Vol. 48 No. 15
Before we take up consideration of the Committee Stage of this Bill, I wish to say that I consider amendment No. 9 standing in the name of Senator Quinlan, as being out of order and it may not be moved. It tends to impose a charge on State funds which is not permissible in an amendment by a Private Member.
The Senator has been communicated with in the matter.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In line 13, before "horticulture" to insert "dairy science."
This, like a number of other amendments, has been put down mainly for the purpose of elucidation. I should like to know if there is any reason why dairy science was not coupled with horticulture, forestry and bee-keeping as the nearest adjuncts to agriculture? The view may be held that dairy science is so much a part of agriculture that there is no need to mention it.
The Senator has given the reason. It is that agriculture includes dairy science.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (2), line 31, after "land" to add "buildings and equipment".
This amendment arises another minor question as to whether "land" really covers buildings and equipment as well.
The answer is in the affirmative. It does. Apparently from the legal point of view, it is wise to put in "land" in cases like this for safety sake, and "land" then includes buildings and so on.
Would the Taoiseach say where the word "talúntas" comes from?
I am afraid the Senator would know very much more about that than I do. Evidently, it is one of the words associated with land.
Have we not got the word "talmhaiocht" in official use already for agriculture?
I can only say that I am not responsible for it. It is the word regarded by the translation staff as the most suitable.
It seems very strange to me that the translation staff should have adopted one word and then, for the purpose of this Bill, adopt another. I understand the way it is arrived at, but it seems to me that, from the point of view of language in general, and of the Irish language in particular, there should not be in our statutes two separate words to denote agriculture. We talk about "An Roinn Talmhaíochta" and here we talk about "An Foras Talúntais".
I think it is in combination with "Foras" that it is regarded as the better way of putting it.
But it is a completely new word. Is déantús é. It is a make-up. It is an invented word, is it not?
Again, I am afraid the Senator would know more about that than I do.
I can pledge my word it is an invented word.
It is an abstract form, but we may have an occasional growth—as we do have in other languages—where you have an original word and you get a slight variation of it. What it means is obvious to anybody. There is no difficulty in understanding it because anybody would see at once that the word "talamh" is its root.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (h), line 28, to delete "and organise" and substitute "or procure the provision of".
It does seem to me that there is a difference in drafting here between paragraphs (i) (j) and (k). Paragraphs (i) (j) and (k) say "disseminate, or procure the dissemination of"; "publish or procure the publication of". I thought that in paragraph (h) it should be "provide, or procure the provision of" courses. In other words, I should not like to feel that the institute was committed under paragraph (h) to providing the courses directly by itself, that it would have the opportunity of procuring the provision of courses where they could be provided by other bodies. I think that was more or less the general feeling on the Second Reading of the Bill. With regard to the word "organise", I just thought that that was implicit in "provide".
Naturally, I have discussed this matter and have examined it and the general feeling is that "organise" means not merely organise itself but arrange that other bodies would do the work. "Organise" is a very broad word. As read out, it does not follow the same precise form of words as in the following subsections, but I think there can be no doubt about it that the word "organise" means that the institute could do it or get it done by others as long as they arrange for it.
Yes.
In any event, it is not clear from the whole tenor of sub-section (2) of this section that this is a list of things which the institute may do and the institute has power to do what Senator Quinlan suggests in the amendment—to procure the provision of courses. There can be no doubt of that from this sub-section and from other parts of the Bill. This particular paragraph, (h), does not make it obligatory upon the institute to provide courses of study themselves. Presumably, they may do it themselves but they may also see that other people do it or make provision for other people to do it. The whole general tenor of sub-section (2) is that they may do any of these things or they may get any of these things done. Is that not correct?
That is my interpretation and the interpretation of the lawyers also.
The Taoiseach's explanation meets my point.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (2), before paragraph (j), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
() provide suitable lectures on agriculture and the results of agricultural research in schools and colleges.
Amendment No. 7 and amendment No. 4 deal with the same point.
I am sure the House will be agreeable to allow the Senator to discuss amendments No. 4 and No. 7 together.
These two amendments speak for themselves. Various speakers on the Second Stage of the Bill complained about a shortage of graduates in agriculture who would be suitable workers under this institute in the years to come. It is in the schools that we want to interest the young people in agriculture. We want not alone to be able to pick the cream of them for the institute but to have far more graduates going back on the farms. They would have their theoretical work done in the schools of agriculture and their practical work done, to a great extent, on their own farms. By these amendments we could look forward to seeing far more agricultural graduates going back to work on the land. I think Senator Quinlan mentioned on the Second Stage that there were 20 graduates walking the streets without a job but I am not proposing these amendments with a view to filling jobs. My amendments are designed with a view to having graduates going back to work on the land. We shall probably have enough graduates to be able to pick the best. I want to see that there is a surplus, as it were, so that the best can be picked for research work and that there will be many more graduates going back on the land. It is in the schools that interest in agriculture can be started.
A headmaster or teacher could invite these lecturers to the schools to give lectures on agricultural topics and very likely he would be the person to distribute, and would take an interest in distributing, suitable literature for the schools if it were available. The amendment would allow the institute to pay the travelling expenses of the director or member of the council or agricultural instructor that they might send to a school. I think that is all it would entail in the matter of expenses. Probably they would hold themselves available to give these lectures where a headmaster or the head of a school would ask for them.
There is no doubt that it is desirable that the results of research should be disseminated through the universities down to the teaching bodies but the emphasis in this institute is on research and its business would be to disseminate the results of research. The teaching bodies would, no doubt, be affected in their teaching by the results of research, by what has been learned, by new things discovered, but this is not a teaching institute as such and it would not be the business of the institute to make information available in a form suitable for schools.
The whole question of the teaching of agriculture to young people is of very great importance. It has been more than once suggested that agriculture should be taught in the primary schools. It certainly should be taught in the vocational schools and in any other extension bodies that are teaching in rural areas but it would not be desirable that this institute should take upon itself the responsibility of arranging the results of research in such form that they would be available for direct teaching in the schools. We shall have to allow that to operate through the process, first of all, of making the results of the research known, which, as a research institute it will do, and then the teaching bodies, from the University Colleges down, will be made aware of the results of the research and they will have to arrange the form in which it is to be used in the classes that they teach.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (j), line 34, before "results" to insert "progress and".
I am assuming that "results" would mean final results. I should like to see some publication made of the progress and the aim of the work on which a research team is engaged. To judge by the whole section, one would think they would work away in the dark so far as the rest of us are concerned until they would get a result they were aiming at. If a bi-annual publication were made in relation to their work, and how far they had got, then, possibly, they could get a great amount of assistance from agricultural colleges or even agricultural instructors.
Take research on a veterinary subject, for example. If a publication were made, say, every six months in some official veterinary journal of the progress they were making and, perhaps, the difficulties they were encountering, I think they might quite easily get a lot of assistance from veterinary surgeons throughout the country. I have in mind in my amendment that they should publish more frequently and not just the final result.
I think that is a matter that could safely be left to the governing body of the institute itself— the director and the council. I do not think they will wish to hide their light under a bushel. Anyhow, they will make annual reports and, if they wish to do so, they can use any other means of letting the public know what they are doing. I do not think we ought to make it obligatory on them to publish progress reports. There will be opportunities for considering the work being done. There will be annual grants. There will be opportunities for considering their reports and there will be opportunities even here in the Seanad and in the Dáil. At any rate, I do not think it is desirable to make it obligatory on them to publish progress reports.
They must be expected to publish the results of their experiments. It is desirable that they also should do what the Senator says—and I think it can be done otherwise, without making it obligatory. It will follow naturally.
I was prompted to put down this suggestion as a result of my own experience. Since I became a member of this House, I have received a large volume of papers in relation to some activities of the Department of Agriculture. Before coming to this House, I was ignorant of the fact that a lot of that work was going on. I have in mind now, in particular, veterinary surgery. If other persons engaged in that line were made aware that work was proceeding in relation to a certain point they might possibly be able to give very valuable assistance arising out of cases which would come before them in their own business or their own practice.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (3), line 41, before "or" to insert "agricultural teaching".
The Second Reading has shown that it is the Government's intention to have faculties of agriculture. It might be a good idea if there were some means of co-ordinating the activities of these faculties or at least getting a coordination of their programmes on which we might expect the Agricultural Institute to give some advice at a later stage when it is functioning.
My query here is: is this sub-section wide enough to allow the Agricultural Institute to give such advice, if requested by the Minister? The same holds, also, in relation to agricultural teaching in the agricultural schools— both the private agricultural schools and the Government schools. It might be well if the institute could express an opinion on whether the teaching in these schools was really meshing-in with the requirements for agricultural research and development on the farms and also whether the pupils were attuned to helping the advisory officers in their regions and, in general, playing the part that students of an agricultural school should play in furthering the position of their less fortunate neighbours. Is it necessary to insert "agricultural teaching" or can the section be stretched to that interpretation?
I do not think there is need for any stretching of the section. If the Minister wishes to get advice on any matter in relation to agriculture, he can ask for it. If he wishes to get advice as to the best course to be pursued in the agricultural colleges, he can ask for it.
With regard to the wider field covered by the Senator, I doubt very much whether it would be altogether advisable to put the institute in a position in which they would have to pass judgment upon the courses in the University Colleges. According to the scheme of this Bill, its influence on University Colleges must be a moral influence—by meeting the members of the faculties of agriculture for the various colleges and by discussing these matters with them. The results of the research, and publications, will also have their effect. I do not think you can give them any direct powers. The other point is covered.
Amendment No. 9 is out of order, for the reason stated.
I want to express my agreement with what the Taoiseach said on amendment No. 8. I take it that one of the first duties of the institute would be to elaborate a broad programme of agricultural research for the whole country. The nature of the research must be related to the agriculture in which we are engaged and to the lines of development which would be deemed by the institute to be most favourable to our economic improvement. Therefore, it seems to me that, from the wording of this section, and from what has been said by the Taoiseach in the course of the Second Reading debate and, indeed, again to-day, the first thing the institute will have to do is to survey the facilities available for research at present both with regard to personnel and to physical facilities including buildings at existing centres and, in the light of that information, to arrange for funds to ensure that, as far as possible, the extension for research on proper lines at these places will proceed correctly. Therefore, it would appear that the institute should not, in the very beginning, proceed to set up either a building or extensive buildings or expensive offices until it has determined for itself the best course to pursue.
Most certainly, the relationship of the institute with existing faculties in present centres of research should first be established and, in the first instance, it would appear that the institute will determine what can be done with the existing facilities and then proceed to supplement them. The amount of money available is not really very great. Therefore, it should be spent in the most economical way possible. The best possible use should be made of the facilities which exist at the moment before any expenditure is incurred on the provision of further buildings or further laboratories or anything of that particular kind. I think that is the framework of the Bill. This is the operative section of the Bill and I think that is correct in the light of what the Taoiseach has said. I hope I am right in thinking so.
I have no remarks to make on Senator Hayes's statement just now. I think he is interpreting the situation fairly accurately. It certainly corresponds to my mind on the matter.
I move amendment No. 10:—
Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
The chairman shall be the chief officer of the institute and shall control and direct the activities and staff of the institute subject to the general direction of the council.
The object of this amendment is two-fold—first, to express the view that it is not desirable that there should be a chairman appointed for a period of three years—with remuneration and with certain rights and therefore presumably with certain duties—and at the same time a director. It seems to me that that arrangement is almost bound, human nature being what it is, to lead to a clash. That is my view.
Apart from that, if that view does not find favour with the Taoiseach and the House, I should like to get some information as to the reason for making a change from the Bill of 1956, which provided a director only. I put the amendment down in this form because it was the only way in which it seemed to me I could bring these matters before the House. I am sorry I have to discuss the director to some extent. Presumably he must be a scientist of wide knowledge, high experience and repute. If it is proposed that the chairman should also be a scientist—I do not know whether it is or not—it would appear to me you would be almost bound to have a clash. There would be a certain amount of divided authority and the situation would not be such as to get the very best possible results from the institute.
That is the reason why I put down the amendment, which puts it the other way round—that the chief officer of the institute should also be the chairman of the council, and that he should have under him the direction of the activities and staff of the institute, subject to the general control of the council.
I put in the word "general" which Senators will remark is not in Section 7 (2) which reads:
"The director shall be the chief officer of the institute and shall control and direct the activities and staff of the institute subject to the direction of the council."
As originally in the Bill, as drafted and introduced, the phrase was "general direction". The word "general" was deleted—I am not quite clear why. It seems to me that if you keep the word "general" you give the director more power—which I think he should have. He should be under the general direction of the council but not under their direction for specific day to day matters.
I should like to know what kind of person is envisaged as chairman and what is in the Taoiseach's mind and the mind of the Government with regard to the different functions which the chairman and the director are to carry out. For example, under Section 5 the chairman shall be appointed by the President—that is, by the Government—he shall hold office for such term not exceeding three years, and on such terms and conditions (including terms of remuneration) as may be determined by the Government at the time of his appointment. The fact that he is getting remuneration means that he has to do something more than preside at four or six meetings in a year. I am anxious to find out—I am not interested in the remuneration side— what functions it is proposed to give the chairman and how they differ from those which Section 7 proposes to give to the director.
The difference between this Bill and that introduced by the previous Government is that this is a different approach on this matter. Some people may think it better to have the whole thing run by one man, while others may take the view that it would be much better that policy and so on should be decided by a group rather than by an individual.
This institute is being set up with the ultimate aim of serving the agricultural community here in our own country. Research is only a means to an end. I admit you can have research by individuals who are thinking of much more fundamental things and who have not the immediate utilitarian end in mind at all. This is intended to be a practical instrument for the improvement of agriculture in this country and to serve the agricultural community. If research is to be done, one must look for the best scientist to do it —and he must be an organiser, too. When we considered this Bill first with a view to bringing it in, we considered that the Bill which originated from the previous Government laid too much stress upon the scientist who was to be the head or director of the technical side of the work. We felt it would be much better that the whole policy of research for the benefit of agriculture here should be decided by a body such as the council—where there would be representatives from the Government, the Department of Agriculture, the universities and also the farming community through their organisations. We thought such a body would be better fitted to decide the directions in which research should be pursued.
I know the technical sides will come in, but having set out the immediate aims, the council would have a scientific expert to try to achieve those aims. Therefore, the idea was that the council would be really in the saddle and have the ultimate determination of policy. They would be sensible men and realise that where they were not expert they would have to depend upon the expert advice which they would be given—judged, of course, by their own common sense and knowledge and the aims they had in view. We thought it very much better to have this arrangement under which there would be a council which, by the foundation Act, this Bill, would be really masters and the others would have to act as the agents or servants of that body.
I am asked what the function of the chairman should be: I would say he need not necessarily be a scientist. I would envisage him as a man who had a good knowledge of agriculture and the agricultural needs of the country, a man who by his intellectual capacity and training would be able to appraise proposals which might be put up by the technical department for the carrying out of any particular aim set forth by the council. Therefore, he would not necessarily be in the narrow field, confined to a scientist. In his general knowledge he should have such knowledge as would enable him to understand the nature of research work and what it implies. He should be a man of ability with particular knowledge of agriculture in this country. In that case we do not have to combine in one person the highly technical skill that would be required of the director with the ordinary knowledge and common sense of the person who had a good acquaintance with agriculture in this country.
I have not any particular person in mind. Neither have the Government, but I am indicating the sort of person I should like to find. He would be, so to speak, a sort of standing committee during the time between the meetings of the council. Day by day he would have to attend to such things as might be delegated to him by the council in so far as they would have powers of delegation, so that he would really be the companion, so to speak, of the scientist. It is true, of course, that human relations do not work out as we desire them to, but if we are careful in the selection of the chairman and of the scientist I do not think any real difficulty will arise.
In any case, there will always be the possibility of appeal to the council. A director can have an appeal to the council; he can put proposals before the council and he can have these proposals considered. While there is a risk, as Senator Hayes suggested, I think that on the whole we must make up our minds as to which system we want. I think this system is preferable to the proposal in the other Bill—the one to which I think Senator Hayes would have us revert. I have examined this as dispassionately as I could. So have the Government. We are of the opinion that this is the better system.
I favour very much the division of power as suggested in the Bill. First of all, agriculture is very diverse. It is connected with so many other faculties that no one man has the intellectual completeness in science to be able to run the Agricultural Institute as his private company, as it were, and the introduction of a chairman will give the opportunity of putting a fresh viewpoint into the institute. While the Taoiseach said the chairman need not necessarily be a scientist, I should like to feel that would be the exception. I should like to feel that the chairman would really be somebody engaged in agricultural teaching or in agricultural advisory work or in some other big branch of agriculture.
I do not think that the lay technical man, the professional administrator, would provide a very good counterpart to the director in this institute. I think we will provide the chance of an occasional disagreement between the director and the chairman even though both may be scientists. We must take the chance that there will be such disagreements rather than tie the institute up in any conflict between pure administration and pure science. I think that with common sense the two offices can work well together. In American universities it is the practice that when the president of the university comes to a meeting of the governing body he must sit in the corner and be there to answer questions when asked by the governing body who are very definitely the ruling force. As I have indicated, I am very much in favour of subdivision.
The Taoiseach began by explaining that the director must work under the council. That, I think, is contained in my amendment— that he must be subject to the general direction of the council. I realise he could not be otherwise. The Taoiseach suggested that the chairman should not be just a narrow scientist. The chairman, of course, will be a chairman in the first place, a person to preside at meetings, a person who must know how to conduct meetings, who will see that decisions are arrived at and that they are accurately recorded and efficiently carried out. For that job you will require a person who knows the duties of chairmanship.
According to the Taoiseach's statement we shall also require a person familiar with administration because, as I understand it, the administration of an office staff will be rather the business of the chairman than of the director. If in addition to these two qualities the chairman requires a knowledge of agricultural problems also, it will be very difficult to find a chairman because in that context he must presumably be a practical farmer and as well be acquainted with the scientific basis of farming. I know there are such people but I believe they are rather few.
Senator Quinlan envisaged a situation in which we would have a new chairman every three years. I am not so sure that is sound and I do not think it was ever intended that the director of the institute should be in the position, as has been suggested here by Senator Quinlan, that he should direct the institute as if it were his own private business. Of course that is not so, because both in this Bill, in the previous one and in my amendment the director would be under the direction of the council.
I agree that the decision the Taoiseach has reached was arrived at bona fides and with the purpose of giving us the best possible institute, but it seems to me there are serious difficulties in the way of finding the type of person we want. I still do not see, and I do not think anybody sees, precisely where the line of demarcation is drawn between the functions of the chairman and the director. However, I have explained my view on the matter and I am afraid I cannot do more about it except to express the hope—because the matter is of immense interest to us all—that the matter will work out in the very best possible way as between the chairman, when appointed, and the director, when appointed.
I am hesitant, for a number of reasons, to express any view on this section, though it is a vital part of the Bill. It is not the kind of instrument at all I would have chosen. I hope it will work. This discussion on the section seems to me to be like a discussion about the European Free Trade Area. Nobody knows how it will work. It was a very good thing that Senator Hayes put down his amendment in regard to the chairman. I think it is inherent in a plan where you have two people who may be regarded as of equal competence in their own fields that you have a clash of personalities. This clash of personalities is quite common in this country. The Taoiseach has not made it quite clear what his mind is or what is the mind of the Government with regard to the manning of the institute, with regard to the director and the chairman.
There will be a great deal of difficulty in the way of getting rid of prejudice against this institute. There has been a fair amount of controversy about it up to the present. Many of the people who are interested in it do not know how it will function. Its functions will be distributed around so many bodies and authorities in the country that the part each will play will not be too easy to grasp.
It is vital therefore that as regards the personnel of the institute the director and chairman should have outstanding qualities to recommend them. I am disposed to support Senator Hayes's view in regard to the importance of having one person, but with this note of warning: There are very few people available in this country to do this work. I would say that the Taoiseach should act in the same way in this connection as in regard to the Institute for Advanced Studies—look for the very best people available to us anywhere in the world. The prestige of agricultural education, let us say what we like about it, is not very high amongst thoughtful, progressive Irish farmers. That is for reasons into which I do not propose to go here, the product partly of our history, our lack of finance, our insular position and many other reasons. If we are to give this institute the prestige which it ought to have to command the confidence of the most thoughtful amongst us, right from the beginning, we ought to get the very best person we can buy in any country in the world. I have heard agricultural scientists from New Zealand talking here and it is no reflection on our own scientists when I say that we have not got their equal here.
As regards looking for a scientist as a director—and science in relation to agriculture is a very wide field indeed —Senator Hayes's suggestion would be impossible of operation because it would be inadvisable to bring a foreign scientist into the country who had been working in the field of agricultural science for years and make him chairman of a council of Irishmen. For that reason, the Taoiseach's plan is a better one. Perhaps he has in mind what I am suggesting—at least I would hope so. If it could operate like that from the beginning, the institute would get a tremendous start. We are in so many groups and cliques in this country that if we are to put this institute on the plane on which it ought to be, then for the sake of agriculture and the future of the nation, we ought to look elsewhere for something we have not got amongst ourselves, and that is no reflection on our own people.
In regard to the chairman, the Taoiseach has indicated that he need not be a scientist. Of course, he need not be a scientist, but if there are people here who have a close acquaintance with science, it would not be any harm to have them. There are people in Ireland who are tremendously interested in agricultural science and have given evidence of their interest and confidence in that field over the years. I do not think I hold with Senator Quinlan that you can go out amongst the advisory services or out amongst some other of our services teaching in the agricultural field and bring in somebody to be chairman of this council. If you went out to draw your chairman from that field, he might not be a very good chairman and a number of the people on the council might themselves demonstrate that they were much better informed and knew more about the problems involved than did the chairman himself. That would be a rather invidious position for a chairman to occupy. However, if we are to have somebody with a knowledge of science, it would be an unfortunate position for a director to be in—I am speaking of a director who would be regarded as being highly competent in his field—if he were to come into his council and his chairman and to find that his language was Greek to them. There ought to be, through the chairman, the possibility of an interpreter to the council. Therefore, the kind of person you would have as chairman ought to be competent as such, but he ought to have other qualifications as well.
These two people will have a profound influence on the attitude of the institute to the problems of the country in future. There are other matters I wish to raise in regard to the council, but perhaps I should not do so on the amendment.
Hardly on the amendment.
The Taoiseach knows better than most of us in this House that this new institute is starting out under difficulties. There are many sceptics, and it will not be an easy task to restore confidence on that higher plane in agricultural thought because I am afraid some of us were turned off the road in the beginning. Much is yet possible through the decision which the Taoiseach and his Cabinet will make with regard to these two people. People of the standing which I urge we ought to get can be found and no effort should be spared to find them. The Taoiseach can then be proud of his achievement in piloting this Bill through, but if he fails there, I am afraid the institute will have great difficulty in making for success in our generation.
On a point of information, may I say we have many very highly qualified scientists, especially people who have gone abroad to work in other countries? I should like to quote a recent phrase of the Taoiseach that we should not hide our light under a bushel. I welcome the coming in of outside scientists and I have an amendment down to facilitate that. On the other hand, I believe that our own can hold their own anywhere they go. I might mention that the head of a section of O.E.E.C. is an Irish graduate. The head of the Dairy Section in New Zealand holds a diploma for a two years' course from U.C.C. In America, there are several distinguished. Irish graduates. Our numbers may be small but our people have proved that when they get the chance and the facilities they can hold their own with anybody.
I should like to say that there is no doubt that the chairman will require to have a number of exceptional qualities, just as Senator Hayes has said; but if the Senator seeks to make him a scientist as well, he is going to add a further quality to the others, that is that he will know his own subject, that he will have a professional scientist's knowledge in his own subject, which is agriculture. I take it if we can get a man who is an agricultural scientist and has proved himself in that field, that is the sort of man we want, but if we have to combine that quality with the qualities Senator Hayes said the chairman should have, then it is going to make it still more difficult to choose your man. There are two very important posts to fill and, in my opinion, it is easier to get the two filled than to get one filled because with one you have to try to combine in the scientist the other qualities. Many of them may be found in scientists, but they may not be found because the person who is a professional scientist and who has devoted himself to his work has possibly concentrated so much on it that he has not got the way of dealing with men which people living in less restricted atmospheres may have.
However, we can argue about that for a very long time. There are two points of view and we have taken the present one. I believe on the whole that it is the better one and I can only say that we have no particular people in mind. I have not got any and the Minister for Agriculture has not got anybody in view. The question of personnel was not discussed. There is no outstanding person who would obviously be the person to be chosen as chairman. We do not see any outstanding man; although there may be one and I do not see him but that may be my fault. I think in this matter we should follow the scheme of the Bill and have the duties divided. I would say the duties of the director would be to look after the strictly scientific side of the work. On the other hand, I would say the chairman would have to look after the dissemination of the information gained, to try to see that the members of the council were fully alive to current proposals in agriculture and to see that proposals of that particular type were not neglected by the scientific head.
I think that the duties of the two offices are fairly well separated. You will see the separation well if you ask: "What is the scientist to do?" and keep your mind on what he has to do.
The rest, you would say, is to lie with the chairman. Although it is true that even under Senator Hayes's proposal, the director would be subject to the council, still it is an unsatisfactory position that a member of the council should also be subject to it, particularly if he were chairman. If the council took a different view, it would be very awkward in administrative work afterwards. I think the general body will be for planning, advising generally, and deciding broad matters of policy and the scientist will examine any suggestions that may come to him from the council. If you look at it that way, you will see work for both and there are duties where they come together and perhaps overlap.
I should like to withdraw this amendment, but I think it was desirable to put it down for it has produced a very enlightening discussion. I readily agree there is something to be said on both sides. In any event, we are somewhat clearer on the respective functions of the chairman and director.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In sub-section (6), line 6, after "office" to add "at the request of a two-thirds majority of the ordinary members of the council".
I just want to bring the council and the institute into the picture. I wish that the council of the institute, by a reasonable majority, could make a recommendation to the Government to have the chairman removed. If there was a serious clash between the chairman and the director and if it reached such proportions that some action had to be taken, then we take it that the first body that would be cognisant of the need should be the council of the institute itself, and the council, excluding the chairman. I just want to know could the machinery for the removal of the chairman give some say to the council?
It would help me to judge the merits of this amendment, if the Taoiseach would clarify a certain number of points. The chairman is appointed by the President. That seems to differ from the ordinary procedure where an appointment is made by the Government. I wonder would the Taoiseach say why the President is brought into the picture for this appointment? Then again, the appointment is made for a maximum period of three years. Three years appear to me to be a very short time, particularly when there is no reference in the section to reappointment. I notice that for the ordinary council members the Schedule provides that they can be reappointed, but I do not notice that particular provision for the chairman. Of course it could be said that it is not really necessary to provide for reappointment, that he could be appointed for three years, again for another three years and so on, but reading it there and putting it side by side with the provisions for the ordinary members, it would appear that the intention is to have appointment for three years only and that there will not be a reappointment. I wonder would the Taoiseach kindly clarify these points for me.
With regard to the appointment being made by the President, it is, of course, true that the President, in practically all cases, except in those in which he acts under the powers given to him by the Constitution, acts under powers given by the Government. Partly because of the prestige of the office of chairman, the appointment will actually be made by the President. This practice has been followed in a number of other cases, in the appointment of judges and, in some instances, professors in the Institute for Advanced Studies. It is common practice when important posts are being filled in that way on Government advice, that they be given the prestige of appointment by the President himself.
As to the question of removal, there would probably be some remuneration and there is also the question of successive Governments. One of the reasons why a period of three years is thought to be desirable is that it will mean, if there are different Governments, when the three-year period ends, these different Governments may have the opportunity of making appointments. I do not think there is anything to prevent any Government from advising the President to reappoint a chairman. I do not know why the other provision was specifically put in, that is, that the ordinary members could be reappointed. It would be too much of a pointer to the Government to say that the chairman could be reappointed. It might hold out hopes, where hopes should not be entertained. Though I had nothing to do with the drafting of that part of the Bill, I think it is just as well to leave it as it is. I do not think it makes any real difference.
In the case of a request, would it be common procedure for a request to come from the council to the Government saying that it would be impossible to carry on with the chairman?
Remember some members of the council will be appointed by the Government and you may be perfectly certain that the Minister for Agriculture will be sufficiently interested in the work of the institute to keep in reasonable touch with its doings. Clashes like that, when they occur, are generally resounding and they are heard. I think, if clashes such as the Senator has suggested, occur, the Government would not need to have its ear to the ground to know what is happening. I think it is not desirable the section should be amended as suggested by the Senator. When the Senator says "two-thirds", he does not indicate what way it is to operate.
I take it then there is no doubt in any of our minds, with regard to this important post, that neither of the two political Parties would in any way be guilty of putting a man into the chairmanship just because of his political connections, or removing an existing chairman because the Government might change in the meantime?
I hope not, but it could happen that you would have two very very good men, each of whom could be chosen, and one might have indicated a slight inclination towards one sort of policy in regard to agriculture in general, and the other an inclination towards a somewhat different policy. I do not think, however, we need have any real fears about this and I personally prefer the short term rather than the long term.
I was concerned with the short term more than the three-year period. It has not been our practice to remove chairmen just because a Government has changed.
I believe I can say, with a fair amount of experience in changes of Government, that if a man is doing his work particularly or exceptionally well, I do not think he will be changed.
There are some interesting things about sub-section (8). It is framed very properly, of course, to give powers to the Government to determine by what method the nominees of the agricultural and rural organisations will be chosen by these organisations. What shall I say of these organisations? They are fluid and very often numerous, and it seems to me that the appointment of representatives could be difficult. I suppose we will have to wait until we see the regulations that are made, but the body itself is a small one and five representatives is a considerable number. I know claims were made for a greater number still, but the very wording of sub-section (8) indicates the difficulties which this Government, or any other Government, would experience in finding people for nomination, if that is the proper word. I do not know if we are entitled to any information, or if it is right to ask for any information, but I think the nomination of these people will cause considerable difficulty. I do not know if the Taoiseach contemplates that the Government of the day would have a choice, or whether they would perforce have to take persons nominated to them by the agricultural and rural organisations. I would rather deal with that sub-section by itself, though I have something to say about sub-section (9) also.
This sub-section puzzled me to some extent also. You have a five-four-three system. There are five to be appointed from the agricultural and rural organisations and Senator Hayes has mentioned the difficulty in choosing them. I did not catch whether he said they were numerous or humorous.
I said they were fluid.
I said I did not know if he said they were numerous or humorous.
Not humorous, no.
There are five nominess to come from these organisations, four from the universities and three to be direct appointees of the Government, but yet it is the Government nominate them all. The four University Colleges will nominate, or send up names, to the Government and there will have to be a system devised whereby the rural organisations can send up five names. The section seems to read that the Government must be satisfied with those nine names sent up to them and they will then supplement those nine with three other appointees, probably from the Civil Service. I agree with Senator Hayes there may be a difficulty in selecting the five representatives of the agricultural and rural organisations.
With regard to that point and the problem confronting the Government in the selection of representatives from the agricultural and rural organisations, I wonder if the Taoiseach can enlighten us further? We know that a group of farm organisations have already met the Minister for Agriculture on this point. Whether they got any enlightenment or not, I do not know, nor do I know if there is any clarification of the Government's views with regard to the regulations under which the five members are to be selected, and how many farm organisations are to be consulted in regard to the selection of these nominees.
I am quite satisfied, no matter what you do in regard to this matter, there will be farmers and farm organisations very dissatisfied. It is regrettable that they all cannot be got together into one body so that they could do their work together, as is done in Britain and elsewhere. However, it is not so here. What divides them I just do not know. They are like our political Parties—as much divided by personalities as by anything else. It is just one of the tragedies of the country at the moment, but it will create very great difficulty. Consequently, I would welcome whatever the Taoiseach has to say by way of enlightenment and I am sure the farm organisations will welcome it as well.
I am sorry I cannot give the Senator very much enlightenment——
Tell us what you know.
You know quite as much about it as I do. I told the Minister for Agriculture: "Get busy, because if you want to be ready with your Order when the Bill is law, there is a great deal of preliminary work to be done. Try to divide them into sections where you can so that it would be reasonable that each of these sections would nominate one member to the council."
This is a problem which has come up time after time when we have been dealing with rural organisations and, more specifically, with farmers' organisations. One of our great difficulties is that we have not so far evolved an organisation which could be said to be representative of agriculture as a whole. However, I think we are moving in that direction, bit by bit. I am sorry to say I cannot say what will be in the Order, except to say that the Minister is busy trying to find the necessary foundation, if we can find it. I hope we can.
One would like to have an alternative. If I had to do it myself I would look around these various organisations, see where there were suitable people and pick them, if they were obviously interested in agriculture and interested in particular branches of it. I would just pick them for their ability. But if you did that, it would be immediately rejected. If the Government were to do it without getting nominations, it would be said that the Government were going to pack the council, that the persons picked would not be farmers and that it would not be representative of the farming community at all.
The only way in which you can do it is to have unity afterwards, it is sections. Divide it into five sections, if it can be reasonably done. Try to put them into five classes and then try to bring these five classes together so that each section will nominate. It is an extremely difficult problem, I admit. It is one of the things which offer most danger to the quick starting of the institute—that and the selection of the chairman and director. Everything else would be reasonably plain sailing. I am sorry I cannot enlighten the Senator any more.
There is just one danger in all those nominations by specific bodies, that is, if the council is to have unity afterwards, it is essential that the members elected should really cease to feel connected directly with their organisation and should feel that they are selected on this as one of a team of 12 to do a job.
I had experience recently with an outside member of our governing body in the university. He said to me: "One thing that really amazes me is the way you professors come in here to the governing body and oppose tooth and nail a decision arrived at by the Academic Council, that you sink your opposition in the governing body." I would like to feel that the same freedom would prevail among the ordinary members of the council.
I should like to make a comment on sub-section (9). It seems to be an example of the counting of heads by democracy. There are four University Colleges in the State and each is given a representative. I am not proposing any amendment. I hope it will work out all right, but I think it is right to point out there is only one working faculty and seat of agriculture in the State and that is at University College, Dublin. It has been there for more than 30 years. It is the largest university college in the State and it gets only one representative, although it has an agricultural faculty actually working. I think it is rather curious to allow something like "one man, one vote" to work in this particular way. It may be all right, but from the point of view of practical acquaintance with the kind of thing with which the institute is dealing, one would imagine that there are more facilities at University College, Dublin, owing to the facts, than anywhere else, but it gets only one representative. I am just pointing that out.
With regard to that, in the Senate of the United States, you have a small State represented equally with a large State, although I know you have a proportional counting of heads in the other House. It is very difficult in these cases to make proportions and deal with them in accordance with numbers. I think the present provision was in the original Bill?
It was in the original Bill.
On the whole, it was felt it was the best way to deal with the situation. If the one man is at all representative of the institution, he ought to know fairly well what is happening in that institution.
I move amendment No. 13:—
Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—
There shall be paid, out of the income of the institute, to a member of the council ordinarily resident outside Éire such remuneration as the Minister may determine.
The wording of this new section speaks for itself. We might like to nominate some person from outside the country on the council. He might happen to be a specialist in some branch and might happen to be available. It might be very useful to be able to appoint such a man, but the difficulty is he might feel he should get a fee for the appointment. He might attend only five times in the year, but I think it would be worth while to pay a fee to such a man for his advice to the council.
The only difference between this amendment and the amendment in Senator Quinlan's name is that I leave it to the Minister to determine what that remuneration might be because I thought it might be embarrassing for a council of mostly unpaid members to fix a fee for someone coming from abroad.
This is in line with the general discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill where, I think, there was a very large measure of agreement in the House that we should make the fullest possible use of outside help and, seeing that the Agricultural Institute is modelled to a great extent on the Agricultural Research Council in England, it would be a great help to have somebody from England who understands both the strength and weakness that is in the present Agricultural Research Council in England. It would be well worth paying such a man, and I think men are available who would be only too anxious to help. I can think of several who have come here and lectured in the past; they would be very reasonable in their demands, asking merely what would cover their expenses.
We have had also great help from the United States at all times and from their many distinguished scientists. We have had their advice in the drafting of this Bill and for the first few years it might be a nice gesture on the part of the Government, and it would certainly contribute a lot to the ultimate success of the institute, if the Government would use one of its three nominations to appoint some person from the United States to the council of the institute.
Below the council there must necessarily be a research council and I think there, especially, outside scientists could make a tremendous contribution. We may not be able to get them to come here and work 12 months of the year for us, but if they would come and spend just a day or two days meeting and having discussions with the director and his staff, such people would be invaluable on one of the committees that will necessarily be set up by the Agricultural Institute.
In putting down my amendment I had the benefit of knowing of Senator Cole's amendment and I just thought that the matter was not quite so grave that it might be left to the Minister. I regarded it as an ordinary financial decision that the council itself should be capable of making. However, I have no hard views on that but I am really concerned that we should recognise the principle of bringing in outside help—as you might put it—on a part-time basis.
I altogether agree that it would be very foolish not to avail of whatever information and knowledge are at our disposal in any country and particularly in the countries that have been mentioned, in Britain and the United States, but I think that to avail of that information or knowledge it is not necessary that the person we want should be a member of the council. I think it is better that the council should consist, in the main, of Irish people and that if we do want foreign assistance—and I am sure we desire it—the council of the institute can get it by asking these people to come along and give scientific help.
There is no reason why such persons should not come here as consultants; there is no reason why, if there is somebody in the Agricultural Research Council in Britain whose views would be of value, he should not be consulted or asked to come here. His expenses can be paid. There is nothing to prevent the council paying the expenses of those who may be asked to give scientific advice here. I believe the advice required can be got in that way. It is a different matter to appoint a person as a member of the council. I need not go into it, but all sorts of difficulties might arise if we did that. I think it is better that such people should be available as scientific advisers and that can be arranged——
Is it clear that there is power in the institute to pay for assistance of that kind?
I would say so.
That would be contained in the powers of sub-section (2) of Section 4, that they can make a grant?
And in the expenses section also.
There is something more than expenses. Senator Cole and Senator Quinlan both contemplated that persons from outside the jurisdiction of the State might be brought in and that it would be worth paying not only their travelling expenses and subsistence but also fees and I take it, in this generality of powers in Section 4, the institute would have power to pay such persons?
I feel certain it would.
Members of the council?
No, not members of the council. I am adopting the Taoiseach's suggestion that the council can invite such people here if they are not members of the council and can pay not only expenses but also such fees as may be agreed on. I take it that is possible?
I am practically certain it is.
I do not propose to move my amendment. I merely put it down to reiterate what we expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill— the desirability of getting in as much outside help as we can on what I might call a part-time basis.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In sub-section (1), line 28, to delete "a director" and substitute "directors", and in line 29 to delete "Director" and substitute "Directors".
To my mind this is the way out of the difficulty of chairman and director. Some of my remarks perhaps would apply to the amendment which Senator Hayes has put down. I thought it would be a very difficult matter to distinguish between the chairman and the director but we have the chairman appointed by the President. Perhaps that is right but then we have the director who is to be "the chief officer of the institute". That was my difficulty and I thought that perhaps by appointing more than one director, not alone would it solve that difficulty but that it would also be more appropriate to the work that was being done.
He controls the activities of the staff but the Taoiseach himself has said that the director would be a highly skilled man. We might have a highly skilled man in veterinary research and yet he would not be highly skilled, and would probably know nothing about, plant breeding, to take two more or less opposite branches. For that reason I would suggest that we should have directors, and that perhaps some man might be appointed on the veterinary research side to deal with animal diseases and that sort of thing and that another man might be appointed, when the time came that it would be necessary, to deal with plant breeding, plant diseases and such botanical subjects.
If you could find a man who would have sufficient knowledge to deal with all those sides of the institute's work, well and good, but I do not think it is possible. I do not think any man would be likely to specialise in the different branches the institute may be dealing with. If we appoint a man skilled in one branch he would not be able to report back to the council in the technical language that perhaps the members of the council would demand. Undoubtedly, there will be men on the council who will be specialists in their own line and if we have a general director more or less as the link between them and the research workers, he will not be able to answer questions before a council meeting or report in the technical language that perhaps some of the members might demand. I envisage a man who was himself taking part in the research work being appointed a director over the work that was being done on those lines in different centres.
Take the case of research carried on in Dublin and Cork. I envisage saying to one of the chief workers: "You shall be the director of this work. You can co-ordinate and compare and report to the council." Take another case. Supposing the institute were asked by the Minister to tackle some fairly immediate, let us say, veterinary problem that arose. If there were two teams of workers, you might like to put both teams working on the same problem. A director who was a general director—and a director under the Bill must be a very general man—would not be able to co-ordinate and compare the work of those two teams and report to the council in detail in technical language on the work that they were doing.
Research work in this country, necessarily, would be carried out at varying and scattered centres and a director who was in charge of all the research carried out by the institute would not be qualified to gather in reports and translate them or might have difficulty in doing so if he were merely a general administrator, possibly qualified in one branch or two branches but not in every branch and he would not be in a position to report to the same extent as the specialist to the council.
Again, it might be desirable to import a director for a term, a man who had carried out certain research work in England or America, if we were starting where they had left off. It might be very useful to have such a person as a director for a time. I would suggest that by appointing a chairman and giving him the general administration and appointing directors with more scientific knowledge of the exact activity they would be engaged in, the best results would be achieved.
We have discussed Senator Hayes's amendment and I do not want to repeat what I have said but I think there will be a certain amount of difficulty experienced if the chairman and director are both more or less general, able men but not specialists. My amendment would produce a director as a specialist over the activities allotted to him. He might be a director only for a short term until some problem would be solved or until they had advanced as far as they could go and he could then go back to his ordinary duties or combine the directorship with his ordinary duties. It would be a much more satisfactory position to have a technical, highly skilled man over each branch who could report in technical language to the members of the council who are qualified to inquire into the activities of that branch.
Most of what the Senator has said will, of course, happen in practice. Undoubtedly, there will be research sections and in each section there will be some person who will be in control. These will, in fact, be acting as the Senator has said but I do not think we should give them a title here or regard them as completely independent. You do want to have some co-ordinating head and the director that is mentioned in the Bill is to be the chief person to co-ordinate the work in the various sections, to see that there is no overlapping. It is quite possible that there may be two sections, A and B, and the same sort of research might very well fall under either of the sections. It would be well to have somebody who would say: "Although you, A, can claim that it should come into your section and section B can claim that it can come into theirs, on the whole it is better that it should be done by such and such a section". That is a rough example of what occurs to me. There will be heads of the various sections, of course. The only thing is, are we to give them the name "director"? Are we to give them a statutory title here? I do not know what name will be given to them ultimately. They will be the chiefs of the different sections but the director that we have in question here is to be the head person over all the sections, not having any one particular section under his control, but operating in a supervisory and advisory capacity over the lot.
The Senator has given an example once or twice by reference to veterinary science. This Bill is not intended to cover it. There are difficulties in regard to the veterinary situation at the moment and they will have to be resolved differently but it is not intended in the main that this Bill should cover it. It is not mentioned as one of the sections of agriculture or branches associated with agriculture that are covered. There is a good deal that can be said on both sides. This is extraneous to the amendment but I thought there might be some misapprehension.
I only took that as an example.
I beg your pardon. I was afraid, as the Senator used it twice that there might possibly be a misunderstanding and I should not like the Bill to be passed with any misunderstanding about it.
I think, therefore, that to have several directors, each having independent access to the council, would create difficulty and it would really mean that the chairman would have to do the work that is intended to be done by the director at present.
Amendment No. 16 was consequential on amendment No. 15.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 18:
In sub-section (3), line 35, to delete "for such term and."
This is really an amendment of sub-section (9) of Section 7. In other words, it seems wrong to appoint a director for a certain term of years and then give the council power to dismiss him. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment now because I am satisfied with the amendment proposed by the Government to Section 9.
I move amendment No. 19:
In sub-section (3), line 35, after "term" to insert "not exceeding seven years."
I indicated on the Second Stage that this matter was something that ought to be considered. The powers of the director are somewhat limited in this Bill but, in spite of that, the success of the institute will depend largely, if not entirely, on the qualities of the director and this amendment is aimed at securing, I hope, the type of director who would be most competent. The director would have to co-operate with various types of personnel in charge of research in the country, in a number of institutions. He must be able to give balanced decisions amongst diverse interests.
He has also other functions as well. He must have a wide acquaintance with the agricultural industry and with scientific literature. He must be a scientist with a width of knowledge rather than an accurate acquaintance with a particular line of work. It would be very difficult, as has already been indicated by the Taoiseach, to get a person possessing these qualities. It might perhaps be desirable to consider whether you could not appoint such a person for a limited period or get a person seconded for a limited period rather than appoint him for good. You might have a situation where the directorship would be filled by a person who, after years, would be found to be undesirable but who had disconnected himself entirely with his employment.
At the beginning of the National University in 1908 the British Government appointed a commission. That commission appointed a number of professors and lecturers on a seven year basis. I think all were reappointed at the end of the seven years but it gave an opportunity of seeing what they were like. There are difficulties both ways. It is difficult to get a man to leave a post which he may hold for life to go into a post which may last only seven years. This is a matter of very great importance. A person appointed for seven years could be given certain rights, even certain pension rights. It might easily be discovered for scientific reasons or reasons of competency or even psychological reasons that the director was not suitable. Therefore, a shorter period than life might be desirable.
The matter is one of complexity and difficulty but it would be better that he should be appointed for a seven year period than for life.
I want to urge this amendment pretty strongly. On the one hand, we are all agreed that we want to get the best possible man as director. However, that means also that, in five years' time, we should like to feel we had then the best man possible as director, or in 15 years' time—at that point—that we had the best man at the helm. We are all agreed on that simple proposition. Our feeling for our fellow man is such that we do not like to displace anybody and it somehow blurs our vision. In other words, we want to guarantee the livelihood and the prospects of the director—and quite rightly so. We feel that, unless we are prepared to do that, we will not get the best possible man at the present moment. It has been said that the field is limited at present. It is. I feel, however, we can get a good director at present. Nobody can guarantee that the man we appoint in a few months' time will, in seven or ten years' time, be superior to other men who will be around in ten years' time.
If the first director does the job of launching the institute effectively, I think he should not take it as any reflection upon himself if, after a certain period, he is assigned to some less arduous task. In fact, after the hurly-burly of getting the thing launched, and the many cares of the directorship, I could appreciate a situation in which it would be very nice for the director to retire into some type of research professorship where he would not suffer any diminution in salary and where he would be able to carry on and do very useful work in a research capacity. From that point of view, I urge that we should impose some time limit. At the end of such time, of course, the council would have the statutory obligation of reviewing the situation—of seeing if they think the present occupant should be renewed for a further period or if it would be better that he should take over some other post, suffering no diminution in salary, and whether there are other young men around very eager and likely to make a very good job of it. From that point of view, my amendments Nos. 19 and 21—and also the subsequent amendments in relation to superannuation—are all linked together.
I urge that we give very strong consideration to this matter. The risk of being saddled not with a dud—I would not class any appointment we might make as being that of "a dud"—but the risk of being saddled with a man one degree less good than a man we could get in ten years' time is too great to take when we can prevent it now and make it appear as if no reflection is placed on a director if he is retired to some less arduous job afterwards.
In picking a democratic Government, we take our Taoiseach and Ministers for a maximum of five years. We are quite satisfied that that system works. We do not even guarantee their livelihood afterwards. I suggest we take care of the livelihood of the director in this way and ensure that we have conditions in which we can get the best man at each period.
About the analogy of people who go up for election for political office, the law of supply and demand settles that. I am afraid that the question of supply and demand will not settle that of finding a first class and suitable director. If we were asked here in the Seanad to undertake the task of getting the best director available, we should like to be fairly free in relation to the conditions that would be imposed upon us at the start because we do not know who are the people from whom the selection would have to be made, and what are the conditions in which they would find themselves—what it may be necessary to do, what term, and so on, you may have to offer in order to secure the services of the best person.
I think the considerations mentioned by the Senators who have spoken would be very clearly before the minds of any body, whether the Government on the one hand or the council on the other hand, in trying to get a suitable person as director. I think they would be anxious to have as short a period as possible in order that they might see what the director was like. Reappointment would be possible after a period. I am very much afraid of statutory limitations. It might happen that they would just debar you from doing what you want to do, namely, to get the best. In this matter, I think it is wiser for us to leave the bodies charged with the responsibility of trying to get the best as open a field as you can in the belief that they will work for the best interests of the institute.
I do not think that life appointments are very likely. I think that if we could do what was done by the Dublin Commission when the National University was founded—as was referred to by Senator Hayes—if we could get a person for a period of seven years or less it would be the most desirable thing. However, we do not know, until we examine the field, the conditions under which we can get the best man. Although I see the reasons why Senators wish to shorten the period, I would plead to leave it open because these considerations must of necessity be before the minds of the bodies that will be responsible for the selection of this very important officer. In the long run, we will have to depend for the welfare of this institute on the ability of the council, the patriotism of the council and their singlemindedness when it comes to the question of appointments. The one object to keep in mind, is the good of the institute.
According to what is set out here the council can impose such terms on subsequent directors?
Yes.
The first director is appointed by the Government and the Government has to consider the terms of appointment. There is one grave danger here. When the Government are arranging terms there is this matter of precedent in Government service. Will the director of this institute be graded as a principal officer or as assistant secretary of a Department? We should like to feel that the salary concerned would not in any way be tied by precedent. If we want to get the best man possible the grade should be equivalent to at least that of a secretary of a Department.
I take it there is no precedent?
This is without precedent.
But as far as Finance is concerned——
The precedent in Finance is that they will get a man for the lowest figure at which they can possibly get him, and I think the Taoiseach will agree with me on that. If Finance could get a man for 2½d. per day, they would take him and they would write a long memorandum to explain that he was the best man available. However, there is something in what the Taoiseach has said, that the Bill has a certain flexibility in it, that by leaving open the terms upon which people are to come, the proper conclusion could be reached, and that a period of seven years might be detrimental.
I am impressed by the Taoiseach's argument, both in regard to the first director and the directors to be appointed by the council. It depends upon the age of the person, upon the pension he has already accumulated, if he is already in the service of a university or in any other service in which he has accumulated pension rights. I would not be prepared to press my view upon the matter. I can see you have to consider certain people and you have to consider what terms they are prepared to come on. But I am afraid there is no precedent and I would not think it would be desirable that we should say that this person should get a particular type of salary. I would like to see him getting a good salary. If you got an extraordinarily good man you might have to pay him a particularly good salary. Since the amount of money involved in our agriculture is very great, I think nobody would begrudge a suitable person almost any salary he would want.
Will there be some limitation on the period of the first director? Will he be subject to reappointment after a specific number of years?
I cannot, of course, say in advance what would be the terms and I cannot speak for the Government, not having consulted them, but I can indicate that would be my own approach to it. I would prefer the appointee to have a preliminary short period with the right, if possible, of being considered for reappointment. A good man who would feel confident he could make good would not object to a short term. I would be more interested in having the term short than in having the salary small so that the man could prove himself. If we appoint a person from outside he might have to prove himself under entirely different conditions from the conditions in which he is accustomed to work. In general, if my voice would be the determining one, I would say I would try to secure the best man possible for the shortest possible period, that is, a preliminary period, and if I had to pay more on that account for that period, I would be willing to do it. As I have said, I do not like the statutory limitation.
I would like to tell Senators that the considerations which they have put forward will be kept in mind by the Government when they are making their appointment and I believe that, in the nature of things, they will be kept in mind by the council in relation to the subsequent appointments. This Bill has been very carefully examined and, except for pressing reasons, I should not like to change it.
I welcome the assurance given by the Taoiseach.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In sub-section (5), paragraph (a), line 44, to delete "or gratuity or both" and substitute "and or gratuity, and or research appointment".
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 may be taken together.
These two amendments could be met by enabling the director, while enjoying superannuation, to have some research appointment at the institute. What I am endeavouring to do is to safeguard the livelihood of the director in the eventuality of his being asked to make way for somebody else as director. I felt it would not be quite reasonable to pension a man off at 50 or 55 and that it would be far better if he were given the opportunity, up to the normal retiring age of 65 or 70, of working in another capacity, say, research, for the institute.
That can be done without having it mentioned in the Bill. The less we put in the Bill the better. It is a sort of constitution for the institute and we ought not to go into narrow particulars. If a good man is on the point of retiring from the position of director, if he is a specialist in a particular branch there will be no difficulty. I can see no reason why he would not be attached to the institute as a research man. The Senator, however, has made a suggestion as to whether a thing like that should or should not be written into a superannuation scheme. That is worth examining, but I do not know what the result of such examination will be.
I withdraw the amendment.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In sub-section (8), line 3, to delete "not".
I am putting forward the amendment in order to provide that the director shall be a member of the council. It seems to me that the director will be a person of great importance in the work of this institute and that he should be a member of the council, that he should be present at council meetings, as of right, to put his views. We have that commonly in governing bodies of university colleges. At meetings of such governing bodies academic people are present. In this institute it would be no harm at all to have the director present to put his views directly to the council.
The director of this institute will be responsible for very important work. In the nature of things, he will be a very responsible person and I think the council should have an opportunity of seeing him and hearing him at meetings as a member. There are plenty of precedents for it and, for that reason, it seems to me that the proviso directly forbidding him to be a member of the council should be deleted. I believe he should be a member of the council and that whatever consequential amendments are necessary to achieve this, such as enlarging the council to 13 members instead of 12, should be put through. I think there are a great many arguments in favour of allowing the council to hear the director as a member. As it now appears, the members of the council will be people of experience, people with their own views as to what line the institute should go on, and the more intimate and close contact they have individually with the director the better. I have two amendments, one that the director shall be a member of the council and the other that he shall have the right to attend and be heard at the council.
I am sorry that I must again find myself on the other side of the fence from Senator Hayes. You can argue in favour of Senator Hayes's amendment which provides that the director shall be a member of the council, but the nature of this setup, if I may use these words, is that the council is in control and that the staff, from the director down, are subject to the council. Anybody who has had the experience of being a member of a committee will realise how difficult it is to criticise, quietly and objectively, a person who is there present before the committee. In this case it may happen occasionally that the council may have to consider the work done by the director and might have to find fault with it or consider it among themselves.
I think that the right to attend or to be a member would cause difficulties in the case of the director. I think it is much better that, as a matter of convenience to the council, the director will be invited to attend but that he will not attend as an absolute right. There may be matters that the council would wish to discuss in the absence of the director. As the Bill stands they can do so, but if they have any problems on which they want advice they can have the director present to explain proposals. If they are debating difficult questions they can ask his advice as an expert from the research side; they can ask him to clarify matters and thus enable them to arrive at decisions.
That will mean that the director will be asked to come to say 90 per cent. of the meetings. I would not put it as a right that he should attend because I do know that occasions occur, particularly in the case of a principal officer like that, on which it would be desirable that matters should be considered in his absence, thus giving the members an opportunity of expressing their opinions. On the whole, I think it would be best to have the council the masters and the rest subject to them, so to speak.
The Taoiseach's view of the director is rather a lower view than the one I hold. If the director is to be asked to attend meetings normally, then the occasion when he is not asked will be a red light to the director.
That is so, but if I were chairman I would be very careful at the start to have it made clear that the director would be summoned only for specific purposes.
It occurs in a great many cases that the council of this kind of institute contains members of the technical staff, particularly the technical director. I think that is the better arrangement. However, if I cannot accomplish that I must be satisfied.
The position is somewhat different here. Take the Attorney-General. He is not a member of the Government. I do not think it could be thought that he attends meetings of the Government as a right. However, no Government would deal with matters of law or be foolish enough to carry on meetings involving such matters without the presence of the Attorney-General.
I wonder whether the Taoiseach thinks the Government is more or less sensible than a gathering of farmers and scientists?
I should like to explain that the terms "incapacity" and "misconduct", mentioned in the sub-section as it now stands, cause a great deal of difficulty. You might want to remove the director for reasons not covered by these terms. At the same time, you would want to give the director reasonable security and it was felt that if there was common agreement on the one hand between the Government, who would be more or less apart, and on the other hand the council, which would be in immediate control, reasonable security would be provided. On the other hand, there passes over to the council from the start, from the moment he is appointed, a share of responsibility in regard to the director. The director knows, from that on, that he is subject to the directions of the council. He knows the council can approach the Government to agree to his removal if anything goes wrong.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (a), line 43, before "for" to insert "including the provision of equipment".
This is mainly for elucidation. I should like to feel that the facilities to be paid for out of capital funds included equipment—because at present that is likely to be very expensive.
I can assure the Senator that that is covered.
I move amendment No. 33:—
To delete sub-section (3).
The amount of capital involved is by modern standards not very much, something less than £1,000,000. That may be expended in the first eight or ten years of the life of the institute— certainly in some short period—and after that the State endowment of the institute will have to take account of both the capital needs and the running costs. I felt that Section 3 more or less put a bar on the State contributing to such capital cost.
It is true that it is not intended in the Bill that the capital expenses should be taken into account in the State grant. I would remind the Senator that we are not as well off as he thought—the capital fund is only £840,000, and not £1,000,000.
I envisage this operating in two stages. First of all, there is the period in which the capital expenses will be met from this particular fund which is made available now. When that has been exhausted, the time will come when the State will have to deal with capital as well as ordinary running expenses. For the present it is much better, I think, to leave this as it is. When that day comes, a capital grant will have to be made independently. Until then, it would be better to work on the basis that the capital expenditure will have to be met out of the capital fund.
It is no harm at all that the institute should realise that there are not vast sums of money available. The £840,000 as a capital grant is comparatively small. On the other hand, as the present Bill envisages rather a coordinating authority, the amount necessary will not be as great as if we were proceeding on altogether different lines. I think we will have to leave it as it is with regard to expenses until the time arises in which capital will have to be provided by the State. It is better not to mix the two ideas at the moment.
It is the intention of the Government, then, that when the capital fund has been exhausted the capital cost of the institute will have to be met by the State?
Unless we get rich friends to endow us or get industries to endow research—or agriculture may do it, as the agricultural community might of itself see that it would be to its advantage to make contributions— I am afraid that, under the circumstances as they are, the demand will be made on the collective community, on the State. Senators may be perfectly certain that when that day comes there will be enough voices raised in regard to the capital equipment.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In paragraph (e), line 52, before "and" to insert ", fellowships".
Section 2 makes provision for the granting of fellowships. That is a very commendable provision. I have been wondering whether it should not be mentioned in this section also. Section 2 states the institute may provide for fellowships. I wonder whether the cost should not then be a charge on the income of the institute and, if so, whether it is necessary to mention here both scholarships and fellowships.
I think that would lead to misunderstanding. The word "fellowships" here really is a type of degree, it is an honorary title, it does not carry with it any special fund and there is no special cost. For instance, if we had a post-graduate student from one of the colleges coming up and pursuing a course of research in the institute with the idea that he would be awarded a fellowship as the result, then the cost of that research can be borne in the ordinary way, but for fellowships as such I do not think there is any particular cost. It is the award of a title. If the gaining of that title involves research, the cost can be met in the ordinary way. Of course, there is a cost for scholarships, because there you have to pay the individuals sums of money for subsistence and other allowances.
I took it on first reading that fellowships involved some type of recognition, if someone were doing outstanding work and continuing to do it on behalf of the agricultural institute; and that as well as being an honour, carrying a certain amount of prestige and glory of its own, there might be a certain monetary award as well.
If the institute wants to make payments for continuing research work to a person who has been awarded the title of fellow, they can do so; or if he is of sufficient standing he could be put on the research staff in the ordinary way, if he applies. I think it would be a mistake for us here to attach to a fellowship anything other than making it a mark of having done commendable work of a high standard in some particular branch of the sciences in which the institute is concerned.
I move amendment No. 35—
Before Section 20 to insert a new section as follows:—
A quinquennial (or decennial) review shall be undertaken into the workings of the institute, including its relationship with the advisory services, the universities, the agricultural schools and vocational education by a commission, one-third of which shall be nominated by the institute council.
At present we are embarking on an experiment, setting up this Agricultural Institute. We hope it is going to do a great deal, but I think it would be wise that in some five or ten years' time we should have an investigation to see how it is doing and what else it could do and, in general, how it could be made to serve the country better. I should like to feel that when such a review takes place, it will not be regarded as a vote of "no confidence" in the institute, but that rather it will be regarded as something that was laid down when the institute was set up originally.
I should like to see that principle applied to all bodies, to universities and every other body. I should like to see a periodical review so that, when it took place, we would not feel that it was a vote of "no confidence" but that it was something inevitable, something statutory. As well as that, any group outside that felt critical of the body could store up their criticisms, document them and so forth, knowing that they would have a chance some time in the near future of presenting their case. It would make for far better relations in general and lead to fewer newspaper controversies by groups attacking some existing bodies, if one felt that there would be a time and a place where one could present one's criticisms and suggestions for improvements.
I feel this applies especially in the case of the proposed Agricultural Institute. For instance, many of us would like to see the advisory services in closer association with the institute, but I think it is more prudent at the present just to set up the institute and let us see how it develops. Maybe in five years' time it would be obvious that it can have a much closer association with the advisory services, and similarly with the agricultural schools and the faculties of agriculture. At this stage, we should make provision for this review and I would like it to be a continuing affair, so that it would take place not merely in five years' time but again in another five or ten years' time after and so on.
There is no doubt that the Senator has made a case for a review, but again I am worried about making these things statutory. Of course, the Senator will have to make up his mind whether it is a five or ten year period he wants. On the whole, I think there is no use in trying to provide for everything for the future in a Bill like this. Remember that annual grants have to be got. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture will be brought in when the council is looking for increased funds, or funds to meet their programme. They will have to justify that programme, and if a sum is being devoted, they will have to have an Estimate in the Dáil, and there will be ample opportunity for criticism then, if you like, but if there is anything more detailed, I think we should leave it to the future.
I must say I have been impressed by the arguments put forward. On the other hand, I should not like to be responsible for something which is quite new, and undoubtedly, if the amendment were adopted here, it would set a headline which might be adopted in a number of places. Whether that would or would not be wise, I would like to consider further. I would ask the Senator not to press this amendment, though, of the amendments put forward, it is the one that perhaps would impress me most. On the whole, I think we would be wiser to leave the successful working of the institute to the council and to the cooperation which it is going to get from the colleges. If it is not going to make good, I am afraid that efforts of this sort will not be made easy in the future. I have great hopes that it will be successful. I recognise how difficult the task is which this council has before it, to co-ordinate work in a number of institutions which pride themselves on their independence and autonomy and the professors of which are particularly sensitive to any interference with their rights to do their work in their own way.
I think we should leave it as it is and not go looking ahead. What the suggested review would mean would be a very full examination of the whole working of the institute. We will hope for the best, but if such a review is found necessary, it will be possible to set it up any time. I agree that setting up a commission at a particular time seems to indicate that there are some serious faults there. The chief value of the amendment is that it would be regarded as a routine matter, if it was inserted here, but otherwise it would be regarded not as routine but as a sort of condemnation in advance, so to speak. However, we have other institutions which have managed to survive that sort of thing and I think we will face the future with hope.
I am rather disturbed by something the Taoiseach said in his reference to the Estimate coming before the Dáil, that the matter could be raised there. The point I want to question is whether the institute will have the same autonomy as the universities?
Whenever there is a question of a public authority paying out money, its representatives have a right to assure themselves, speaking in a general way, that the money is being well spent and you cannot deny that right to them. You cannot say it is just a question of putting up the money. Whether it be £1,000,000, or whatever sum it is, you simply do not vote it and let it go at that. No representative of the people will accept that position. Those who have charge will try to resist examination in detail but you cannot prevent discussion in the broad sense if the representatives of the people want it.
The grants to universities are statutory grants and objection has been taken to discussion of particular matters of university administration on the Estimate for statutory grants. However, in the case of the institute it may be that the Minister for Agriculture, in agreement with the Minister for Finance, will give specific grants in certain years, and I do not think there is any method of giving those grants without their expenditure being discussed. The matter will come under discussion now and again in the Dáil. The money in this case will be in the Appropriations Bill and could be discussed here.
I would be very chary of accepting Senator Quinlan's amendment. A commission tends to be leadránach, it tends to be tedious and long-winded, and I doubt very much if a statutory commission is the appropriate way to review the work of this body. That a particular commission should discuss its progress perforce every five or ten years I do not think is the best way of accomplishing the desired results.
The Taoiseach has agreed that the principle in general would be desirable if we could introduce it. How can we introduce the principle here? How can we take the stigma away from commissions? I believe there have been something like 15 commissions in the United States during the past 50 years to inquire into the workings of the various Government Departments. These are matterof-fact instances in the working of a democratic country. To get a commission here we have to get headlines in the papers, charging that the body to be investigated is failing to do its duty. We have to prove that the body is guilty before we can get a commission whereas, if we got a commission in a democratic way of life, it would be a great step forward. That is why I put down this amendment in the present instance. I wonder would there be any use in leaving the amendment stand to the Report Stage?
I do not think there would be time. There is a very very wide principle involved in the Senator's amendment and I would be just a bit afraid of accepting it here before we examined it thoroughly and saw all the repercussions there might be from it.
Hear, hear!
What can we do to bring about that state of affairs?
That is a matter for consideration.
It is in the hands of the House at the moment.
I urge the Seanad to delete this particular section. I found on examination it was much too wide, and I do not think it would be profitable to have it here at all. If any actions arise, the institute will have to make the same provision for the people who are working for it that any ordinary employer would have to make. I do not see any way out of it. I tried to find out what was the origin of this section and I must confess I found no good answer. Accordingly, I put it forward as an amendment that this section be deleted.
I am moving this amendment because I think it is only right when we give an Irish title to an institute such as this that wherever the institute is referred to in our public documents as far as possible we should have the Irish title.
I speak on this matter with a certain amount of reluctance because I feel I am destroying an illusion that exists, that if you put Irish words into English speech you are in some way furthering the Irish language. I do not think you are and as a person, who has, in this case, the misfortune to know both languages, I think this section will now be a horrible medley of both. This Act, if the amendment is accepted, may be cited as "The Agriculture (An Foras Talúntais) Act". That, to my mind, is a dreadful combination of words. It has two definite articles, one in Irish and one in English, and it is almost impossible to say if you happen to know the Irish language. The Taoiseach has given us in this Act a new word for agriculture. It seems to be a specially made-up word. You are going to have "An Foras Talúntais" in brackets and you are going to have "Talmhaíocht" in other places.
No. You will probably have "Agriculture".
You will have two different words in some instances.
In slightly different contexts.
I think agriculture is agriculture in all contexts.
But the institute——
Whether it is an institute for agriculture or a reaper and binder, agriculture is the same thing. This will get you into the same difficulty as you have in "An Tóstal". I saw a beginning to an article, "In this our second An Tóstal". That is a horrible jumble of words. There is no value whatever in this kind of thing. I know it gives the impression that you are making progress but it is certain that languages are not made by Act of Parliament. Languages are the creation of a nation, not of a committee. That is the overwhelming and only argument for preserving and reviving Irish. It was made by the Irish nation. This kind of thing does no good at all but it is an interesting fact that the very reverse does no harm. When an Irish speaker who has a feeling for the language, for its construction and its rhythm, uses an English word or words, he does no harm.
To illustrate that point, I recall that when I saw a road being repaired on the way to Helvic I said to a man working there: "Shil mise go raibh bothar nua le déanamh"; the answer he gave was: "Níl an tairgead ann." I asked: "Dé chúis ná fuil?" and he said in the course of his reply: "Sé airgead na gCounty Councils an chéad rud a thabharfaidh." That is quite a different thing from saying: "Financial collapse will first occur in the Comhairle Conntae".
But the whole idea that you are doing good by this kind of amendment is wrong. In Tipperary, where Irish is gone, they have any amount of Irish words in English. That makes their own English more flexible but it does not further the cause of the Irish language. I do not want to be academic but I can assure the Taoiseach, and he knows himself, the definite article is a very treacherous thing. There is a combination of them here that certainly constitutes a monstrous medley. It may be all right as a veneer for certain people who think they are doing good but I do not think it does any good. The Act should be cited for what it is, the Agricultural Institute Act.
I assure the Taoiseach that nobody with a sense of language—and the Lord gifted me with that, at least—would accept this horrible phrase: "This Act may be cited as the Agriculture (An Foras Talúntais) Act, 1957." It is daft.
Senator Hayes's remarks force me to refer to an article in a section we passed previously. I commented to my colleagues that it showed the English language to have a greater mix-up of words than anything in the Irish language. It is sub-section (3) of Section 7, which deals with the director of the institute. It says that he shall hold office "for such term and on such terms and conditions (including terms of remuneration) as may be determined by the Government".
I am told that is legal phraseology. I do not blame anybody outside saying, after reading that: "Are these people all illiterate? In one half-inch they put the word ‘term' three times and having two distinct meanings." It is more grotesque than the example quoted by Senator Hayes in connection with the title.
Bad English is no excuse for a monstrous medley of Irish and English.
I think Senator Hayes could have made a better case than he has been making. I think he spoiled it by exaggeration. If you look up the short title of a number of Acts you will find that there is in brackets a sub-title indicating more specifically the subjects with which they deal. In the brackets in this instance you have the particular subject, namely, the Irish for "institute".
The desire is that when institutions and so on are set up, if possible they should be given the Irish title. It gets that much into the ordinary currency of speech. I do not agree with Senator Hayes at all that it is a horrible medley of words I think all languages have to grow——
They do not grow like that.
——and they grow through the exigencies of having to express certain things. The Irish language has to grow to deal with all sorts of new things that crop up. Words like this are only giving the language a greater flexibility. "Talúntais" is not an ugly word to pronounce. It suggests at once association with the land. I see no difficulty about it at all. It is not a medley of Irish and English. You have the word "agriculture" because that is the general title to a whole lot of other Bills coming under that description. In the brackets you have the specific title which is very common in the short title of Bills. I understand the Senator's outlook and I know we will not agree. I do not think there is any use in attempting it.
Is the amendment agreed?
Mo chreach is mo chás.
I move amendment No. 37:—
To delete paragraphs 1 and 2 and substitute a new paragraph as follows:—
One third of the ordinary members of the council shall retire in rotation every three years, and shall not be eligible for immediate re-election.
This is a point which was raised by many speakers on the Second Reading, the desirability of getting a certain amount of change. We have a rather unhappy history in our committee life in this country. Once a man gets on a committee, if he succeeds in getting re-elected once, we feel we really should not disturb him from that on; he can live only another 30 years in the job. This is an effort to try and break that cycle here especially as the membership of the council is limited to 12. It means that one-third of the members, four, retire every three years. It is not very much of a change. If you make them ineligible for re-election, they still may come back at a later stage but not for the first period afterwards.
In regard to the council of the institute, of course the council has a number of committees and if a member has been really distinguished on the council his services need not be lost; he will still function very effectively on some of the committees of the institute. Besides, even if he were divorced altogether from the institute, if he is a good man there are many more committees in Ireland other than the council of the institute.
To try to break this tradition is something we should seriously consider. The great monastic orders, with the wisdom of ages behind them, regard nobody as indispensable. You are re-elected for one period and then you must serve one period in the ranks again. That has given vitality and leadership to the councils of the great religious orders—a leadership and a vitality that could do much for the agricultural institute. I would urge the amendment strongly.
I have given a good deal of consideration to this amendment since the Seanad last met. I even got a draft amendment to try to meet the idea but it would have to be very much more complicated than what the Senator thinks. Finally, I came to the conclusion that an amendment on those lines is not necessary in the case of a body composed of three separate elements.
You have the universities. There may be a certain amount of stability in the members sent up from the universities, I do not know. Then you have the persons directly selected and approved by the Government. With a possibility of changes of Government, the elements here are likely to be changed. There is a possibility of change. Then you have the nominations from the farming community. I think in the nature of the composition of the council itself, there are the prospects of reasonable change in the personnel.
I then came to work out the complicated system that would have to be substituted in order to have rotation. You would have to consider the three bodies and try to arrange that some would drop out at some stage of the term of three years and others at another stage, and when I had given all the thought I considered necessary, I finally came down on the side of leaving the thing alone, as otherwise we were only introducing complications which would not always work in the one direction, because whilst you might produce continuity, you could, on the other hand, disturb a continuity it might be desirable to retain over a period, so when you balance the arguments, pro and contra in this case, I came to the decision to leave the thing alone. I would urge that on the Seanad.
Could we take it that the Government would encourage in some way or other rotation in the selection of these members?
It would be very hard.
I would say that it would be very dangerous for a Government to urge anything like that.
You would get the reaction immediately that we would be interfering with the right to nominate the best person. If you have a large number of organisations and divide them into sections, it is quite possible you might get a satisfactory solution if you were not able to bring them all together at once. The moment you say: "You, to-day" the people who go on to-morrow will not like it. On the whole, my experience in all these things is that if you try to arrange particular things and look too far into the future, you are going to be disappointed.
There are a lot of things where when you try to achieve a certain good a lot of other evils come at the same time as the good and destroy its value. On the whole, we ought to leave it alone. I should like, perhaps, while I am speaking—it is not quite relevant to the present issue—to refer to a point one Senator made with regard to the possibility of the reappointment of the chairman. He is a member of the council and, as such, is eligible for reappointment.
The suggestion might go a long way towards meeting Senator Baxter's fears in regard to the fact that a number of rural organisations might be dissatisfied. If a number of them are promised they cannot get a nomination this time but may get it next time, it would get over the immediate difficulty.
I move amendment No. 37:—
In paragraph 6 (2), line 13, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Must the council order meetings, if requested?
We are prepared to accept the word "shall".
Does the Taoiseach desire to go on with the Report Stage?
I am in the hands of the Seanad.
It has been decided to meet to-morrow, and, unless it is very inconvenient for the Taoiseach, I suggest we should take the Fourth and Fifth Stages as the first business to-morrow.
I think I will be able to manage that all right.
