow the fundamental research and will have to depend on the fundamental research but the needs and resources are usually beyond the capacity of the institutions and personnel engaged in what I call fundamental research. That type of research I would more properly call research in the sense that it is exploratory.

Then you have another type of research which in other industrial spheres might be classified as industrial research. In the case of agriculture, it would be research into the specific problems of production, of specific requirements in, say, plant or animal culture, the elimination of diseases in a particular environment and, under particular local and economic conditions, research into increasing production under your specific conditions. Mark you, in all these cases you cannot divorce the problems in this category from the specific conditions. That error is sometimes made, as it is often made, in other branches of applied research. These are the three heads under which you have got to face the problem of agricultural research. I think every one of these three is of particular importance for this country.

Over and above those three, which might be more or less classified as being in the sphere of physical research, you have the fourth category— the over-all economic problem. That will tail out, so to speak, at the other end of the spectrum in economic research. Anyone who is going to face agricultural research must take cognisance of all these.

In regard to the difference between the two Bills, these problems came immediately into question when it was proposed to set up a separate agricultural university as I shall call it. Perhaps, I may express a purely personal bias in this matter. Under modern conditions in a community of our size with our resources and a tendency towards centralisation—it depends on organisation, on pooled resources and the necessity for numbers of workers and the complexity of equipment in the tackling of any research problems in any of the categories I have mentioned nowadays—that seems to me to indicate the condition that you concentrate your effort, that you cannot afford to disperse your effort in duplicated centres.

For that very reason in the first instance anyone looking at the idea of the central university will say: That is it. Organise a central university for agriculture; organise a central body where you can have, so to speak, a specific agricultural activity; agriculture in this country is our primary industry. We should do that. Therefore, on top of that we should have the advantage that the institution could be geared and oriented specifically in relation to our local environment.

At first sight that proposition sounded attractive. That general line of argument can be built up and supplied, but when one looks at the other side, one finds oneself in this difficulty. On analysing it in relation to the categories of research, one found oneself straight away in difficulty in regard to fundamental research. You begin to perceive that there was no such thing as completely isolated research in any particular quarter and that it would mean a duplication of equipment and personnel that you would still legitimately want to keep in the other centres. That argument must particularly be borne in mind by those who talk about decentralisation. Although, at first sight, that proposition of the centralised university appeared to offer the prospect of concentration of effort, one found that it inevitably meant a certain amount of duplication, or else an insulation and a deprivation of facilities from other quarters. I can make that point more specific when I come to teaching functions in the matter.

Perhaps I had better illustrate it in this way. Take an agricultural student who is going to a university at the moment. I think he has to put his foot, so to speak, in practically every faculty. He has to do a little chemistry, a little physics, a little botany and a little zoology. He has his foot in practically every subject in the science faculty. He goes to the Faculty of Architecture to do something about farm buildings and he goes into the Engineering Faculty for something else. All this is quite apart from the Faculty of Agriculture. The nature of the course and the nature of the degree—which I am accepting for the moment: perhaps there would be grounds for looking at that, too— brings me into the other faculties. I understand he even has to go to the faculty of Law to learn something about administration. I am correct in this, through my enumeration may not be exhaustive, that he is involved in a number of faculties and in many cases in a number of subjects within the faculty, all of which are akin to the normal routine work of his own faculty and involving a certain amount of equipment.

A somewhat similar thing must, of necessity, apply to research of a fundamental or laboratory nature. Very frequently, it is necessary to have contacts across, so to speak. If you have not these, you have to supply them yourself and that means duplication and, very often, uneconomic duplication. Therefore, in this idea of a central body you would have had to face, I think, especially those people who are talking about decentralisation and size of the country, and so on, a duplication in this central body of those things which are already carried in the colleges. On the other hand, if you had set up that central body, you would have had a centre, a focus, a driving force and something with character to direct and influence and, one would hope, dominate agricultural thinking and progress for the good of the community as a whole. If the project were properly planned, those would have been the advantages.

The disadvantages I have already touched on, but the disadvantages would have involved all the duplications and other problems, particularly in regard to research, to which I will come back in a moment. I just want to say this at this stage in regard to all that. These things were examined and tried. Two successive Ministers had come to the conclusion that it was better to have a Bill in the form in which it is, provided that the drive, the co-operation, can be supplied— that the defects of which I have spoken can be overcome. Perhaps that was the wisest decision in the end. However, it does mean that those responsible will need a very clear view as to what the functions are and will have to face in a concrete way what the problems are.

Let me repeat what I have said. This is an enabling Bill and everything will depend on the proper appreciation, in very concrete terms, down-to-earth terms, of what the problems are. Then, an equally practical and concrete grappling of them along clearly foreseen lines. That, I think, is the fundamentals defect in the Bill. It leaves all this, open. But, as I have said, I cannot envisage a Bill on such a matter being perfect in that regard.

I think we will all agree with the Minister's remark that the project of an agricultural institute raised fundamental questions about the organisation, the inter-relationship and the adequacy of the institutions concerned in relation to the needs of the country. The present set-up, therefore, visualises a body which has a lot of the characteristics of a co-ordinating body but can be a directing body, if it gets the co-operation. It will not be, in any sense, I think, an agricultural university. But, being an enabling Bill, again, it is naturally drafted in a way that gives it very wide powers.

I think that, after one comments on what is meant by agricultural research, one has to consider what type of research this institute will carry out. At this stage, I am reminded of another Bill which came before this House some ten years ago. I remember speaking on it from these same benches. It is rather difficulty to comment on the work of such a Bill afterwards because it is often felt that one is commenting on the people working the Bill rather than on the mechanism itself. I feel rather inhibited in this instance by that very fact.

At that time, I expressed a fear, when the Industrial Research and Standards Bill was going through here, that whatever its further and potentialities in regard to standards, in practice, the whole concept would come very short of the hopes entertained for industrial research in this country at that time. In that regard, I think there are many who would feel that that gloomy prognostication was justified. There are others who will say that those who expected more were simply dreaming. The fact is that the insulation of that body in the way it was done and the whole set-up of it, to my mind, was too divorced from fundamental and collateral contacts to get the benefit that one would hope.

I have the same kind of feeling about this, Bill—and this is where, again, being an enabling Bill, everything depends on how it is worked and who is working it. I have the fear that such an institution that sets itself up as so completely self-contained may not avail itself of the potentialities that are elsewhere and that there is a kind of inevitable tendency to duplicate. To go off at a tangent for a moment in relation to the subject of duplication, we had a newsagency service, which is gone, which the State was subsidising for a long period. When we had that news service here, we saw that other Government Departments were not taking the service. There is the same type of danger in this as regards fundamental research. You have not only the same type of faculty in the colleges, but in kindered faculties, there are things of considerable interest. At this stage, a host of ideas are likely to come into my mind and I am likely to get jumbled.

Mr. Dillon

A host of ideas have just come into the Deputy's mind.

Major de Valera

A natural reaction mechanism. In regard to the institute, you have too many people all interested in their own subject.

Mr. Dillon

Does that mean the danger of perpetual motion?

Major de Valera

The Deputy does not want me to go into certain problems of thermo-dynamics of hot air engines?

Mr. Dillon

I thought the Deputy was going to give us a demonstration of it.

Major de Valera

The Deputy could never rise to the temperature of the Deputy opposite in that matter, nor would I dream of competing with him. But, to be serious, the problem is that you have people working in laboratories and universities on their own subjects. They would be only too willing to takes an interest in a specific line if it were indicated. This institute could do a great deal that way, but there is also the great seed of danger that, instead of doing that, it will attempt to duplicate, and that is why I fastened on to this declared purpose to provide new facilities for research, and everything that is in the Bill about undertaking research themselves. I think the aim should be to use the universities where there is a question of fundamental research, and try to stimulate the doing of research there, rather than to do it themselves, by setting up a laboratory organisation and research station that would involve duplication and a waste of the institute's moneys.

I could conceive of a plant pathologist or veterinary pathologist working either in a university or in a veterinary college, who becames interested in a certain line and who is making certain progress in it. He is not primarily interested in the economic results of what he is doing but his work may be absolutely fundamental, and he is the man most likely to present, or to give, a fundamental result, rather than an ad hoe set-up. You have got to allow for him, to provide the environment in which he can flourish, and at the same time get the benefit of his work.

You must be content with two facts in regard of fundamental research: (1) that sometimes when it is done and the results obtained, they seem to have to importance, or arise in circumstances in the course of work which in its initial stages at least did not seem to have much importance, and (2), that people who are doing it very often seem to be academic and detached and seem not to be pulling their weight in the community. However, the results so obtained in the past, and there is no reason to doubt it will be so in the future, have had decisive influences, not only on a particular problem, but sometimes on the whole question of human development. When radio waves were first tested they were throught to be a completely laboratory business, but look at all the radio development and everything of that nature which has flowed from those tests to-day. Look at what have been the results of the work of Rutherford, Cockroft and Walton when they rigged up their apparatus and sent a few particles smashing into atoms. It led directly to Hiroshima. I am sure that in the question of pathology there are instances like that to be found and if I knew them I could give similar examples. That type of research should not be ignored.

I couple that with another warning word when we talk about money and duplication. Our universities, particularly our research faculties, are very badly in need at the moment. The professors in any scientific faculty where there is work of this nature being done are very seriously hampered because of the difficulty of maintaining the standard of equipment which a modern university requires. This is aggravated by the huge number of students and is further aggravated by the demand for competent personnel abroad. There is a very real problem and danger in that sphere alone. It is right, therefore, that I should voice the warning that the moneys which are available to this institute should not be spent on duplication or competition, because that is competition. I think the schools which are already here can be part of the drive in this direction. That is absolutely important.

Let me turn now to the framework of the Bill, at least in the way we have got it now. We are quite tight in our resources in this country. We have honours faculties in our universities in scientific subjects. Our graduates so far have had a high reputation in this country. The work done in our universities has been of a creditable character but the situation is getting more and more difficult for them. It is becoming more difficult to do research because of the need for greater organisation and the need for more expensive equipment. The point I want to make is that this institute should be co-operative and of help where it is concerned in these problems. Where the question arises, use those existing research facilities to the full, stimulate them and support them to the full, but, where it is a question of this nature, carefully avoid the duplication of effort by setting up ad hoc units to deal with the specific fundamental problems.

Again harking back to the days of the war, I could give examples for which I can vouch from personal knowledge. During the war, there was an emergency scientific research burean. Shortly after it was formed—it was composed of four university professors and another distinguished scientist—it was posed some problems. In particular, it was posed two problems jointly by an interested industry here, an industry which was faced with closing down because of lack of raw materials and with a problem which I happened to bring them from the Army.

The emergency research bureau tackled these problems in the following way: they were problems of a fundamental nature which involved two processes, one of which was a very highly guarded trade secret. Of the other, we had absolutely no experience of the matter in this country at all and nobody who had any experience of it. Some laboratory research had to be done. What happened? The laboratory research was undertaken in two Dublin colleges. In Trinity College, one bit of laboratory work was done and in University College, in two departments, by co-operation between the chemistry department and the engineering department, research was done on the fundamental aspects of it, and also in the State Laboratory, under Professor Wheeler, who was State Chemist at the time.

That was almost academic research. Arising out of that, three processes were analysed for one problem and it was proved, in spite of trade secrets, that two were workable under our conditions. One was completely original. That came completely out of the laboratory. Professor Wheeler himself was responsible for the idea and the work was done in the college department. The college as such had no interest in it at all, but two processes, one of them completely new, were developed. The same process was then developed between the chemists and the engineers and went to the engineers' department, who built a small pilot plant and proved that the thing was commercially possible and also found a technical difficulty in one process. That was stage one—fundamental research. In both problems the answer came from. the college first. In the next stage, organisation came into it. At this particular stage the bureau, when they got the report—the Army was interested in making these things—vitally interested—brought in the Army and a number of technical officers with the many resources of the Army and the site provided by the Army, and facilities, and so forth, all acting under the impetus and direction but never under the orders of the bureau but in complete co-operation. The second stage: the pilot plant stage for both processes was worked out. The pilot plant experiments were carried out very rapidly because there was concentration, on them, the scientists from the college co-operating with the pilot plant people on the job, the bureau enginees and the Army personnel. The plants were built and very rapidly in production and both the needs of the Army and that industry were filled from that plant and at one vital stage the supply to the industry was critical.

Why am I talking about that? I want to give a concrete example of where the role of the colleges came in. There was the bureau, the skilled body, something very like this, who— admittedly wartime conditions had helped—was able to mobilise the resources of two colleges.

Somebody was talking about professors. Perhaps it was very fortunate that the people who were the bureau were professors, with the exception of one, though they were not depending on their own resources alone. I have often felt that the work that was done there by those five men was, perhaps, not sufficiently appreciated afterwards but those of us who saw them and had the pleasure of working under their direction appreciated the work that they did. They mobilised first the universities; asked themselves what was the problem and what did they want to know about it, and, when they found that, asked who was going to do the next stage; found the answer and so on to complete production.

That is one example for which I can personally vouch. That body did the same thing in relation to another problem with Bord na Móna. I do not know the details but it was a very big problem. They did the same in relation to an industrial alcohol investigation and numerous other things, medicinal glycerine, all sorts of things. There is a report in the Library for any interested Deputy to read. Unfortunately, it is too short; it merely gives a summary of what was done.

Unfortunately, they did not publish details of their did not publish details of their work. It would have been a very good national lesson if they had.

The purpose of this illustration is simply that I want to emphasise the fear I felt ten or 11 years ago on another Bill. I feel instinctively that there is the same type of danger here. The framework of the Bill is all right if it is used that way.

Getting away from fundamental research, the next stage is pilot research. For instance, in agricultural, let me try to visualise the problems. Suppose there is a wave of an animal or plant disease. In a laboratory the fundamentals are discovered about it and maybe some way of dealing with it. The next stage comes. It may be that the proposal for dealing with it was some drawbacks in practice. There is the question of environment, and so forth. The best way I can illustrate that is by taking the example of, say, gases. In the case of poisonous gases, some of the most deadly, like prussic acid, were found to be hopeless in the field when tried by the French, whereas in the gas chamber, it is quickest and most deadly. In the field, it just did not work. A things which you could inhale in large quantities, like chlorine, was found to be a most deadly war gas, the first one used. The result of the laboratory tests may thus have to be tried out on a field basis or small-scale production expanded to bigger areas, and so forth.

Here the agricultural institute can come in in a big way. Here is a problem of organisation, a problem of development, a problem of securing co-ordination between the person who has been working in the laboratory, the person with the knowledge of the administrative requirements and the law governing departments, the producing farmer, and so forth. Here is where the agricultural research for the community as a whole becomes fundamentally practical and also practical for the whole success of the idea.

It is at this stage that we have the proving, in the first place, that the line is practicable and then move from that to promote and ensure that it will be adopted. That is where this body comes in; the selection of a line of action—the remedy, if you like—in a particular case and its prosecution. They are vital functions for this institute and it is for that aspect of agricultural research—having due regard to the fundamental aspect, assuming that that is properly done—that I would like to see the money conserved and energetically provided.

Then, there are other aspects which might be more in the nature of a statistical inquiry is regard to what is the best type of stock, the best type of seed. Experiments may be needed there. The State agricultural farms may come into play here in the same way as the universities in regard to the fundamental research aspect. Here is another very important field where direction and co-ordination is needed. You can follow that argument right the whole way to the point of market research.

Perhaps I have laboured these things but I would like to stress this. The framework of this Bill, as intended by Deputy Dillon, who drafted it, in the first place, and as intended as it is going through now, is that a co-ordinating and directing body will be set up with the resources and facilities for making itself effective. With that we all agree and in that it will have the support, I think, of the whole community. The important thing is that it goes about its business in that spirit and not in the spirit of attracting to itself all autonomy, all power ing to itself all autonomy, all power and all facilities to the exclusion of others. That is the danger I see inherent in any provision of this sort in a Bill.

Much will depend on the co-operation of their resources. The last bit of co-operation which is necessary for the success of the whole project is the co-operation and the confidence of the farmer, and the Irish farmer is a shrewd businessman. He has a very shrewd appreciation of realities and is not easily bluffed. His confidence can be won if he appreciates that there is a good, basic common sense, good basic reason behind the project and that there is sustained effort towards some definite objective in the thing in which he is being asked to have confidence.

We need his co-operation and I think it would be best got on that line and if he is convinced that the work being done, or which is being led up to, is being tackled in a serious and competent way, then he will probably accept it more easily and his co-operation will be secured.

At that stage, one leaves the problem of research and comes to the doubtful field of where it is going to be an educational factor. This is not the occasion. I think, to go into the whole question of policy in agricultural and I would hardly feel myself competent to deal with it. On the other hand, realising that all our prosperity and all our economy—and particularly that of the townspeople— ultimately depends on the success of our agricultural economy, no Deputy, no matter from what constituency he comes can afford to be disinterested in this matter. But leaving the research side, one finally comes to the question of education. Here again we are entering a very wide field and it might be better to leave that for a general debate. As this will not be a teaching body, we need not go into the details, but from every point of view, and this vitally affects the universities, the question of our education cannot be postponed too long without a searching analysis so far as modern requirements are concerned. That, however, is best left to the next debate on education.

Before I conclude, there are a couple of specific things I want to mention, which are not directly connected with this Bill but which could greatly occupy and interested an institute of this sort. We hear a great deal of talk about the use of fertilisers in various ways and of various types of fertiliser. Everybody seems to be agreed that there is a great necessity for encouraging our farmers to use more fertilisers, and limestone was mentioned, as well as other types of fertilisers. The question of nitrogenous fertilisers has been coming up for a long time. This is a problem for an institute of this sort. It could take the general heading of fertilisers. What is the policy; what is the programme and what should be done by way of research? What fertiliser should be preferred having regard to our own local environment; what fertiliser have we got to import and what fertiliser have we got to try to make ourselves?

By and large, although I have seemed critical, I think the formula that has been adopted is the most suitable and certainly it will command the greatest measure of unanimity and co-operation. I think that is what the two Ministers primarily concerned with the details of drafting this Bill were influenced by to a large extent. That is a psychological factor that cannot be ignored. You have to take these factors into account as well. It is therefore not without a certain amount of apprehension that I wholeheartedly support the measure, but I hope that the dangers I have tried to indicate will be avoided and that the co-operation and drive so necessary for the success of this venture will be provided when it comes to working it out.

Mr. McQuillan

I propose to be very brief on this measure. I listened very carefully to Deputy de Valera while he was in orbit around the agricultural sphere for the last hour. I may say that for part of his contribution he has been somewhat out of orbit and he has been too far away from the agricultural sphere itself. His messages did not, so far as I am personally concerned, come back with a great deal of clarity. One point, however, that did strike me as of great importance in his contribution was that the measure itself is an enabling measure. As a result of that, what will happen afterwards is of real importance as to what steps are taken to ensure that this measure will do many of the things which we all desire and hope will be done for the sake of the country, apart from the agricultural community itself.

This is a non-contentions measure and one important point emerges from this discussion, that this is one of the few times in the history of this House we have had almost complete agreement on a fundamental matter, namely, agricultural. I am one of those Deputies who for years have bemoaned the fact that agricultural had been the plaything of Party politics, that the farming community were being pulled and dragged by various political Parties and that there had been no real solid understanding between the Parties on a fundamental policy that could be pursued outside the Party arena. On this measure we have agreement, and as a result of that agreement it is to be hoped that agreement right along the line will obtain, and that that situation will be improved upon.

It is an understatement for any Deputy to say that Irish agricultural development has been backward in the past. The agricultural industry to-day is in a perilous state. That is bad enough in itself, but when the freedom and the economic survival of the rest of the community depend on agriculture, it makes the position for more serious and far more tragic. It is not too late, I hope, to start afresh and to put into operation, as a result of research and investigation, the necessary measures that will bring this industry back on its feet.

I do not say this in any spirit of trying to reopen old sores with political Parties, but I think it has been admitted now that the emphasis put over the past number of years on industries that were not based on agriculture, industries that depended for the raw material on outside sources, has now left us, on the eve of entering into the free market, in a very serious position. Once the winds of competition blow from the Continent, our sheltered industries that have no real primary basis here will in many instances have to go to the wall. It is all the more necessary, therefore, that we get down to brass tacks and deal with what is our sole means of holding our economy and the future of the country secure.

I welcome this measure and, like the other Deputies, I appreciate the help that has been given by the American Government to enable our country to go ahead with this desirable project. In saying that, I think it is a tragedy that we have had to wait for so many years and that we ourselves have been so lacking in foresight that we did not take this step long before now, and that we should have to depend, as we have had to depend, on the generosity of another nation in order to enable us to put into operation a project which is of absolute necessity to give direction and co-ordination to the implementation of the necessary measures that will enable a proper system of education to be brought to the farming community.

One of the important things that should be seen to, once this measure is passed, and once the body that will co-ordinate and direct research in various fields is set up, is that the rest of the community does not then sit down and wait for the results that we hope this body will give. I see a great danger there that when anything goes wrong or when anything fails to materialise, we will all turn to this body and expect them to provide the remedy and the solution. In my opinion, all a body of this nature can do is to make a thorough examination into the various aspects, education, market research, and research into costings and scientific matters as well. Once those researches are made, the responsibility will lie on the people of this House and bodies outside it to take the necessary steps to put the recommendations into operation.

Over many years past, we have had here endless recommendations from various bodies. These recommendations were praised here by both sides of the House and then they were put into the pigeon-holes and dust settled peacefully on them. I have only to mention the report and recommendations on agricultural matters and on trade matters generally made by American experts brought over here five or six years ago. Not as much as one of those recommendations has been put into operation. In spite of that, we are now inviting further experts from the World Banks, I think, to come and make a further assessment. I mention that because I believe the danger exists always that no matter what recommendations are made and how desirable they may be, once we are faced with the practical difficulty of applying those recommendations we fall down on the job.

I have no hesitation in saying that as far as agricultural development is concerned we must be 20 to 30 years behind European countries. Even the former Minister for Agriculture will have to agree that if anything went wrong to-morrow morning with our cattle trade, the country would be in a very dangerous position. Figures were given here of a 50 per cent. increase over the past 12 months in the export of live stock, and that is one of the reasons why our balance of payments problem is not the serious issue it was in former years. That is due not to the fact that we are importing less, but that our exports in one line have increased beyond all expectations. It is true that the more we can export of cattle, the better for the country, the better for the farming community and the better for the rest of the community as well, but the danger is there at the moment, and has been for a long time past, of having all our eggs in one basket.

I believe that one of the most important functions of this body will be to make a thorough investigation into the other lines of production on the farm that must be developed and ensure that there will be, when developed, an outlet available for the produce. Various efforts have been made to develop the poultry trade and the bacon industry over the years. We have found in the poultry and turkey trade that, whenever there is increased output, prices flop and a market is no longer available. Every time that happens, it is a sickener to the farming community.

Now, the farmer is no fool and all the appeals to him to increase production are just a waste of time unless the farmer is assured that such production will pay him. If he gets his fingers burned on a few occasions by producing what he is asked to produce and finding that there is no market available, he very soon stops that line of production. One of the important factors into which examination will have to be made is how to increase agricultural output, the lines upon which it is best to concentrate, the methods by which production costs can be reduced and, above all, market availability—namely, a stable and secure market so far as the farming community is concerned.

I have no knowledge as to what this body will set down to do in the course of its deliberations and investigations, but I suggest that the points I have raised are fundamental and, if this body is in a position to help from that point of view, then I wish them luck in their investigations.

Finally, I am sorry that the Bill comes in in such tragic circumstances. I am sorry that the late Minister is no longer with us to pilot this measure through the House. In the past, I opposed his nomination here, not in any criticism of the man himself but because I felt that the Taoiseach's use of the Seanad was the wrong approach. My criticism was not levelled at the Minister. He was a man for whom I had the greatest personal respect and I know that his loss will be felt not alone by his Party but, to an even greater extent, by the community as a whole.

The Taoiseach

Before the Minister concludes, may I say that I thought much more would have been said than has been said on this Bill? However, after a storm, there comes a calm. When the White Paper was published in 1955, it was criticised from all quarters. We have a changed Bill now and there is no need for me to go over the ground covered by the White Paper; but let me say that there was more nonsense talked then, in the criticisms offered of some of the proposals, than I have ever heard. Had the necessary co-operation been forthcoming, it would have been quite possible to work that measure. I remember saying on one occasion that I would have found myself fighting back-to-back with Deputy Dillon, Minister for Agricultural at the time, in regard to some of the proposals, and there is no doubt whatever that, had some of those proposals been introduced, we would have had here a very different debate from the one which is just about to conclude.

The first thing I want to say is: "Má's maith is mithid". The idea of an institute has been before the country now for a great number of years. I was brought into it at a very early stage round about 1950, not by way of consultation but simply by being told about it. In the years from 1951 to 1954, I came very definitely into it, and subsequently the former Taoiseach was good enough, on a couple of occasions, to send me along the proposals that were being put forward. I can say, therefore, that I have been intimately associated with most of the negotiations and with the steps that have been taken.

We have now an agreed measure. It has been said that the important factor now is whether the degree of co-operation it pre-supposes will be forthcoming. The idea underlying the Bill is that there will be a central body charged with the duty of forwarding agricultural research. First of all, its function will be to try to get as much research as possible done by the existing institutions suitable for that purpose. It has no power to compel any of these institutions to do this work. They will have to be ready and willing to do it. Now, to get autonomous bodies to do what one wants is not easy.

As has been suggested by previous speakers, there are two aspects to be considered. There is the aspect of fundamental research and the aspect of applied research. I do not think it was intended at any time that research into physics, chemistry and biology which is being done in the universities at the moment would be transferred anywhere else. This body, therefore, ought to be able to secure from the universities the co-operation of those who are already engaged in this fundamental research, when such co-operation is necessary.

I take it the idea underlying the Bill is that the agricultural faculties in the universities will do the fundamental training and bring those who will come ultimately to the institute up at least to their primary degrees. If each of the colleges were to be fairly treated, they should, in my opinion, have faculties in general agricultural. I do not know that all of them have those faculties at the moment and we shall try, if at all possible, to provide the necessary funds, if these colleges are to function properly, so that they will be able to provide the quota of graduates required to man the advanced research work. The question arises: Will advanced independent research work be done in the various colleges? Will the colleges be satisfied with doing the work up to the primary degree alone? Will they want to continue to have their research work done in the colleges as well? I imagine they will be looking for that. So that the task of co-ordination will be extremely difficult.

The only way in which the bodies concerned can secure agreement in their views and get the co-operation they need is by means of the funds which they have at their disposal. They will, therefore, have to approach their task by saying: what do we want to get done? If the colleges through their research organisations, can do the work they would be well advised, if they are satisfied that they have the facilities to do it, to get the colleges to do it.

Then there is the research for which the colleges will not be fitted or for which they may not have the facilities. The question is: are you going to add to these facilities and give funds to provide equipment, or are you going to do so independently? I see a great deal of problems for this institute unless there is great goodwill both on the part of the colleges as a whole and on the part of the professors dealing with this work. We should expect that this goodwill will be forthcoming.

I was very much distressed in years past when I was told that there was not between the Department of Agriculture, for instance, and some of the colleges the kind of co-operation which there should be. I think that that was calamitous. Are we going to have anything of that sort again? I know that previous Ministers for Agriculture were deeply concerned with the question of whether, if they wanted to get certain research work done, they would have a means by which that would be done in the places that had the equipment for doing it. Could they ask these bodies to do work and get them to do work of the type they wanted? I could easily see that if a university professor is engaged in a certain amount of research and is devoting himself heart and soul to it, he does not want to be put off—by doing work that may be given to him from somebody outside. There was a proposal that it would be made imperative that the new institution would carry out work on behalf of the Minister.

There is great difficulty in getting an autonomous body to do what is required by some other authority. There never was at any time any suggestion that the institute as a "recognised" college—which was the proposal I had seen put up before—was going to be other than autonomous.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

The Taoiseach

The attacks made on that were altogether unjustified and had a good deal to do with preventing action being taken long before this. The attitude of our Government, on the two occasions when we succeeded the previous Government in which Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture, was to try if possible not to reverse engines but to move along in the direction in which a start had been made. A great deal of consultations were necessary. The money involved was a gift which had been given to us by the American Government on behalf of the American people, and they wished to be satisfied in certain respects. They had, therefore, to be consulted.

There is a certain power of endowment here. I may confess that if I had thought that the power of endowment was there what I would have liked to have done at the very start was to take the whole of the money and endow an institute which would be able to carry on from year to year without having annual subventions from the State at all. The American Government, having made this gift, were at the start naturally anxious that there should be in it some memorial to their generosity. They did not say it in words but it was clear enough from some of the proposals they made that, not unnaturally, that was at the back of their minds.

With this Bill the whole matter is: will the body in question be able to get from the university colleges the co-operation that is essential if there is not to be duplication? I would say that, first of all, the body should find out what each of the colleges is doing at the present moment in regard to the fundamental subjects on which the ultimate research will depend, and on which the students coming to them will depend. In other words, to get an idea of the work done and how far it would be available for them to use it.

After that they will have to make provision for the research which is not being done in the colleges and which it is more economic or otherwise better for them to do themselves, and then to farm it out. Speaking for the late Minister, with whom I was closely in touch in regard to this whole matter, I would say his one fear was that the moneys that would be at the disposal of the council might simply be siphoned out to the colleges without securing that necessary co-ordination of effort directly for the agricultural community. It is from the applied side that most of us are particularly interested in the work which this institute will do—the application of this research into our agricultural industry.

In passing, I would like to say this. Just as there have been a lot of very unfair attacks made on these White Paper proposals, so I think there have been also in the past very unfair attacks made on the Department of Agriculture. It was one of the phenomena I could not understand——

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

The Taoiseach

The Department of Agricultural was set up to help the Irish farmer. It was at the disposal of the Irish farmer. It did not set out to dictate to the Irish farmer; it tried to help him. When something arose which was such common concern to all the farming community that it was necessary to adopt some line of policy, that was done. It was done with the idea of helping the farming community as a whole. However, for reasons I am not quite clear about there was considerable antagonism to the Department and its officials.

There is the same antagonism with regard to research. There is a great deal of research being carried out in this country. I am sorry I did not know the matter was mentioned in the debate or I would have tried to get the precise information, but I do know a great deal of valuable research on agricultural has been done in this country. I am perfectly certain that if I looked for it I would get information that would show that work that has been done in other places has been availed of here, just as other countries have availed of the work done here. It is true that certain things discovered on the Continent were not applied quickly enough here. I have several instances in my mind which I do not wish to give here.

However, taking it all in all, I think what has happened is that we did not avail to the full of the opportunities that were there. I do not know whether that was the fault of those who had the opportunities and the knowledge and who failed to pass it on to the farmers and get the farmers to accept it. That is one of those questions which it is difficult to answer. As a boy or, perhaps, something more than a boy, I heard the same criticism as that offered by Deputy Corry to-day of people who tried to get the farmers to do certain things which would be more scientific. They were looked upon as people who had fine jobs, and that was all that was to it. Thank God, there is not much of that remaining, and that the farmers, through their organisations, do see the value of making use of up to date scientific information.

I think the council of the institute will be fairly constituted. On the point of separating the office of director from that of chairman, I can say I hold the definite view that what is in the Bill is the better way. I agree with Deputy Dillon that it is arguable, but I still think it is the better arrangement. I think it is an important point that the chairman, representing the council as a whole, should be there as the person who would see that the general policy of the council was carried out and who would say what general policy was to be decided upon. The immediate scientific executive would be the director.

It will be very difficult to get a person to fill that post of director and it will also be difficult to get a chairman who will have all the general knowledge and the general capacity which will be required in order to make this institute carry out efficiently the work for which it is intended. I hope it will be possible. I have nobody in mind at the moment, if I speak plainly. I think it will be extremely difficult to get anybody who will satisfy everybody. In fact, I think it will not be possible. All the Government can do is to find a person who they think is the best fitted to act as chairman and a person who is best fitted to act as director.

From my recollection of what is in the Bill, the director is appointed in the first instance for a period which is not specified. After that period the council will be quite free to continue him or not. After the initial appointment, the council will be completely independent. It will depend on them what director they chose. What qualities is the director to have? He must be an organiser, he must understand methods of scientific research, how to get teams of workers because a lot of scientific work nowadays is carried out by team work. The director must be able to organise and inspire his team, to urge them to get results as quickly as possible.

Sometimes, unexpectedly, a person who, you would think, has not got these qualities, develops them or already had them without your knowing it. This institute will depend very largely on the capacity of the director. He will be the principal co-ordinating force, the liaison between the various bodies which will be engaged in different research. Possibly the institute may branch out into various colleges—the four colleges that were mentioned. I do not think anything turned up in the debate that makes me feel I have anything very special to say about that point. The history of this matter would be interesting but there is no point in giving that now or in going back on any of the old arguments. The main thing has been stressed—that we should try to get the farmers themselves to do their part in co-operating with this body and with all the other bodies that are there to help them.

I do not think the previous Government had decided what they were going to do about some of the institutions which were immediately under departmental control. That is left to the future. The colleges are to retain the property they have for agricultural work. That, of course, is a point of view which I hold very strongly, but there are others who oppose it on the grounds that, this being a small country, we should have concentration. I think it is a complete and absolute mistake to think of concentration of that kind. Here and there you may say that perhaps you may specialise in somethings that is highly specialised-in Dublin, Cork or Galway—and you may not have the same sort of work being done in the other colleges at all. We must make up our minds which it is to be, whether we are to work on the purely strictly narrow economic point of view or to take other factors into account. Having university colleges in places like Cork and Galway is a great advantage to the country as a whole, and I for one would oppose, as far as I could, any idea of trying to impoverish these colleges by increasing the size of Dublin.

There is another question about advice. The number of students coming to colleges has increased very largely and I always think it is a mistake for institutions that are going very well to try to get under their control other institutions, to try and expand over a field over which it is not necessary for them to expand. Formerly universities were able to cover all the fields of knowledge because these fields had not been expanded or widened. In modern conditions a governing body of a college cannot exercise effective control or direction over the various activities that take place in the college. Then of course it has to be left to the academic staff. We are all human and I, for one, hold that it is very valuable from the point of view of the public that the public interest should be clearly represented, that there should be representatives not only of the people who are engaged in academic activities—which is, of course, laudable and proper—but also representatives who are mindful of the people who are to be taught and the community they are serving.

It is very important, therefore, when there is a governing body with public representatives outside the academic staff that the members of such a body should be very interested in their work and see to it, in so far as their numbers permit them to see, that the institution is made fully aware of the fact that it is there to serve the community as a whole, to serve the people, just as in the case of a school which is not there for the teacher but for the pupils who come to learn. In all these cases it is important that the broad public interest should be properly represented.

For that reason I do not think the colleges should try to get in more and more. They should be very glad when certain things for which they have not been equipped at the start are made possible for them by bodies with separate governing boards so that they will be able to give much more detailed attention to the work than it is possible for a governing body to do when it has a field which is too wide to cover.

We shall continue in the same spirit now as we were prepared to continue in 1951. I would certainly say that on that foundation a very valuable institution would have been built and I believe the same can be done on this foundation also, but this foundation depends to a greater extent than the other on getting the necessary co-operation from the farming community and from the colleges. I agree that it will be better if we get it voluntarily but there is no means of seeing to it that the things required to be done will be done unless the body that is constituted is prepared, and has staffs at its disposal—at least that applies in the case of the director and his immediate assistants—to see that what the colleges will not do they will do themselves.

I would say they should not give any funds to any colleges except on the basis of doing specific work which they want done. The colleges must depend on the resources which are made available to them by the State in other ways. As far as moneys are to be given by this governing body to the colleges, I would say that ought to be done only for specific researches which the institution requires for its own reasons and that it must be the judge as to whether it wants these researches or not.

In regard to providing equipment and buildings in these colleges the trouble is that the colleges, being self-governing bodies, are autonomous, and if one provides buildings for them, those buildings are their own and there are no means, if one were dissatisfied with their work or for other reasons, of, so to speak, trying to get the buildings back. In order to get this properly done the greatest care is required on the part of others. The colleges have their own sources of revenue and they should come to the State and should not look to this institution as a means of supplementing their own resources. Any supplementation from the institute should come to them only because the institute wants certain work done. The same would apply to any equipment, as for instance in the case where it might be found cheaper to add to an existing laboratory down the country than to build an independent laboratory elsewhere. In that case one would expect that the honour of the college would be involved in doing for the institute the work which the institute has contracted with it to do.

I am hopeful that the project will justify itself on the basis of co-operation. There is nothing compulsory, as far as I can see, except the compulsory powers of funds and the inducements that can be given by funds at the disposal of the institute. There is no way in which colleges can be compelled to do anything they themselves do not want to do but they may be induced to do something. The representatives will enable the necessary contacts to be made but there is a great deal left for the governing body itself to do. This Bill does not complete the scheme. In a large measure, it has to be completed by the body to be set up, by the council which will be given certain powers by this Bill when the appointments are made. It will be started when this Bill goes through. The future will then depend on the initiative and ability of the council to do many things.

At one time, when working on this proposal, I was thinking of the desirability of something which was done in the case of the establishment of the National University—the setting-up of a temporary commission to act for a short period to do a number of things such as the acquisition of property which would be required if the original scheme had proceeded. Now the council can do that; it can do the very thing I thought it would have been desirable to have done by a commission if the other scheme had been proceeded with, the preliminary work such as taking a survey of the facilities already available.

In regard to the location and the buildings, I hope that the smallest percentage of this money will be spent on buildings. Undoubtedly some central place will be required. The central point of the National University is just two or three houses in Merrion Square. I always thought it a pity; it was not the original intention. This central point of the National University has no fine buildings or anything of that sort but it does much of the work of the university. I would suggest very strongly to this new body that, when it goes to work at the beginning, it should be modest in its central location, that it should take time, see what is to be done and what can be made of institutions that already exist.

Originally the Americans had an idea —I do not know how far Deputy Dillon agreed with it at the start; it is certainly attractive, and I can imagine the Americans wishing to have it as a sort of memorial of their generosity— of a great institution and various schools centered round it such as one sometimes finds in the case of the big colleges and universities in America. I do not think that would have been the wisest way and I think the previous Minister, if he ever had the idea, discarded it fairly soon.

Another point on which the Americans did not agree with us at the start, at any rate, was in regard to advisory services. I always held the view that it was ridiculous that an agricultural institute or a research institute should be charged with the task—except in the matter of publishing its material and making it available —of going in for, carrying on or superintending such things as advisory services. I could imagine the institute having experimental farms as part of the general research work, or pilot plants, as they were described by the previous speaker but I could never see why advisory services should be handed over to the institute. I felt that the system which obtains—with certain modifications, perhaps—is not a bad one. I did not know how near I was at the time to Deputy Dillon's ideas on a number of things but I certainly found myself thinking on the same lines when he was talking about the parish plan. It had a significance or perhaps something attached to it, about which I was not bothering but I agree that there should be some adviser under general directions in each parish. It would be very expensive and perhaps rather difficult to organise, but in time we certainly could get the necessary personnel.

On one occasion down the country I saw one of these young men talking to the farming community and I was perfectly certain that if there was a number of such people they would be most inspiring if they approached the work in the right spirit. They are excellent teachers and, as far as I could see, the parish plan idea of having instructors or advisers in certain areas where they would get to know the people and where the people would get to know them and have confidence in them was an excellent idea provided the expenses was not too great and provided the proper personnel could be secured.

There was some suggestion that it was a sort of State dictatorship, but I did not agree with that, nor see it in that light.

A problem which will emerge in this connection fairly soon, I believe, concerns technology. Disputes are going on in other countries between the universities as to whether the universities should have complete technological control, taking unto themselves all the work which is done in some other countries now, by separate institutions. There is no need to concentrate on getting everything into the colleges of the university. Sometimes a separate institution has more drive in it than will be obtained elsewhere. That is one of the problems which will have to be faced fairly soon. Scientific education is becoming more and more necessary. The technical side has to be dealt with in the vocational schools, but then it has to come up to some top. Is the top to be a university or some technological institute other than a university? It is not a subject to which I have given close attention, but I can see that certain difficulties underline it.

At first sight, my feeling would be that, if there are things of a very practical and immediate nature to be done, a special institute of a large technical school type, if we can afford it, would be the more natural summit or coping stone to the whole scheme, rather than some section of a university where there is a lot of work being done already in that particular sphere of knowledge.

Of course, in the case of general scientific matters, no one would suggest that they are not proper to the university. However, when we come to the more practical side, to the technical side, to the point of actually doing things, where we are thinking of people who are starting their vocational work, the work by which they intend to make their living, it is a big question as to whether that is the sort of work which is really appropriate to the universities or whether it could be done on a different basis.

However, we are all agreed here on this matter. I hope our agreement does not mean we have arrived at a compromise which will be neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. I hope that the method which has been chosen provides the way in which this work can be done. The success of this depends on the greatest goodwill on the part of all concerned. As far as the Government is concerned, we have shown our goodwill at the start. We have shown all the time that we are anxious to get the maximum of agreement. We did not try to reverse engines. Although the previous Government found they had to make a change, we did not want to go over the whole subject again. Whatever feelings we might have held individually, we did not want to go over every point again. Very well, agreement has been reached. So be it. Let us do our best now to make a success of it.

Acting-Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Aiken)

There have been only one or two points raised, as to a couple of sections in the Bill. A question was asked as to what "research" covers. If Deputies look at Section 2, they will find that "research" and "agriculture" are both defined. From those two definitions, it will be seen that "agricultural research" in this Bill includes investigation, test, experiment, analysis and study of facilities, activities and sciences which relate to or tend to promote or improve agriculture. That would seem to me to decide the question as to whether the institute could study marketing abroad. I think it is beyond it; but it could study packaging, harvesting and packaging and that sort of work, in regard to either agricultural or horticultural products.

A question was raised about the appointment of the director, the conditions under which he is appointed or removed, and the length of time for which he is appointed. Section 7 says there shall be a director of the institute, that the first director shall be appointed by the Government as soon as may be after the commencement of the Act, and that he shall hold office for such term and on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Government. Subsequently, the director shall be appointed by the council and shall hold office upon the terms and conditions laid down by the council.

There were one or two statements made which I would like to contest. One was made by Deputy Lynch, that there was no great advance in agricultural science here up to date. That is certainly not true. There are at least half a dozen of our senior technical people in agriculture, who are much better known in other parts of the world that they are here. That is very unfortunate. It is one of the things that I hope this institute will clear up. Very valuable, fundamental, scientific, agricultural research which is little known has been done here in a great number of institutions.

Wonderful work is being done at Glasnevin, not only in regard to plant breeding and animal care but also in regard to plant diseases. The work of the professors is known very widely throughout the world wherever there are people who are interested in such problems. There are other institutions here that are very well known throughout the world. For instance, there is Johnstown, the institute that was established there in 1944. It has been developing ever since and it has been visited by a great number of scientists from all parts of the world. In addition, there are the various colleges, such as Ballyhaise, and the dairy science branch of Cork University. Again, there is the Sugar Beet Company which has done marvellous work in the production of sugar beet suitable for our conditions and which gives the minimum trouble from the point of view of bolting diseases and so on.

One of the reasons we can look forward with great hope to the success of this institute is that we have a great number of scientific people who can help in the work of the institute and who have the right scientific approach. I believe they will co-operate fully with the institute, once it is started.

There is a great change among scientists generally throughout the world and I think the Americans have led in that change. Twenty or 30 years ago if a man discovered some little bit of new information, he kept it to himself. The Americans initiated the Marshall Aid plan whereby they invited, encouraged and paid everyone to come to America to see how things were done. They paid for institutions of this kind so that we, who might be the competitors of American farmers in some aspects, could improve our methods of agriculture. That is a great advance. I look with confidence to the institute co-operating not only with the universities and the professors, but with all the institutions under the Department of Agriculture and all those in private control throughout the country, such as the various colleges. I look forward to the maximum co-operation and goodwill between them. I think our reliance in that regard will be fulfilled, if the men of the future live up to the good, general standard that has been set for them by the scientific men living in the country upon whose co-operation and energy we depend for the success of this scheme.

The institute is not a magic ring. At the present time there is sufficient agricultural knowledge published and readily available at a very cheap price to every farmer throughout the country. If the skills and knowledge already known as to how to improve agricultural production were put into operation, our production would be very much higher than it is at present. If all our farmers were as good as the upper 1 per cent., we would probably treble our agricultural production. If all the farmers were as good as the top 5 per cent., we would probably double agricultural production. However, we need not despair if all the farmers are not up to the top 1 per cent. or 5 per cent. That is true of all countries in the world.

Progress has been made in agricultural science in many countries and it has been made here. As time goes on, the fruits of that scientific progress in agriculture will be applied in the daily life of the average farmer, but even if the present knowledge that we have were applied and if our farmers produced twice as much as they are producing at the present time, there is always the margin of improvement left. Not only is there a margin of improvement left but there is the need of holding the improvement gained because overnight, having spent years producing a certain crop and getting it to a certain level of efficiency, we might find an onslaught of disease which would wipe it out.

There are queer things happening in regard to diseases. We felt some of the effects of the encroachment of disease in various ways during the past few years, and were it not for the fact that we were able to spread the information we had among the farmers, things might have been much more difficult than they were. Not only do we need an increase, even if only a 10 per cent. increase, in production above the maximum which the very good farmer has reached at the moment, and not only have we to continue to search for that increase but we must continue to be on guard to defend what has already been achieved and protect the health of our crops and our live stock.

One of the good things about this institute is that there will be power to procure the publication of the results of agricultural research. Very good work has been done by various individuals in this country which has not been published. One of the reasons for that is that a Government Department must be more than sure that whatever is published is the last word. While that attitude is good and safe, it runs contrary to fast development. I hope this institute and, indeed, the Department of Agriculture, will adopt the system of encouraging people to publish the results of their research immediately it is known.

It will not be the last word but if a professor or an individual who has made an advance is prepared to publish it, put his name to it and say: "Here are the facts; I got these results on such a date, using such a material", I think it would speed up development if that result can be made known quickly. I hope the institute will use their power to enable it to be produced. Even though the results of a piece of research may appear to be very far above the heads of the ordinary farmer, it will give him an interest in agricultural science and perhaps encourage him to read the books that are already at his disposal and follow them up.

I shall conclude by thanking Deputies for the manner in which they received this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 27th November, 1957.