The roots of this Bill lie in the generosity of the American people in making certain moneys available to this country under the Marshall Aid Plan. Senators will remember that these moneys fell into two categories. There were, first of all, the loan moneys equivalent to about £41,000,000, to which conditions were attached in relation to the repayment of the capital and the interest charges. The only conditions attached to the grant moneys were that the moneys should be applied for the general economic improvement of the country and the specific objects to which the moneys were to be applied had to be accepted and agreed upon by the American authorities.
About the middle of 1949 it was known that some grant moneys would be made available and the question as to how these moneys should be applied here came up for consideration. At an early stage, long before the total amount that would be available was known, it was suggested that the moneys could very well be applied here to the establishment of an agricultural institute. The E.C.A. had as their representative here at the time Mr. Joseph Carrigan. He was the Dean of the College of Agriculture in Vermont University, and he was also a Director of the Experiments Station attached to that College. It was not unnatural, therefore, that the idea of establishing an agricultural institute here should be discussed. The matter was taken up with a certain amount of enthusiasm and there were discussions which extended into 1950. In May, 1950, the Government adopted the idea in principle and consultations with various interested bodies here, such as university colleges and so on, took place.
In October, 1950, an outline scheme was sent to the American authorities, with a formal request for acceptance of the scheme. At that time, I think the Americans were not prepared to consider any scheme for the partial expenditure of the money. They wanted to have before them all the various ways in which it was to be expended and the items upon which it was to be expended. In 1951 certain investigations were made by the Irish Government in relation to the question as to what an agricultural institute would do. In June, 1951, there was a change of Government and, when the Government, of which I became the head, came into office, we set ourselves to considering the best way in which to utilise the moneys available. As far as I can recollect, it was about that time we knew fairly precisely the amount of money that would be available in the Grant Fund; it amounted to £6,142,000. We set out to consider then the best way in which that money could be expended here for the benefit of our economy and we decided, after very careful examination and consideration, on a number of purposes to which it might be devoted, one of them being the establishment of an agricultural institute.
We had our scheme practically completed by 1952 for submission but this time there was a change in the American system of administration and projects which could have been dealt with administratively, had there being no change, had to be submitted to various Committees of Congress of the United States House of Representatives and Senate. The result was that our full programme for the utilisation of these moneys, a programme which had to be very detailed, was submitted to the United States authorities some time in 1953. It was considered by the Committees of Congress and certain modifications to meet the views expressed by the committees were made.
The entire plan was brought to a head about June, 1954. Everything was ready, but there was another change of Government here. The new Government, however, were in the position that they were able to sign on behalf of Ireland, and America signed at the same time. Within a week after the change of Government we were able to get the agreement signed. That agreement provides in general for the allocation of these moneys. The allocations, of differing amounts, were for the benefit of agriculture and technical assistance, exchange scholarships and so on. Besides the main agreement, there were to be subsidiary agreements signed in respect of each particular project. That has been done in relation to all the other projects, with the exception of the agricultural institute item; the actual subsidiary agreement in relation to that has not yet been signed, but I understand it is practically ready for signature.
The amount assigned for the Agricultural Institute is £1,840,000. You will see in the Bill before you how it is proposed to deal with that sum. The Bill itself is straightforward. Anyone reading it carefully can learn what are the functions, powers and duties of the institute and the various methods by which it will be governed and so forth. I will come to deal with them in a few minutes. Now I am only giving the story of the slow progress made in the establishment of this institute. As I told you it began in 1949 and it is now the end of 1957. During that slow progress there were very many consultations with bodies which were interested here, and also with the American authorities. We had not merely to get agreement here at home but we also had to satisfy the American authorities. Therefore, to that extent the Government were not completely free to pursue the course which they might think desirable at any particular time.
However, when we came into office in 1951, we worked on the foundation that had already been laid, or at least on the idea which was there, and we pursued it as vigorously as we could. We continued the discussions which the previous Government had undertaken with various parties and had some successes and some failures. At any rate, we had brought it to such a point that we would have been able to put forward our proposals within a few months of our leaving office, once we had got the American agreement. These proposals were actually put forward by the Government that succeeded us, the Government that came into office in 1954. They were contained in a public statement in 1955. Sometimes it is referred to as a White Paper. I do not know how correct it is, from the parliamentary point of view, to speak of these proposals as a White Paper.
They were published by the Government to show what their mind at the time was, to show what their proposals were, and to see what public criticism these proposals might evoke. Those who are interested know that they were met with rather severe criticism. I must say, in passing, that to me a great deal of that criticism seemed unjustified. However, the Government in charge continued to have conversations to try to meet the vigorous criticisms and finally, in 1956, the Agricultural Institute Bill was introduced in the Dáil and was published last February. Again there was a change of Government. It did not alter the general continuity of this process. Again, believing that the project was long enough on the stocks and that it was better to make progress with it, we decided that, though perhaps it contained some things with which we were not in complete agreement, we should continue on the same lines. We did so because we considered that it seemed to meet with no severe criticism, and that it seemed to indicate that a certain amount of agreement had been arrived at by the Government, acting through the Minister for Agriculture, and the interested parties. We considered the Bill very carefully when we came into office and we decided that, in the main, we would follow the lines indicated in the Bill.
They were of a different character from those set out in the proposals I have referred to as the White Paper. We examined the Bill carefully to see whether we were satisfied with it and we made some changes. I am not going to deal with this, however, by way of comparison, comparing this Bill and the previous Bill, because it might lead to certain confusions. Anybody interested in comparing the two Bills can, I am sure, get a copy of the Bill which was circulated in February of this year, and compare it with the present Bill. That is a matter of interest for those keen on noticing changes and so on. I think I should confine myself, however, to the provisions of the present Bill.
This question of an agricultural institute could have been approached from two different points of view. One point of view was that of establishing a teaching college, a college in which you would have research more or less centralised, with definite powers to enable proposals regarding agricultural education and agricultural research to be put into practice. The other point of view was to establish something like the British Agricultural Research Council, which by giving grants to various bodies, helps to get a certain amount of work done which it desires to have done. The first approach was, more or less, the idea in the White Paper proposals. The other is the line which is followed in this Bill.
You will see from Section 4, which is the section that indicates the powers, duties and functions of the institute, how it is proposed to act. I will come later to the governing body, the human instrument for getting certain things done, for coming to decisions and so on. It is a body which will try to co-ordinate. It has no powers of coercion and compulsion but it has powers of inducement by making grants to institutions and persons. I suppose when one uses the word "persons" it is meant in the broad sense, to include institutions engaged in agricultural research.
If you survey the ground at the moment you will see that the university colleges are engaged in certain fundamental teaching, which is necessary for agriculture and for other sciences as well. There are certain fundamental sciences that are being taught in these universities. It would be very foolish to attempt to duplicate that work and that was not intended in what I call the White Paper proposals. The idea incorporated in the present institute is to make use of the work done in those colleges as far as one can.
Not merely are these fundamental sciences being taught but also various branches of agriculture are taught. You have the faculties for this in some of the colleges and you have also certain research work being done by them. I would like, but I have not the time and I think it would not be appropriate, to point out that a great deal of very good work has already been done, and we have hidden our light very much under a bushel in regard to work being done by our existing agricultural research institutions. We have also the research units under the control of the Department of Agriculture and the idea is that this institution would be the means of coordinating the work done by all these bodies, reviewing the work done by them, and advising them in the sense of consulting and talking over their work with a view to suggesting certain things, and hearing what they have to say about some of the work that is being done. I think that can be done with goodwill but it cannot be done without it.
The whole hope of the institute is that it will secure the goodwill of the existing institutions so that they may be ready to co-operate, so that they will listen to any advice and so that they, in return, may make suggestions to the institute. The first duty of the institute is to try—I say "try" because they have no real powers of compulsion—to secure co-operation so that there will be as little overlapping as possible and so that the direction of research should be that which promises to be of most value to the country.
Of course, you always have the question of fundamental research, which very often turns out to be much more valuable than research directed towards a specific object; but research directed towards a specific object has the advantage that you know exactly where you are going and you have a much better chance of getting results fairly quickly.
The first thing, then, is the attempt to secure co-operation and to co-ordinate, as far as your powers will permit. In order that there should not be waste, it is obviously desirable that the institute should be in a position to give grants to existing institutions to do research for which they seem to be particularly fitted. If, for instance, a certain distance is gone in research work in an existing institution, it is desirable—indeed it might be the cheapest way of doing it—to add certain facilities, it may be a piece of special equipment or it may be increasing the staff somewhat to get the necessary team work.
In a great deal of modern research you need team work and you need to have the proper instruments. Otherwise there is a good deal of unnecessary time spent. I do not like to call it waste of time because very frequently in these cases, even though there may be delays if you have not got the most up-to-date apparatus, in the actual working and trying to improvise apparatus, you may do better than if you took the existing apparatus and worked with it. It would be for the institute to see, if they want particular things done, whether it was better to do it itself or to get some of the existing institutions to do it. If they think it is better to get the existing institutions to do it, they can add to their resources by way of grants. If you look at Section 4 you will see the institute has the power of making grants for specific purposes, imposing such conditions as may be required and as it thinks right.
The next thing is that the institute can establish research units itself. It will do that, of course, if the governing body of the institute is of the opinion that that is the best way in which the particular investigation it thinks should be entered upon can be carried out. Co-ordination, facilitating and helping by grants existing institutions is one way; the other way is entering itself upon scientific research and investigation by establishing research units with its own staff and under its own immediate control.
Grants and moneys will be available for the institute itself as well. Teaching, as such, at least in its elementary stages, is not contemplated; but such teaching and study as would go with advanced research is, of course, essential and they can provide for that by courses for advanced students, seminars and the usual methods of encouragement for study and the giving of information which is availed of in institutes for research. It can give scholarships for advanced students to enable them to come to the institute and prosecute certain lines of investigation. It can give fellowships, under such conditions as it may determine, for outstanding work done in the field of agriculture or of the sciences that may be ancillary or helpful to agriculture.
I think that I have indicated the main purposes and main functions of the institute as set out in Section 4. They are, first of all, given in general terms in sub-section (1); and in sub-section (2) you have a variety of specific examples. They are lettered (a), (b), (c) and so on.
In sub-section (3) you have a very important additional provision. From time to time the Minister for Agriculture may wish to have certain investigations pursued and to have certain information. It is put as a duty on the institute to give him that advice. It is the intention, and I hope the sub-section so provides, that there is a duty on the institute to pursue an investigation and to give him the advice and the information which he would request in a particular case.
In the other House an example was given of what might be required. There might be some sudden disease in plants and you might want it investigated with a view to finding its origin and getting means of combating it. In the past it was complained by the Department of Agriculture that when they asked some of the existing institutions for information, they could not get it as of right. It was given to them as a matter of courtesy. If, for instance, a professor in one of the colleges was engaged in a piece of research to which he had completely devoted himself, he might not wish to allow himself to be diverted to another line of research simply as an act of courtesy.
It was considered desirable that there should be a duty on the institute to advise the Minister for Agriculture in regard to specific matters that might be referred to them. I know that power could be abused and I can understand that you might have a certain amount of criticism of that power but, on the other hand, if considerable sums are put at the disposal of the institute, it is not unreasonable to expect that institute to come in and help in an emergency situation.
We now pass from the functions and powers of the institute to its governing body. Again, I will not make comparisons, because it is better for us to keep to the framework of the Bill as it stands. As the Bill stands, the governing power is in a council. That council has complete authority. That is the intention. I hope it is carried out in detail in the Bill and I would ask for any criticism where it would seem not to be so. The intention of the Bill is that the governing body, the council, should have supreme authority and have the last word in regard to any matter that may arise, that is as far as what should be done is concerned, what grants should be made, and so on.
That being the governing body's power, the question is what will its personnel be? The personnel that is provided is a chairman and 12 ordinary members. The chairman, to indicate the importance of the office, is to be appointed by the President. The first chairman, in fact, and subsesequent chairmen will be appointed by the President. Of course, as every Senator knows, the President will act in all such cases on the advice of the Government.
The 12 ordinary members are divided into three classes. We have, first of all, those who are to be representative of agricultural and rural organisations. There are five such members. The next class are those who are representative of the universities and there will be one representative from each of the four universiy colleges, the three colleges of the National University and Trinity College, Dublin. We have the third class in those nominated and appointed by the Government. Obviously, the Government will have the choosing of these at their own discretion.
In regard to the other two classes, however, the Government have to act on the nomination of the University Colleges in the case of the four ordinary university members, and in the case of the rural organisation, will have to act on the nomination of the various agricultural rural bodies. If you had four or five of these bodies and said: "We will have nominations from this body, this body and so on", then the task would be easy and that would be put in the Bill, but, unfortunately, the organisation of the farming community has not reached the stage at which you can do that, so that the Government will have to try to work out a scheme in which you will have five nominations coming from the most representative of these farming and rural groups.
That will be done by Government Order which, of course, will be published in the usual way, setting forth what organisations are to nominate and, I expect, what are the conditions under which these nominations are to be made. Once the five nominations are made, then the Government must appoint these persons.
There is a Schedule dealing with meetings and various matters of detail. If you look at the Schedule—it is connected with Section 5 which deals with the council—you will see that it deals with various things which affect the conduct of the council and so on. I do not think that at this stage it is necessary for me to go into the detail set out in that Schedule.
The chairman will always be appointed by the President for a definite term of years, not exceeding three years. In regard to the chairman who will be part-time—the other members, I take it, will be part-time— certain remuneration will be attached to the office. As far as the other members are concerned, I do not think there is anything intended for these people except that out-of-pocket expenses with regard to meetings will be met.
Besides the governing body, the council, you have the chief officer of the institute who is called the director. The director has to act subject to the direction of the council but he is in charge of the staff and the general direction of research and so on. When you have an authority like that there is always a possibility of a clash. It is not easy to make up your mind as to how you should allocate between the council and the director the respective powers and duties. Personally, I very strongly hold the view that it is better to let the council have the last word, if there is to be a last word, hoping that the council will be composed of men of common sense who will know best how to run the affairs of the institute. If the council have a good director, who technically should be a research man or a man who is acquainted with the general character and nature of research, they will listen to his proposals. He is not a member of the council but he would naturally put his proposals before the council. If they are wise they will listen to them carefully and they will not object unless they see something obviously wrong. Therefore, the hope is that the director will get the liberty to do the work in the way in which he, as a technical expert in this work, will think best.
There is, of course, a human problem there, as you have in all these cases—the human problem of getting proper team work and proper co-operation. The best chance of securing it is in the way I have indicated. There is less likelihood that 12 or 13 people—sensible people, as I hope they will be—will run off on some foolish line, than there may be in the case of an individual. I believe there is safety, so to speak, in numbers, in that matter. Consequently, we can with safety leave the last word in these matters to them, whilst wishing to give the director the freedom which would be necessary for him to do his work in the best way. In giving him that freedom, he will not be unduly hampered by any directions he may get from the council as a whole.
The next thing I should deal with is the funds. I have dealt with Section 4, the functions; with Section 5, the council, and with Section 7, the director. Now I wish to draw attention to Sections 10 and 11. At an earlier stage I pointed out that the total sum available is £1,840,000. That is divided into two parts and the first part, £840,000, is intended to be a capital sum which would be available for capital purposes. Every Senator knows what is intended by that—such things as buildings and certain permanent types of equipment. It is not intended that that money should be available for ordinary day-to-day use. The interest on it will be so available, but the principal itself will not be available for the current work of the institute. It is available for all the types of capital grants or for any units which the institute itself may decide to put up. It is available for grants for the extension of facilities in existing units in other institutions and so on. In other words, it is available for capital purposes. It is to be given to the institute whenever the institute requests it. The income from it—at least from such portion of it as is not expended, the portion that remains at any stage, the dividends and interest and so on that may derive from that sum of money— will be available as an addition to the current income of the institute.
I come now to Section 11. Senators will notice in Section 11 that there is an endowment fund of £1,000,000. That £1,000,000 is to be invested for the endowment of the institute, bringing in an annual income depending on the rates of dividend on its investments, and so on. Assuming it was able to have investments to bring in an average of 5 per cent., the income would be £50,000 a year from that.
Another source of current income which it will have is the annual grant from the Oireachtas, provided for in Section 12. The amount of that grant is to be determined by the Minister for Finance, as is right and proper, having listened to the applications and the needs and the work that was being done by the institute, and having consulted the Minister for Agriculture, who will generally side very strongly with the institute, I feel certain, in getting work done. The Minister for Finance has the obligation to see that it is remembered that the money that is got, has to be got by taxation, and that if we are not careful about taxation we may impose burdens which may have serious consequences in regard to what we are aiming to do by this institute, that is, to advance our economic position in the country as a whole.
I think Senators will agree that it is only right that the Minister for Finance—of course, with the approval of his colleagues—should have the last word to say on that. Some people will say, "You are making the institute dependent upon the Government." Well, the Government has to find the means by imposing taxation on the people, and it has to find a balance between the various things that have to be done and the money so taken out of the people's pockets. However, there is provision made for such an annual grant and any Government would naturally be interested in trying to make the most of this institute and give it the means to work as efficiently as possible.
In addition, the institute can get a certain income from fees—I do not know how much. Trying to look ahead, I do not think that these fees are likely to be of a very substantial amount. I hope I am wrong but at the moment I would not care to make the fate of the institute dependent upon that particular item of its income. Also, of course, the institute can receive donations, from such good people as we may find in the community who would be willing to donate gifts to the institute, as is done in other countries. If we have any big industries associated in any way with agriculture, they may make sums available by donation for the institute.
I have covered now the functions of the institute, the council and the director. I have spoken of the sources from which the institute is to obtain its capital moneys and its annual income.
For the rest, the Bill is largely a question of details about staff and so on. In Section 17 there is a provision that the staff is to be appointed either by the council or under the authority of the council and there is a provision that, in the case of the research staff, before making appointments to the research staff, a board of people who would be regarded as competent to judge of the qualifications of the applicants and to study the applications would be set up and that the council would consider the report of that board when the appointment is being made. Making appointments of technical people is always a matter of difficulty, as those Senators who have anything to do with universities and the appointment of professors, and so on, know full well. It is an extremely difficult thing to arrange that the person who is best qualified and best fit to do the job will be appointed. Very often, the man with the highest academic qualifications may not necessarily be the best person for the task and the best thing is to set up a board who will go into what the man has done and thereby judge what he is capable of doing, go into his qualifications and so on, examine them carefully and send their report to the council.
The council is not compelled to act on the recommendations of the board but, of course, like any sensible body of people—and I hope many of them will be expert in the matters under determination, that is the question of agriculture—they will have sufficiently intimate knowledge of the work that is to be done that they will be able to satisfy themselves as to whether the recommendation of the board is, in fact, the best. I imagine that in nine out of ten, or 99 out of 100, cases the recommendation of the board would be accepted.
I think I should not detain the Seanad any further in explaining the Bill. It is a straightforward Bill. I have, I think, dealt with the main provisions which it is proper to deal with at the Second Reading Stage, and the rest of the Bill will be subject, in the Committee Stage, to close scrutiny, I am sure, by all Senators, and any matters that I have not touched on can be brought up in Committee. I hope I have covered the main ground that Senators want to have covered at this stage and, if there are any questions asked, I hope I shall be able to answer them in concluding.