I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 42, to delete "and Fisheries".
The amendment is necessary because of the change of responsibility in the two Departments, Agriculture and Fisheries.
National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority Bill, 1976: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
My party are opposing this section as it stands because it repeals the legislation setting up An Foras Talúntais. Since their establishment, An Foras Talúntais have built up an enviable record of agricultural research and of service to the farming community and the community in general. They have built up a reputation for high scholarship and are a cadre of devoted people. It is proposed in this legislation to wipe them out.
I am afraid the purpose behind this, or one of the purposes, at any rate, is to requite a long-felt envy of people in the Department of Agriculture. It is basely motivated. The reason behind the proposal in this section to destroy An Foras Talúntais derives its origin from unworthy motivation. As far as I know, the proposal to destroy An Foras did not receive the blessing of any recognisable organisation in the country, agricultural or otherwise. To look for the motivation that produced this extraordinary decision you do not have to search far afield but near home. One must examine the motivation behind the effort to destroy something as useful and as good as this organisation. The theory behind the Bill is that research can be carried out, as if it were a commodity like cornflakes, within the general ambit of a remarkably awkwardly titled Bill like this.
Anybody who has had even a nodding acquaintance with An Foras or what lies behind research knows that agricultural research as we have known it and as we have benefited by it here will be destroyed by this proposal. In the future research will become the creature of a Minister, and worse still, of the Minister for Finance. The whole continuity of research will be destroyed by this spiteful, contemptible measure.
One wonders if there are not more venal reasons behind this as well. One wonders whether in destroying An Foras Talúntais one is not making a super-duper job for one or two of the boys that they could not have had before. One wonders if a particular one of the boys whom some of us can identify will not now be able to put his fingers into the pie of what he considers to be research, as well as everything else, as well as all the other pies in which this gentleman has his fingers.
I regard this proposal as corrupt. It is shameful. It is a disgrace. It could only come from a source completely insulated and remote from any contact with the farming community here. This was generated in the well-known smoke filled backrooms. No farmer had anything to do with this and no farming organisation could feel anything but shock at this proposal to destroy An Foras Talúntais.
Mr. R. Burke
This Bill has a couple of very important sections. They have been highlighted by Deputy Gibbons in the amendments he has put down. There is distinct evidence of empire building by entrenched powers, powers which have shown little respect for what is right or necessary for the agricultural community. They have their narrow-minded approach which has apparently been approved and ratified by this Government. We have the politics of envy within the Department of Agriculture. It has been evident in other Departments on other Bills. This approach has nothing to do with the best interests of the agricultural community.
An Foras Talúntais is an organisation that, since brought into operation, has shown tremendous ability and is capable of looking after the best interests of the agricultural industry. It is highly desirable that the functions of An Foras Talúntais should be separated in all aspects but financial accountability from the civil service. The civil service should be merely an administrative backup. The Minister's function should be the laying down of general policy. They should not have virtual control over all aspects of the agricultural services as is envisaged in section 7.
The work of An Foras Talúntais and of the advisory service generally is being attacked not because of deficiencies but because of success. The mentality of envy of success apparently is a hallmark of the present regime. I am sorry that at this time, when we have so many opportunities in our agricultural life, we should have before us a Bill of this nature. An Foras Talúntais since their inception have had outstanding success for which they have gained an international reputation. This is due to so many original ideas and successes at research level for which they have been responsible. They have the confidence of the farmers and I do not think that on either side of the House there is any doubt about this. They have this confidence because the farmer knows that when he goes to An Foras Talúntais to discuss a matter with them they will give him a sympathetic and knowledgeable hearing, a hearing which is independent because of the autonomy of An Foras Talúntais.
What will the situation be if this Bill goes through? A farmer going to An Foras Talúntais will have a hearing merely from one arm of an executive agency. No farmer fears that what he tells to an officer of An Foras Talúntais will be used in the future for taxation or any purpose other than the best interest of the farmer himself. The secret of the success of An Foras Talúntais has been their autonomy, their independence and the confidence they have built up. It is not a confidence built up by the mere passing of an Act. It has been built up by the experience of the farmers in their dealings with An Foras Talúntais and by the men who have given many hours of their own time, seeking no reward other than the satisfaction of a job well done. They got this sense of achievement because they were working as an independent unit, not independent of the farmers but independent on behalf of the farmers. They had this sense of achievement and satisfaction because they were doing something constructive for the Irish nation. I am not saying that they are ultra-patriots, because that would be to overstate the case. They are men who have worked hard because of their commitment to research, because of their education and background.
All of this goodwill within An Foras Talúntais will be destroyed by this executive agency if the staff of An Foras Talúntais are to be taken under this umbrella of the civil service. Any calculation of cost/benefit analysis must clearly show that the success of the research of An Foras Talúntais since their inception has been tremendous for the farmers. To brush away the years of work that the staff have done and to set them up as civil servants, as is suggested in this Bill, would be a retrograde step and I cannot understand the Minister taking it. Debate on agricultural services is a good thing and a very essential thing because of the importance to the nation of agriculture and of the agricultural sector. But I cannot understand why the Minister, having been involved in this debate on the agricultural services, should have decided to go towards the elimination of An Foras Talúntais and their absorption into this executive agency mentioned in the Bill. This was not suggested in the White Paper as I understood it. The Minister, as can happen to any Minister after a certain number of years in power, can become involved with the civil service and begin to be manipulated in the kindest sense of the word—by the civil service around him. I feel that this is what has happened—that the Minister has gone in the wrong direction completely and is being swamped and drowned by the sinister forces within his Department who are hellbent on empire building on their own behalf.
How has this tremendous success been achieved by An Foras Talúntais, the very body that is to be eliminated by this section 7? It has been achieved through autonomy, particularly autonomy in research. There was a free hand within the scope of the grant scheme. The staff were motivated in the right direction. They were dedicated and as a result of that dedication the output by any standards was phenomenal. If research is tied up in the civil service structure the phenomenal value gained will be much reduced. That is what I am afraid of. The motivation which drove them forward with such great strides will be destroyed in the civil service structure. If the Minister does not believe me all he has to do is to consult with the representatives of the staff. They have proven their interest in the agricultural economy generally and in our farmers. They are not just interested in position for position's sake. They have worked on behalf of the agricultural industry. To bring them into the civil service structure will be a retrograde step.
What will become of their autonomy and their research? Will they be limited by monitoring and sanctioning by the Minister's agents? Is this what will happen? Will there be probing meddling by Department of Agriculture officials? Where will research start? Where will the probing and the meddling by the Department stop? Exactly what will happen? Have we any guarantee that the present levels of research and success will be maintained? We have no such guarntee. I believe this is change merely for the sake of change. An independent unit is being brought in under the umbrella of the Department so that the clammy little mitts of the Department of Agriculture can be put on what has been a very successful unit. My great fear is there will be a levelling down rather than up, or any improvement in the situation, if there is room for improvement.
This is another example of the politics of envy. In this case it is departmental envy. The staff of An Foras Talúntais were working in the best interests of the country. What will happen to this staff? What will happen to their promotional opportunities? What about their ambitions? Will they be taken into the empire of the Department of Agriculture for the satisfaction of the hierarchy in that Department so that they will be under their control because they do not like to see——
An Leas-Ceann Comhairle
The Deputy ought to ascribe any blame he thinks there is to the Minister.
Mr. R. Burke
I assumed when I was talking about the Department of Agriculture the Minister was the person involved.
An Leas-Ceann Comhairle
The Deputy is speaking of civil servants as such and they ought not to be referred to in that fashion. The Deputy should refer to the Minister.
Mr. R. Burke
The Minister is bringing An Foras Talúntais into the hothouse of civil service bureaucracy where growth will be stultified and initiative will be eliminated. The staff have worked hard for agriculture and their success is actually their own downfall. That would appear to be the mentality behind the elimination of An Foras Talúntais under this Bill. Over the years the staff have studied many problems and found solutions to them. Will the dynamism of approach now be lost? The staff have never been associated with bureaucracy. I believe this Bill tolls the deathknell of the record and the performance of An Foras Talúntais. Should anyone think I am ascribing to the Minister and his agents powers that are not in this Bill then he need only look at section 30 to which we will come later. The Minister has not taken the right approach here.
The subject of the advisory services within agriculture needed debate and airing. Agriculture is our most important industry and obviously there will always be debate on how best to improve the service to farmers.
The Minister has adopted the wrong approach. Research programmes are best decided by the members personally concerned. If this Bill is passed, research on behalf of the farmers will be decided by bureaucracy and by pen-pushing operatives who have nothing to do with research. There will be little understanding of the possibilities and goals of the research programme involved.
What kind of situation will exist if research programmes are drawn up by civil servants who are out of touch with what is going on and who may be totally unskilled in the area in which they are making decisions? It will not be in the best interests of agriculture. The nub of this Bill is the elimination of An Foras Talúntais, transforming them from the progressive organisation they are into a wing of the civil service. It will be a retrograde step for the nation and for farming. What the Minister is proposing in this section will not further the interests of our farmers. It will tear down one of the finest institutions established since the foundation of the State. An Foras Talúntais have proved themselves by their autonomy but the Minister is proposing to tear down that organisation.
At one time I spoke about the amalgamation of education and research but I shall now give the Minister my reason for supporting the amendment. An Foras Talúntais have done an excellent job for the country. What is contained in this Bill is completely contrary to the White Paper. The new board will be under control of the Minister and nothing can be done without consultation with him. It is a tragedy that an autonomous organisation who have been doing a good job will be abolished and brought under the new structure as proposed now. For many years I have had my own opinions about research and education: in my opinion they should be together in an autonomous body such as the Agricultural Institute. My main reason for opposing the section is that we are abolishing an autonomous body who were doing an excellent job in research and we are putting them into an organisation that will be under the control of the Department. If the Minister were in opposition he would agree with what I have said.
There is no need for me to repeat the points put forward by Deputies Gibbons and Burke. I do not think the new board will have any autonomy. When I consider the matter I am suspicious why some of the important people on the board are so agreeable to come into the new structure. I have a fair idea that a couple of positions have been given away already. I cannot understand why an autonomous organisation who were doing good work should agree to dissolve themselves. I realise they will have no option if this Bill becomes law but I wonder why more people in high places have not protested about this section. As I have pointed out, I have personal views about education and research combining together in an autonomous body, as happened in the board that carried out research for the farmers. I have stated my reason for opposing this section; I shall have a lot to say about other sections later in the debate.
As previous speakers on this side of the House have pointed out, the reason we are opposing this section deals with the question of autonomy. We are totally opposed to the Minister's proposal to put the board under the control of the Department and himself. Throughout all the sections of the Bill the phrase "subject to the control of the Minister for Agriculture" is used.
In the past the Agricultural Institute had a completely free rein. There was no departmental control. It is now proposed to withdraw the autonomy the institute have enjoyed since 1958 and to put them under the control of the new authority. The latter will be subject to the control of the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for the Public Service and the Minister for Finance. The new structure will be tied up in red tape. The liaison which existed between the advisers and, more particularly, the liaison that existed between the farming community and the Agricultural Institute will be completely submerged in the new body which will be comprised of political hacks of the Minister.
The Minister must be aware of the unease this is causing to the farming community because of the statements made by the major farming organisations, the IFA, the ICMSA and Macra na Feirme with regard to the submerging of the Agricultural Institute under this new authority. There is also considerable unease among the staff of the Agricultural Institute and among the advisory service of the various county committees. They now realise that the close attachment which existed between the advisory service and the staff of the Agricultural Institute will exist no longer. This will put Irish agriculture back many years.
Several public statements have been issued by the different farming organisations, the organisations which represent the advisory service and the staff of the Agricultural Institute, that they will now be subjected to a delay and bureaucracy from the Minister for Agriculture and the other Ministers who will make the decisions regarding the working of this new authority. This will adversely affect the work of the Agricultural Institute and will also affect the advancement of agriculture. At the moment the liaison with the county committees of agriculture and the advisory service is excellent but I am afraid that in the future this will not exist.
Research should be independent of ministerial control as it has been since the establishment of the Agricultural Institute. The Jones Davis Report, entitled A Review of Irish Agriculture Advisory Services, October, 1967, advised against linking the Agricultural Institute with the agricultural advisory services. The Minister should consider this carefully if he has any interest in the development of agriculture.
I would like to refer to the farmers' confidence in the Agricultural Institute since they were established. Farmers will not have the same confidence in the Agricultural Institute when they are submerged in this new body. I appeal to the Minister to have another think about this section and to allow the Agricultural Institute to continue as they have been for many years. He should allow the institute to continue to give the service they have given to the farming community over the years. If the Minister withdrew this section from the Bill he would be doing something worth while for agriculture.
I would also like to support our spokesman on Agriculture in asking the Minister to withdraw this section. It is obvious to everybody that the Agricultural Institute have given tremendous service to farmers and to Irish agriculture generally. The great strides made in promoting new ideas and new techniques are well known to all farmers. Many a young farmer was launched into his chosen career by the advice available to him from the Agricultural Institute. This was one of the most useful bodies ever set up to help the farming community.
The research carried out by the Agricultural Institute has benefited every farmer who sought their advice, from the dairy farmer to the tillage farmer, the farmer engaged in erecting new buildings or the man who wanted advice about purchasing new machinery. It is a real body blow to agriculture that the institute are now losing their autonomy. The services of this institute will now be submerged in the new monster created by the Minister. This cannot be seen as a step forward for agriculture. I believe it is a retrograde step, as far as agriculture is concerned, to abolish the Agricultural Institute. When new techniques are being put forward every day, when farming methods are changing daily, it is imperative that our farmers have the advice of a body like the Agricultural Institute. If our farmers are expected to keep in step with the other farmers in the Community it is absolutely essential that they have available to them the very best service from people like those in the Agricultural Institute. It is a sad day for our farmers to see the institute being abolished. I appeal to the Minister to have a second think on this section.
While I can readily understand Deputy Gibbons' views on the transfer of the Agricultural Institute to the authority being set up under this Bill I hope he will not oppose the Bill on this basis. I accept that he holds those views very strongly but I am as fully convinced of the correctness of the course of action I am taking. I am putting the research services into the authority, side by side with the education and advisory services, because nothing gives the same amount of stimulation as research, and I want this stimulation to be as close as possible to the other services. I want to create an overall integrated service with willing teamwork between all the agencies concerned. I want to remove whatever barriers or lines of demarcation that may exist between them. I am conscious that research results are not applied on as many farms as I would like or as quickly as I would like them to be.
The Agricultural Institute is concerned mainly with applied research and it tackles practical problems of interest to different branches of the industry. It is also involved in development work of various kinds. The organisation which has been established will provide the present institute staff, together with the staffs of the other services which are being transferred, with a more effective means of promoting the well-being of our agricultural industry than at present existing through those services working more or less independently or in isolation. In this integrated organisation they will be every bit as free to carry out their work as they have been in the past.
I am grateful to the Ceann Comhairle for correcting the inferences that have been made, that in some way I have been pushed into this course of action of including An Foras Talúntais in this integrated organisation which we are endeavouring to set up. Nothing could be further from the truth. If there is envy in the Department of Agriculture, I have not been aware of it. I have never seen any signs of it and since I have gone into the Department of Agriculture I see people from the institute coming in and out of that Department every day and there is the greatest measure of co-operation between An Foras Talúntais and the services operated by my Department. The research services being carried out by the Department are also being transferred to this body.
An Foras Talúntais has been greatly praised here and I agree with all the praise that has been showered on this organisation. Nobody has a higher appreciation of their work than I have. I want to give them a more effective means of doing their work and of getting their work accepted by the people for whom it is intended. I cannot understand when Deputies on the opposite side of the House say that I am taking the autonomy away from these people. In previous years and up to the present An Foras came to me and to the Minister for Finance in relation to their programme and they have had to get agreement on whatever money kept them going through that period. We hear Deputies talking about their operating on an independent grant previously and up until now. Where did this independent grant come from? They got £100,000 from the American fund and practically £5 million from the State. Where was the independent grant that is being talked of?
Deputy Burke says there was no question of the Agricultural Institute being brought into this integrated group in the White Paper. Obviously, the man did not read the White Paper and does not know what he is talking about in relation to this. They have to come to us in relation to their programme. They have to come to the Minister for Agriculture and they must come to the Minister for Finance as they have always done in relation to the sort of money they want for their programme. What is wrong with this? Should we have an agricultural policy or not in this country? Should we not know what the Agricultural Institute is doing with the money it is getting from the State? It is perfectly correct that we should know and that the Minister for Agriculture should know no matter who is in this job. It would be wrong if the Minister did not know. I said on Second Reading and at various times that once the decision is made about the money that they get they are free to operate after that and nobody will interfere with the day to day work of the institute. We are getting all these services out of the Department of Agriculture and still we are supposed to be putting the dead hand of the civil service on this, morning, noon and night, as if the civil service was going to kill everything it touched. I cannot understand or accept what all this is about. Agricultural research in two countries that are the envy of Europe is directly under the Ministry of Agriculture, that is, Holland and New Zealand. It does not pine away and die and become useless because this is so. We have not put it under the civil service. We are putting it out under a body of people who are going to be elected mainly by the rural organisations of this country who are close to and are concerned with farming. Somehow the case is being made that now we are bringing it in to get the civil service to kill it. I do not accept the case that is being made for this amendment. I ask the Ceann Comhairle and the House to confirm section 7 as it stands.
The Minister has been trying to justify something that is unjustifiable and in the process has got himself more embroiled in the toils of his own unsustainable argument. The Minister says that nothing has really changed and that An Foras Talúntais are just as independent as they ever were. The Minister also said that he is second to nobody in appreciating the work they have done for Irish agriculture and that their position is virtually unchanged by the provisions of section 7. If that is the case, why include it in the Bill at all? If the Minister turns to section 19 of the Bill, he will discover that he is the one for whom the new service must prepare a list of research activities for the perusal of the Minister and presumably his board.
The Agricultural Institute as we know it had developed a complete ethos of agricultural research. Every farmer in the country knew it. It is plain to be seen that some of the civil servants in the Department of Agriculture did not know it. The thing was working beautifully and they had established centres in many parts of the country, including my own constituency. Like any living thing it had taken on an identity and an existence of its own for the benefit of Irish farmers. Every man in this House who has any association with agriculture knows that this is so. Every member who spoke from my party who has associations with agriculture knows this. It is remarkable that the Minister's party does not seem to have any interest at all in this vital Bill as evidenced by the fact that there is no representative of the Fine Gael Party here except the Minister. The Minister puts up a specious argument about the new integrated service, revealing his own lack of philosophy on the whole question. This sticks out from the Minister's Bill from beginning to end, the failure to understand the basic needs of the Irish farmer. What we are talking about now is research. There are other provisions in the Bill which we shall discuss in due course.
The Minister admits that we have a fine research service which has done a very good job. It has a brilliant international reputation as a research organisation. Does the Minister really believe it is necessary to kill it in its present existence and then introduce it to a new bondage, to be administered by people unfamiliar with the ethos of research, people who have no grasp of the modern requirements of the agriculture industry and of farmers? That is true of a great many people who will be involved in the administration of this new service. The Minister is ignoring all that. His attitude is that he does not care if the concept of the basic research, the growing, living, flourishing organism that we built up over the last 19 years, is destroyed and replaced by a slave of a thing, something brought into artificial bondage and hitched, on apparently equal terms, to other considerations like the advisory service and the educational content of the new service as well.
There is a very serious breakdown in basic thinking there. You said, Sir, that we must ascribe all things to the Minister. On that basis we will ascribe the failure to the Minister. I think the Minister knows enough about farming to know, especially in our conditions, with our weak agriculture, with our comparatively poor milk production, our comparatively poor land use, that we above any other country in the community need to have a really free and effective agricultural research organisation, and now we are going to destroy it. Will the Minister not agree that this is so? I know it is so. I am in the industry myself and I know what my colleagues in the industry with me think. They are afraid of this and regret it, and in spite of the very great effort that was made by interested people in the media world to smooth over the anxiety of the farmers generally, it is beginning to bubble up now rather late in the day. Journals which, according to themselves, are fearlessly on the farmers' side were very much missing when the interests of the farmers were being sabotaged by this Bill. That is not anything to be wondered at either, and it will be something to be wondered at less before this Bill goes through the House.
I have very little more to say about this except I simply cannot understand Deputy Gibbons when he says that this new organisation is to be administered by people unfamiliar with the interests of research. Who is he talking about? Who is running the present institute? Are they familiar with those interests and in what way are they going to be different from the people we propose to run the board of the new authority? What has been said does not make sense.
I would like to add my voice to the appeals being made from this side of the House to the Minister to have a re-think in this regard. For some reason the Minister has become heated arising from the remarks that have been made from this side of the House. I myself have been hearing on the car radio and reading in the papers reports about the reaction from within the institute itself. I suppose one can say those people have a vested interest in looking after themselves, but our experience down through the years has been one of a tremendous build-up of very good relationships between the farming community and the institute. The Minister is going out of his way to react maybe in a predictable manner by conveying there will be no change in the status of the institute under this new authority that he is creating. He may wax as eloquent as he likes in this connection, but we must accept that the people involved in the institute who are fearful of the outcome of this need to be reassured also. I do not think there is anything the Minister has said today which will reassure them in that regard.
The Minister says that up to now the institute have been very dependent upon Government handouts. They have, but so also have a good number of other State-sponsored bodies, and those bodies are always mindful of the fact that while they are dependent upon Government subventions they are autonomous. Two bodies with whom I have had the closest contact, the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and the IDA, are both completely dependent upon Government money but they have always been looked upon as autonomous. In the discussion on the Bula Bill we found that the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards were being used by an outside firm to extract more money from the Minister. They were as autonomous as that.
Can the Minister for Agriculture in this instance claim that this new body will be as free as that, despite what is involved in section 16 of this Bill whereby the authority has to work in close liaison with the Minister and other agencies? My colleague, Deputy Gibbons, talked about the absence of Fine Gael back-up for the Minister in this regard. I have been surprised that there has been no contribution at all from the Labour side of the Coalition movement here, because it is the Labour people who have been traditionally talking about nationalisation. As I see it, the Agricultural Institute represents the nationalisation of an advisory service to farmers. I know the Labour Party are committed to putting the farmers out of business, but there will be a certain number of them paying lip service in the coming election to the interests of the small farmers. It is here in the House today that we could expect contributions from those people thereby backing up the Agricultural Institute who have done so much for this State over a period and which the Minister is so surprisingly determined to gut.
I have listened to the Minister's reply to the submissions made from this side of the House for the deletion of section 7. The Minister's contribution so far has been justification of the fact that he is merely technically changing the name and not in any way changing the status of the Agricultural Institute, which does not impress me. My qualification for speaking on this subject—not being a farmer—is the fact that for a period I acted as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. During that time I became conscious of a certain amount of friction between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries officially and the Agricultural Institute. It is with that sort of background knowledge that I become worried about the re-embracing of the institute—or whatever it is to be freshly named—in the Department.
There is no doubt that built into this Bill, there is more constraint on the new authority than there was on the Agricultural Institute under the former Act. It is in that respect that we, on this side of the House, have a responsibility, not in defence of the Institute because, as it has operated so far, it does not warrant any defence. I cannot imagine any agricultural organisation or body set up to liaise with farmers which could have done a better job. Despite the Minister's obvious commitment to doing away with it, I would ask him to re-examine his decision.
It is not that Deputy Lalor in any way taunts me but I find a peculiar illogicality in Deputy Gibbons' amendment. I have the greatest regard for Deputy Gibbons' views on agricultural research, education and advisory services though he and I would differ sharply on other aspects such as farm incomes, taxation and so on not being discussed today. The illogicality of Deputy Gibbons' position is that basically he, like myself and the Minister, would favour the rationalisation and integration of educational research and advisory services. Nobody in the House would particularly disagree with the overall concept of and need for such rationalisation. Unfortunately, his amendment stands the proposition on its head by removing the Agricultural Institute once again from that concept.
What particularly surprised me in relation to the Opposition's approach to the Bill is that I would have thought—and far be it from me to impose my views on the farming community; my advocacy of something is more likely to have the reverse effect—it would have been entirely logical, bearing in mind the outstanding development of An Foras Talúntais over a 20 year period, that one should have codified the Agricultural Act in relation to the committees of agriculture. Likewise, I should have thought the Civil Service Relations Act should have been codified in relation to staff being transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the new authority, thereby having an expanded Agricultural Institute. I am of the view —this is very much a personal opinion —that one of the tragic failures of the previous Administration; was their omission dramatically to revise the statutes under which the Agricultural Institute was established and their failure to develop their scope and functions. That constituted a tragedy in terms of agricultural development. Throughout the country I know of many persons working for committees of agriculture, particularly in the advisory services, who, integrated with the staff of An Foras Talúntais, would have been happier people in many respects, people who would have felt they could have made a greater contribution and who would have had a relative degree—I do not like the word "independence"—of autonomy from the public service, having a more flexible relationship with the Department of Agriculture as such. Perhaps it is now past history.
I do not see the logic of Deputy Gibbons' amendment because it would merely refragment what the Minister is attempting to integrate. While I might not necessarily share the Government's or the Minister's views on the process of integration—and I shall have quite a lot to say on this later in relation to sections 32, 33 and 34— I do feel Deputy Gibbons could have put forward a more constructive, original approach to the Bill. Perhaps the Opposition could have done so, perhaps with some mutual agreement in the House because there was not very much debate on the White Paper.
I told the Deputy on Second Stage.
Perhaps we would not now be in this situation in which the Minister cannot accept the Opposition's amendment when, of course, everybody has to take up classical positions, resulting in a non-productive discussion.
There are many reasonable and fair-minded observers of the tremendous contribution made to our economy, in terms of agricultural research, education and the advisory services who would see justification for having them integrated and properly fused together. Perhaps we are over-integrating, over-fusing and over-rationalising it right into the heart of the public service. In the process we may have lost the prospect of an integration that could be radically different from that which we are now setting about. For that reason I could not support Deputy Gibbons' amendment to delete section 7. That would merely revert to the status quo and, God knows, when he was Minister we were slow enough getting away with that.
May I ask the Minister two questions? Under section 20 of the 1958 Act, An Foras Talúntais were obliged to issue an annual report. Will this practice be discontinued when the new authority is set up? The Minister must be aware that voluntary contributions were made by various bodies over the years to An Foras Talúntais. I notice that at the end of 1974 they acknowledged contributions from approximately 100 companies. Would the Minister not consider that the new authority will discourage companies from making voluntary contributions towards research?
I shall answer the last question first. There is special provision in the Bill to permit such bodies making contributions to the authority, to the institute, as heretofore. About the report, I could not imagine any authority stopping the institute or An Foras Talúntais from producing an annual report. That will be entirely a matter for the board who will run this authority. It will not be for me to say they should or must produce a separate report on their work, but I am sure they will.
Could I ask the Minister to use his microphone?
I am sorry, I do not know how to use it.
Mr. R. Burke
Eventually after the speech made by Deputy Lalor we had a contribution from a Member from the Government side of the House other than the Minister. Deputy Desmond spoke on behalf of the Labour Party and I should hate to tag the rest of the Labour Party with his contribution. Because he was the only Member who spoke on behalf of the Labour Party, we can only assume he reflected their views. To say it was a typical Pontius Pilate speech by Deputy Desmond—and I am sorry he has left the House—is an understatement. His approach was: "We agree with what Fianna Fáil are saying. We agree with their amendment. We agree An Foras Talúntais should not be interfered with. At the same time we should not disturb the Minister at this stage. It is in the Bill now and we will let it go through."
He supported the Fianna Fáil case. He was trying to have it both ways. He is an Assistant Whip who will be a teller when this issue comes to a vote. He is trying to ride two horses by supporting the Fianna Fáil case and the good work of the staff of An Foras Talúntais while, at the same time, hiding behind the Minister's coat tails in case he might disturb his colleague in his constituency, the Taoiseach, and somewhere along the line he might lose a third or fourth preference vote. He is trying to ride two horses and do his usual Pontius Pilate act. Let him stand up and say he is supporting us on behalf of An Foras Talúntais or not stand up at all.
I spoke here earlier. Since then I have attended meetings throughout my constituency. Many elected representatives and many who are not elected would prefer to see a higher percentage of elected representatives on the board. The Minister mentioned that 50 per cent——
This section does not deal with repeals.
I was anxious to raise other matters but apparently I cannot do so.
The Deputy will have an opportunity to do so on other sections.
I should like to clear up one point. I was asked a question about a report. I assumed that the inquiry was whether the institute would produce a separate report and the answer I gave to that was correct. Under section 52 of this Bill there is the same obligation on An Foras Talúntais as there is under the Act setting up that body to produce a report to the Minister as soon as conveniently possible. That same obligation is on the new authority to produce a similar report.
That is for the authority rather than the research section.
There is no obligation on the research end of the authority to produce a separate report but I have no doubt they will produce their own report. It is a matter for the board to decide.
Listening to the Minister, I have been convinced that the amendment put down by Deputy Gibbons to oppose the section is correct. The Minister has not convinced me as to why the institute should be submerged. He felt the advisory and research sections should be under the one authority in order that the results would be available more easily. I know of no occasion when there was a holdup in the conveying of the results of research by the Agricultural Institute to the advisory service. The Minister's argument falls very flat.
The Minister is evading the issue. He has not replied to our cogent and coherent arguments. He has stated that there is no difference. Deputy Gibbons rightly asked why have the section in the Bill at all. Heretofore the Agricultural Institute met the Minister and his staff to discuss policy, but their policy did not have to be approved by the Minister. That is the great difference between what happened in the past and what is being incorporated in this Bill. The work of the Agricultural Institute now has to be approved by the Minister. Deputy Lalor spoke about the friction between the staff of the Department and the staff of the institute.
In the White Paper published in April, 1975, it was stated that An Foras Talúntais was already an autonomous organisation established in 1958 to review, facilitate, encourage, assist, co-ordinate, promote and undertake agricultural research. It was held at that time that agricultural research should be detached from the Department of Agriculture so that research could be initiated in any area of agriculture without fear of being hindered or prevented from doing so by departmental or other pressures. The White Paper went on to say it also became clear that a great need in agriculture was to get existing knowledge applied in the solution of problems of under-production, processing and marketing. That is as true today as it was in 1958. This section is taking away this initiative, this power, this autonomy from the Agricultural Institute.
The Minister told us there was no difference. There is no difference about the provision of money but the crucial point is once the institute got the money from the Minister they were completely free. Deputy Desmond almost said we were right. He was in favour of amalgamation up to a point. He as much as said we are right. As Deputy Noonan pointed out, when the Agricultural Institute were established they were free agents, although they had to go to the Department for money. This authority will not be free.
When the authority get the money they will be free agents also.
No, they will not. This is the big point at issue. This authority will be subject to the Minister. The Agricultural Institute are free while this authority are not. This is the kernel of our Opposition to this Bill. I am surprised there are not more Deputies on the Fine Gael benches to speak on this because every farmer, no matter which party he supports, wants an independent body. We all realise that this body must go to the Department for money and naturally they cannot squander it, but it should not be necessary for them to go to the Department, hat in hand, every day for money. This is written into several sections, approved by the Minister——
Where?
I doubt if the Minister has even read the Bill.
We will be coming to them section by section. I do not want to leave section 7 but right through the Bill there are phrases like, "subject to the Minister", "in consultation with the Minister" used in connection with small items. Neither the Agricultural Institute nor the advisers want to be directly under the authority of the Department.
The Minister mentioned the services in other countries which were directly under the authority of agricultural departments. I can assure him that this will never be accepted by farming organisations and particularly by educational organisations. Down through the years, no matter which Government were in power, I fought for a certain amount of autonomy for the people involved in educational research. That is being taken out of this Bill. This is the kernel of the matter.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmons, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin Central).
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Bruton and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the extraordinary inelegant title he proposes to give to the new organisation. Needless to say, we strongly object to the impending destruction of the existing organisation but I suggest that the wording of the title of the new body, the National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority, be changed by the substitution of the word "Training" for "Education". This would be the Minister's intention, at least I hope so.
I understand training to be more confined than education which is a general preparation which should be afforded to all young men and women, more or less regardless of what careers they will follow afterwards. Implicit in this title is a basic weakness in the Minister's thinking in that he tends to regard farmers as some type of aborigines who need to be specially trained in rudimentary facts and who labour under a condition of enlightenment that the Minister seems to consider a great deal less than the enlightenment of other members of the community. If this were not the case surely the educational facilities that are in existence already for the community ought also to be available to the young people going into agriculture. What the Minister is after is really specialised training, afterwards education. You do not call the type of training that a soldier gets military education unless he is an officer and goes to a staff college. Similarly, the specialised training that one might get in an agricultural college like Kildalton, Ballyhaise or Athenry, in specialised things like machinery maintenance, is not called education. That is training. For the sake of accuracy and also as a matter of good manners and courtesy to the agricultural population, I suggest to the Minister to delete this implication that it is necessary to educate them. I accept that they have reached a level of education just as anybody else has, but say that they need specialised training in certain areas, and when you mean "training" say "training" in the Bill.
I do not know why Deputy Gibbons always sees fit to impute extraordinary motives to what I am doing. Why should I want to reflect on farming or farmers? Why should I want to reflect on a section of the community that I am so responsible for and which I come from and was brought up and educated among? I do not like the title particularly because it has to be so long and unwieldy but it is necessary if we are to describe the various elements in this integrated authority. I do not agree with Deputy Gibbons when he says that students in an agricultural college get no education, they get nothing but training. He is drawing a very fine distinction. I was at two agricultural colleges in my time and I got both education and training. There is nothing inconsistent in describing it as education because in my view education includes training. While I am in no way wed to the name it seems to me the only appropriate name that we could give it if it is to describe the various agencies being integrated into a national authority.
I do not want to make an issue, but the Minister knows I am right.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
We are opposing this section. Section 10 is very short. There are only five words in it. They are five of the saddest words that have been incorporated in legislation about agriculture in this House for a long time. Section 10 says:
The Institute is hereby dissolved.
The Minister will probably remember that the Emperor Bonaparte's police minister, Fouché, said after a political murder that it was worse than a crime, it was a mistake. The dissolution of the institute is quite certainly a crime. It is effected through the passage of section 10 of the Minister's Bill. It is also a mistake because in our position in the European Community we are more dependent on farming than any other nation in the Community. It is more vital to us that the research mechanism that we have working for us as a nation—not simply for the farming part of the nation—is of the very best kind. The mute, stupid jackboots that will come in through those doors in due course wherever they are now— and there is not a single one in the House at present—will come to bulldoze the Minister's Bill through the House. They will do their country and its agriculture very serious and possibly permanent damage. The permanency of it will be taken care of because as sure as the Agricultural Institute is destroyed by the Coalition Government a better Government will have to restore it. In the context of the inescapable fact that a responsible Government must restore the proper establishment for agricultural research, I appeal to the Minister not to create a jigsaw, an unstable situation created by this wanton destruction of one of the finest agricultural research establishments in Europe.
I fear—and this fear is shared by other informed people—that this thing is being done for unworthy reasons. If the reasons were merely political and base for that reason only it would be bad enough, but there is something further. There is something even baser than that and it is a great shame. It is the greatest insult to all the fine men and women in the Agricultural Institute who have given of their superior training a superior dedication to their country and to their discipline and given unstintingly. The gratitude of the nation and of the Government is to dissolve the establishment in which they work.
The only thing that offers hope to us all, to the institute and to people like myself in the farming industry is the fact that this need not be a permanent arrangement. We cannot afford this patchwork arrangement proposed in this Bill. In one sense the amendment is a futility because you cannot amend something so stupid and so woodenly conceived by unimaginative people because you only end up with a botch-up which is neither one thing nor the other.
We have all conceded that the advisory services need to be revised and improved. These services since the Minister took charge have deteriorated very rapidly and there is no reason to believe that deterioration will now cease. On the contrary, with the dissolution of the institute the general deterioration of the agricultural services will accelerate. When you deliberately set out to destroy the good bits how can you hope that the bad bits and the indifferent bits will do anything but deteriorate further?
Section 10 smacks of dictatorship, of the jackboot and the bullet. It is reminiscent of the old Blue Shirt mentality. It says the institute is hereby dissolved. What it does not say, but clearly implies, is that anybody who does not like it can lump it. We do not like it. I do not think the people in rural Ireland like it. I do not think anybody with any interest in the development of the resources we have could possibly like it. According to the Bill, we are jolly well going to like it so there is quite definitely an echo of the 'thirties there. We can see the old Sam Browne belts and the Blue Shirts and the Nazi salutes behind section 10. I can barely remember those days. But there is no need for total despair because we will have another and a better government and we will restore the country's agricultural research. Meantime the country will be put to enormous and unnecessary expense because of the Minister's arrogance which shines out of every word in these five words in section 10.
Speaking as one who comes from the land, with a fairly intimate knowledge of the institute, I must personally express my gratitude to them for the services they have given me and people like me and, if we can repair the damage being done to them by the Government, we assuredly will. I do not know if there is any purpose in appealing at this late stage to the Minister. He has accepted what the machine has produced. It can truly be called a dog's dinner, the mixture as before only more of it. Pay off a few old scores and destroy anything of value. Bring in the pals and give them jobs and you will have a bigger political machine in the next election and more people under obligation. That is what the Minister thinks of Irish agriculture.
The Minister will be able to handle the publicity end of it all right. The media are fully muzzled by now. The Minister need not worry about that. Certainly he need not worry about Telefís Éireann or Radio Éireann. But that does not change the fact one damn bit that this is the dissolution of a worthy organisation, a splendid organisation that brought credit to the country, and its replacement by a machine for putting people under an obligation so that they will be of value to the Government in political campaigns. I do not think I am overstating it because the man in the street will tell you who is going to be the chairman and the director and he will give you the names of the people who are almost certain to be on the board. They do not even have to look at the tawdry disgraceful record of Cosgrave and his Government in the matter of political patronage to know this is going to be another mechanism for the distribution of patronage. There never was in this country since the last old Cumann na nGaedheal Government such a disgraceful display of patronage as has taken place under Cosgrave and his present Government. Now Irish agriculture is being dragged into this slime.
Members of this House should be referred to in specific terms——
I cannot hear you, Sir.
——in strict accordance with the positions they hold.
Anyway, I have said what I wanted to say. It is very sad that the men and women of this organisation should be simply told, like the slap of the back of a hand in the face, that this Government place no value at all on the work they are doing and are, therefore, going to make a political machine out of them.
I am sure the House will not expect me to reply to the Blue Shirt comments because they have very little relevance here. While the wording of this section might be considered somewhat harsh, it is dictated by legal requirements. I hoped it would not be necessary to put it in this way, but we are setting up an integrated organisation and, when doing so, one has first of all to dissolve the existing organisation. Rather than emphasise the negative aspect I would prefer to stress the positive side of this section. The institute is being integrated into a larger organisation where it will have greater scope in achieving its objective of promoting the further development of the agricultural industry.
Did the Minister ever read George Orwell's "1984"?
No.
He should read it sometime.
Order. The Minister.
I do not know anybody, and I am just as much in contact with the farming community as Deputy Gibbons, who holds the views he holds about this new authority. I believe very few people agree with his views. Really he is speaking for himself, with great bitterness, and it is all very unnecessary and very unimaginative.
The whole thing is unnecessary. It is a damn shame.
It is very sad to see an institute set up as an independent body to advise on agriculture being wiped out of existence, put into one unwieldy unit and deprived of its independence. It will lose its identity. The work of the institute was known the world over. Come down to Grange in my constituency, go over to Lullymore, Carbury and Rathangan to see the work done by this institute. The money that established the Agricultural Institute came from America with the specific objective that they would be independent in their research. However, if this Bill is passed the institute will be integrated with the Department of Agriculture.
The personnel of the advisory services valued the independence of the institute. They could express their views without worrying about whether they were in accord with Government policy but this situation will not obtain in the new board. To give an example, if a committee of agriculture want to appoint a secretary they may not be able to do so because of the current ruling that new posts may not be created. We do not want research to be hindered in this way. We should give them their allocation each year and let the director work out what is needed. An Foras Talúntais have considered every aspect of farming and have done valuable work.
It is a fact that quite a few eminent people in agriculture have left the institute and have taken up other posts in societies dealing with animals and so on and this has been very disheartening. Their reason for leaving the institute was their fear that they would be taken over by a big unit where they would have no say or influence.
In the old institute all sections of farming had the right to nominate or elect a person to the board but now the Minister will have complete control. We know what is likely to happen. Friends of his will be appointed and they will be subject to whatever he dictates. Independent research will be scrapped if this is what the Minister wants. Rural domestic economy schools consider they should have somebody on the board. In the old institute certain groups had a chance of being elected at some stage——
This section does not deal with that matter.
I was trying to point out the concern of various people about this matter. Most of the farming community are disturbed because the institute will lose their independence. In the past the staff of the institute had complete autonomy but they worked hand-in-hand with the Department of Agriculture. I do not see the reason for integrating them with the Department. They have given good service to all sectors of agriculture and they were free to accept money for carrying out research. If a firm wanted research carried out and if they did not have the staff to do this work they could ask the institute to carry it out for them. We need an independent body to do research work for farmers and for agriculture generally.
They will still be in that position as a result of this Bill.
Yes, but they will be under the control of the Department. The Minister of the day will have the power to nominate people and he will have control over what is done. The institute have given good service and I do not see any reason to make a change now.
I support my colleagues who are opposing section 10. Deputy Crinion has pointed out that the institute have done a very good job. This was possible because they were an independent body but I do not think that the new body will have this independence. They will be under the control of the Department and this will not benefit the farmers or agriculture generally.
It raises a doubt whether this Government are concerned about farming. Their record is not good. The Minister tells us that we must abolish the institute before the new body is set up but in that interim period research work will suffer. At this period in our history research is most important and farmers have been influenced by An Foras Talúntais so far as their farming work is concerned. They have brought out papers on almost every aspect of farming which are guidelines for most of our farmers. I believe that when a body lose that type of independence their work is restricted. The Minister said that a larger organisation would be more effective but I find it very hard to see how he can sustain that argument. When organisations become large it is not to the benefit of the State or the community they serve.
I believe the institute did a very good job and that their work is required in the future. I do not believe the institute will be as effective when they are integrated with the Department of Agriculture. I believe they will lose their independence and that agriculture will suffer greatly. This is one of the many knocks agriculture has got since this Government took office. Agriculture needs all the assistance possible at the moment. I join with my colleagues in opposing this section.
When the Minister was replying to Deputy Gibbons he said he did not like the words "the institute is hereby dissolved" but that they were being used because one body was being dissolved and another instituted. One would imagine that he was comparing like with like. There is no comparison at all. It is an entirely different setup. The powers of the institute which the Minister is dissolving are being given to another body, the National Agricultural, Advisory, Education and Research Authority.
The Deputy will appreciate that he is repeating arguments.
I am not repeating them. This section says that the institute is hereby dissolved. When Deputy Gibbons pointed out the consequences of this the Minister said he was sorry the words had to be there but it only meant transferring the functions of one institute to another. One would imagine that it was comparing like with like but that is not the case. The Agricultural Institute were an autonomous body but the new one is not. It is under the Department of Agriculture.
The Minister amazed me when he stated, in reply to Deputy Gibbons, that neither farming organisations nor any other associations have issued statements about their opposition to this Bill, particularly this section. The Minister must not have read the newspapers about this. Farming organisations, in particular, have issued statements about their fears when the Agricultural Institute are abolished. The institute are being merged into this great big body, where, the Minister states, there will be greater scope. He will certainly have greater scope in regard to their deliberations, functions and work as far as research is concerned. If the Minister is talking about his own scope the abolition of the Agricultural Institute is a sad day for the development of agricultural research. Since the Agricultural Institute were established in 1958 they have built up a reputation inside and outside the country in regard to research, their various documents and particularly their personnel.
The Deputy will appreciate that we have had these arguments on section 7.
No. I am talking about the abolition of the Agricultural Institute.
The section is confined to that. We do not want a repetition of arguments.
This section states that the institute is hereby dissolved. I want to compare the Agricultural Institute with the new body. Surely I am entitled to compare what we had with what we will have? I am not repeating anything I stated on the previous section. I believe what we gained under the Agricultural Institute will be lost when we have the new authority.
This seems to be something which will arise on a later section. The section we are on at the moment is a simple section. We have heard the arguments already on section 7.
It refers to the dissolving of the institute. Will we regain under the new authority what will be lost by the abolition of the Agricultural Institute? I believe we will not. I feel that in An Foras Talúntais we have people with specialised research training and people who have experience with research in other countries. I feel in the future that the scope for research workers will not be there. When An Foras Talúntais are abolished we will have the new authority taking over their functions which will be subject to the approval of the Minister for Agriculture. That is bad enough, but they must also have the approval of the Minister for the Public Service and the Minister for Finance. The autonomy as we know it will be gone.
We cannot enlarge on the section before us. We have had arguments on section 7 already in relation to the abolition of the body, its independence, and its research qualities and so on and we cannot repeat these arguments on this section.
With the abolition of An Foras Talúntais, research into agriculture which needs independence will be completely lost to agriculture.
A number of Deputies opposite have been making the point that we have been robbing the institute of their independence. It is not relevant on this section, but at least two Deputies referred to the wonderful way the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards worked because of this great independence and it was not required to do anything—it banged away on its own. Section 18 of the Industrial Research and Standards Act says:
The Institute shall carry out such researches, including researches on a laboratory or on a pilot plant scale, and such investigations, tests and analyses as the Minister may, after consultation with the Board, request, and may, in addition, carry out such researches as aforesaid and such investigations, tests and analyses as the Board may from time to time think proper.
That is the independence it has enjoyed and it has worked perfectly for the good of the people.
There is no question of it being approved by the Minister. That is the major difference. The Minister has not answered that question this evening.
It says "as the Minister may, after consultation with the Board..." decide——
Consultation is a different word.
There is consultation here too.
The Minister is getting confused, and he has not answered that question.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Thornley, David.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Bendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Power, Patrick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Bruton and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, line 23, to delete "and research".
We have been underlining that the inclusion in this new compendium organisation of agricultural research is a fundamental error. That can readily be appreciated by people within the industry, and we would accept that it is more difficult for people, such as those who framed the Bill, from outside the industry to appreciate this point. Section 11 includes a reference to the allocation of the general functions of the authority and speaks of advisory and research services. I would strongly urge the Minister, even at this very late stage, to delete the research content in section 11.
I have already given the House my reasons for transferring the Agricultural Institute and the research functions of my Department to the new authority, and I have nothing to add to what I have said previously. I cannot accept this amendment, and I would ask the House to confirm section 11 as part of the Bill.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No, we are maintaining our stand.
Does the Deputy wish his amendment put?
Yes.
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister be good enough to enlighten the House on the measures he envisages in the implementation of this section? The section says:
The Authority shall provide courses in agriculture for the purpose of implementing directives of the European Economic Community when requested to do so by the Minister.
What I am referring to here are the courses under Directive No. 161 which we are obliged to undertake and are doing at present.
To my knowledge nothing has happened under Directive No. 161, as yet. I see there is the provision of socio-economic advice; is this happening?
Yes, all the committees of agriculture have a responsibility to do this work at present.
What form does it take?
Courses and classes which they are already providing under Directive No. 161 thoughout the country.
Obviously, they do it in a very obstrusive way.
Might I ask the Minister, in regard to courses under this section, can the county committees of agriculture make their own suggestions with regard to courses? Can they organise courses as they have been doing heretofore?
Of course.
Therefore, there is no change in that respect.
The Deputy is aware of what the Bill contains in this respect. He is aware of the freedom the committee still have.
And will have?
Yes, in relation to local services.
Then what is the idea behind saying that powers, so far as courses that the CAO in the county sees fit to organise through the Committe shall be given?
It is the continuation by the new authority of the courses already started by the county committees. We are obliged to provide this sort of thing and we may have to do more of it under EEC directives in the future. That is why provision is made for it.
This section is the same as those dealing with research. This authority will take over the running of the educational courses under Directive No. 161 now being run by the committees of agriculture. The county committees of agriculture can advise on what type of courses should be run out but they will have no authority over the running of the courses as they would wish to see them run. We might as well be honest about it; it is a take-over just as it is in relation to research.
It is not a take-over. It is an integration of existing services.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions referring, in particular to subsection (b) at lines 31 and 32 which read:
take steps to encourage, through co-operative effort and otherwise...
Perhaps the Minister would elaborate somewhat on the intention of that subsection. It is a great many people's conviction—I dare say that of the Minister also—that the way forward in Irish farming is through co-operative effort. I note that the words "co-operative effort" are used in this subsection. It is to be hoped that the Minister's intention here is to have some positive proposals for the development and improvement of the co-operative system in agriculture as we have it at present. The inadequacies of the co-operative effort in agriculture at the present have been painfully revealed to everybody concerned. It would be very much welcomed if, in this section, some new and positive proposals were being put forward by the Minister in this regard. If that is the case, it has not been made clear in this or any subsequent section that I can see.
Subsection (e) reads:
arrange for the conduct of field and livestock experiments and demonstrations;
Perhaps the Minister would tell us what is his estimation of the type of field and livestock experiments contemplated here. It seems to me that it overlaps to some degree on the diminished research role envisaged in the Bill for what used to be the institute and which is now to be attenuated into some part of the new service.
There is nothing new in this. Under the present scheme of instruction in the county committees of agriculture the advisers have an obligation to encourage co-operative effort. They have the obligation to do all of the things outlined here. We are simply saying that this will become the responsibility of the new authority. It is merely a transfer of functions to the authority.
I take it that the whole of this section is like the chemist's prescription, the mixture as before. It is the acceptance of the proposition that the old advisory services we have known over the decades, and whose improvement we have recognised to be a necessity, will be carried on under this section just as if nothing had happened, except for one thing, that they now incorporate the remnants, the dead body of the Agricultural Institute.
Possibly I misunderstand the use of the words, but in paragraph (b) there is a reference to "co-operative effort and otherwise". I thought that possibly might mean a new recognition and a new emphasis would be given to the need for the reconstruction and the rebuilding of co-operative efforts in farming which would be catered for under this section. If this is so, what are the new measures which are contemplated?
The idea behind the integration of the services, the teaching, the advisory, the research services, is to get team work and co-operation between all the agencies to provide a better service for farmers. The things which are listed here are already supposed to be done by the advisory services. We only hope that, as a result of the reorganisation of the services, they will be done better in the future.
The Minister is well aware that a good many committees of agriculture are unable to expand their advisory services at present. Does he envisage that, under this section or any other section of the Bill, that situation will cease and an adequate and full advisory service will be provided in all the counties who want to expand their advisory services or, if the contrary is the case, will the Minister say so? Will the old situation continue and, in spite of the demands of the implementation of the EEC directives on the advisers' time, the staff will not be expanded and, as a result, the type of service will actually shrink and diminish?
The staffing of the new authority will be a matter for the board of the authority. They will make the decisions as to the sort of staff and the numbers of staff they will require to do an efficient job. They will have that freedom. That is what it is all about—the provision of a first-class service, the best service it is possible to provide.
The Minister let the cat out of the bag as he sat down —the best service it is possible to provide. Surely we all know that, board or no board, no matter how carefully the Minister may pick them, the numbers of personnel and the size of the service will be determined by the amount provided by the Minister to pay for them. The amount being provided at present is not sufficient to enable individual committees of agriculture throughout the country to maintain even a respectable stab at an advisory service. The Minister has just confirmed our gravest suspicions on this side of the House that the stranglehold of the Department of Finance will prevent any sort of a respectable service being provided.
All I can say in reply is that before I became Minister the Agricultural Institute were frequently in trouble because of insufficient money to do their work. They have not been in such trouble since. They got sufficient money to carry out their work I hope they will get sufficient money in future to carry out their work as part of the new organisation.
In the advisory services in the western counties the position heretofore has been that 75 per cent of the cost was borne by the State. Will the same position obtain under the new board?
Yes. The west have done very well out of it.
I wonder.
Does the Minister propose to shift the advisory services from one county to another or will they operate within the confines of the county? In some counties there are large backlogs of FMS applications and in neighbouring counties they are fairly well up to date. What are the Minister's proposals in those instances?
I propose to set up a new authority to provide the best possible service for Irish farmers. I am not setting boundaries for them. It will be the job of the board and the staff of the new authority to decide how the best possible service can be given without waste.
In drawing up this Bill did the Minister examine that possibility?
Not for specialised services. This will be organised on a completely different basis. I am assuming. I do not want to start to do the board's work before the board are set up.
In this Bill we are buying a pig in a bag. We do not know who will be on the board. If we knew what type of organisation there will be within the board, we could have a fair idea of what was likely to come from the board. We are discussing a Bill which provides that certain types of people may be on the board. We have not the foggiest idea who they will be. The Agricultural Institute and the county committees of agriculture are being handed over to this board who are unknown to anybody. The Bill does not say the board will consist of so many members from this organisation, that organisation and the other organisation. That is not in the Bill.
It has never been in any Bill which went through the House under any Government.
We are buying a pig in a bag. We do not know who will run the board.
The board, their establishment and composition, are referred to in later sections.
I understand that.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
We oppose section 17. This section moves right into the area of agricultural research and proposes that the Minister's personal jackboot, the one he is wearing, will go walking through the whole area of agricultural research and, in effect, put an end to any vestige of independence which may possibly survive the change-over which has been a traumatic experience for the agricultural industry and which was so unnecessary.
The first subsection seems to me to mean that, in effect, everything that happens under the section in the matter of research will now be decided by the Minister and by the Minister alone. We have been expressing our objections to this principle since the Committee Stage began this afternoon. We must reiterate our objection on this because the assertion is made again in this section that the controlling hand of the Minister must penetrate to the furthest limits of research.
Having regard to the likelihood that there will be a number of changes in the Ministry of Agriculture, one can only say that the stultifying effect of the control conferred by this section on the whole concept of research will be total. It will not be possible any longer for a sustained research effort of any worth to be made because the provisions in the section are so stringent and stultifying. They introduce into a fairly specialised field the personal intervention of the Minister, presumably acting through the agents in his Department, who would not have the necessary educational background to evaluate proposals that might come from the people coming under the new umbrella under this Bill. I do not think that effort will be successful.
A long succession of tabulation under this section circumscribes even further what must and must not be done in the matter of research by the new organisation, by the new creation of the Minister incorporating the corpse of the Agricultural Institute. This section, more than any other, illustrates that Minister's total intellectual failure in his approach to the subject of the advisory services, the educational services or the agricultural research services. They are incapsulated in this section.
It is difficult to understand that this section could have been drafted by people who are familiar with the needs and shortcomings of the industry and the country. To people who do not believe me I suggest they read the section and observe the manner in which it is proposed to bind the hands of the agricultural research people whose organisation has just been destroyed by the Minister in passing section 10. This continues the stultification process. We on this side of the House can do nothing about it at the moment except to raise our voices in protest.
I have already explained on a number of occasions why I am transferring these functions to the new authority. I want to emphasise that the position has been totally misrepresented. The functions of An Foras Talúntais will remain exactly as they were, but they will be taking on additional research which was formerly carried out by the Department. In other words, there will not be two research bodies. The new authority will be doing all the research. Not only is there no diminution of responsibility but there is an increase in the scope and the amount of research that will be done under the new authority.
Subsection (1) says that the authority shall also have such functions as were exercised or performed by the Minister. I realise this refers to the basic veterinary research, but is anything else included?
Plant breeding.
Subsection (3) says:
In case of doubt as to whether any activity in relation to veterinary research is or is not proper to the Authority, the decision of the Minister shall be final.
Is there likely to be a clash with the veterinary authorities? Is there likely to be a conflict of interest? If so, on what issues?
In the functions being transferred there are clear areas and grey areas. What we want to do is leave the grey areas for discussion between the board and the Minister when the time comes for the transfer of these functions and to decide what is appropriate to transfer and what is appropriate to hold. It is for no other reason. In other words, it is to wait until the board are set up and we can get the views of the members as to what they think they should have and what is appropriate for them. There are certain regulatory functions the Minister can give the new authority because of his responsibility for disease eradication and so on.
Would the Minister be concerned about the other interests, in addition to consulting the board, with regard to the transfer——
What other interests has the Deputy in mind?
Any interests that would be involved.
There are only two interests involved plus the board—the authority from which the research is going and the authority which has the research at the moment. This means there will not be any wide range of authorities with which to have discussions except the board. If they feel there are certain aspects of research which they should have, there can be discussion and agreement about that.
Would the Minister spell out in more detail what is involved in subsection (5)?
This is a technical change:
The functions of the Institute shall not include any function assigned to the National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority by the National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority Act, 1977.
I do not know exactly what the substance of the Deputy's inquiry is, but——
I want the Minister to spell it out in detail. I am not questioning the section, I just want to know what is involved.
I am told it is simply replacing An Foras Talúntais by the authority.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
I may have misread the section but it seems to suggest that its only purpose is to provide for co-operation between the universities and the new authority to avoid duplication. I regard that as an unnecessary constrictive provision and I suggest that before Report Stage the Minister should consider widening the scope of the section to provide for this co-operation. Particularly because of the destruction of An Foras Talúntais, it would be well to provide that some agricultural research would be done with some measure of freedom which would probably evade the stultifying effect of ministerial and departmental interference.
That is exactly the intention. The Deputy will be aware that from time to time there had been some overlapping and this provision is an effort to avoid that in the future. This has been provided in the hope and expectation that that sort of co-operation will be there. We think it has already begun and the intention of the section is to provide for its continuance. We cannot go in and tell the universities they cannot do research, because they must do it. We want to ensure they will not be doing the same sort of research as the new authority at the same time, with duplication of expenditure.
The section refers to encouraging. I would have thought that provision would be there to have university people on the authority. There should be something in the Bill to ensure that. It is not enough to speak about encouraging co-operation —there should be provision to ensure that there will be co-operation. In the early days we had hoped for a faculty of agriculture in a new UCG. Now we understand the agricultural college in Athenry will be controlled by the new authority.
I can only repeat that I prefer encouragement to dictation. We have been told we are dictating and when we speak about encouragement we are told it is not enough.
The Minister has done away with the Agricultural Institute and we should now be trying to get the universities in as part of the new authority. An autonomous body has been abolished here today by a vote——
A lot of misrepresentation.
It is by no means misrepresentation.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."
The effect of the section is to hand over total control to the Ministers for the Public Service and Agriculture in these terms:
(1) The Authority may, on such terms and conditions as the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, approve, arrange for the performance of any activity in relation to any of its functions by the Minister or by another agency.
(2) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, prepare a list of activities of the Authority which may, at the request of the Authority, be performed by the Minister or by another agency and any such activity may, notwithstanding subsection (1), be performed without the further consent of the Minister for the Public Service.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.