On the motion for the Adjournment, Deputy Cogan gave notice that he would raise the subject matter of Question No. 18 on to-day's Order Paper.
Private Deputies' Business. - Adjournment Debate—Parish Plan.
To-day I asked the Minister if it was proposed to extend the parish plan to all parishes in the Republic of Ireland. The Minister replied that he intends to put the parish plan into operation in the Co. Longford, Tipperary North, Tipperary South and Westmeath in April next. I am glad that the Minister has tonight introduced a non-Party atmosphere into the discussions here by attacking non-Party Deputies. I welcome that change of atmosphere and I am glad to avail of it. The question which I asked the Minister was an important one. We know that a good deal has been said throughout the country about the parish plan. It has been explained that that plan entails the appointment of one agricultural instructor to every three parishes, that is to say, we shall have small and I hope compact areas with which one agricultural officer will be able to deal and in which he will be able to keep in closer touch with the farming community than the agricultural officers of the present time who have to roam over the best part of a large county.
On the whole, agricultural instruction and technical advice to the farming community is desirable and is welcomed by farmers. I think the young men who will be appointed as agricultural instructors under this scheme will do good work. But the reply which the Minister gave me to-day leaves room for some misgivings. I am told by the Minister that these officers will be appointed for four counties out of the six. That could be very easily justified by the Minister's saying that he had not sufficient funds at his disposal to extend the plan to all counties. It could be explained by the Minister's saying that he had not sufficient agricultural instructors to cover all the counties. But, when I asked the Minister to-day by way of Supplementary Question why these four counties were singled out, his reply was that other counties had not given unqualified approval to the scheme.
This raises an important issue. The Minister in a very polite letter to the secretaries and chairmen of county committees of agriculture asked them for their opinion in regard to this scheme. That was quite a proper thing to do. The county committees, as democratic bodies representative of the farming community in the main, gave a careful consideration to the scheme and in due course gave the Minister the benefit of their opinion in regard to it. Some county committees expressed absolute, unqualified and enthusiastic approval of the scheme as outlined by the Minister. There were other county committees, however, who while accepting the scheme, offered some constructive suggestions as to how it might be amended or approved. One would have thought that the suggestions received by the Minister from the county committees would have been given careful consideration.
If the Minister did not think that the suggestions were feasible, he should have written back to these committees expressing his point of view in regard to the scheme. Instead of that, no reply was received by any committee to the suggestions which they put up to the Minister. Then the announcement was made that four counties had been selected for demonstration of the scheme and that every county that had put forward constructive suggestions had been put on the long finger. That is the very negation of democracy. If county committees have any function at all, it is to cater for the interests of their county and to give advice to the Department of Agriculture and the Minister in regard to what they consider to be the needs of the agricultural industry and as to any scheme which may be put forward. If we are to have a position in which any committee that goes down on its knees to the Minister and glorifies any suggestion that he puts up is to be given special privileges and favours and any committee which offers a constructive suggestion to the Minister is to be penalised, then democracy in this country is dead.
This scheme will cost money. Unlike farmers and farmers' wives who are feeding pigs, these instructors will not work for nothing. They will require to be paid a salary. I do not know whether it will be a high salary, but I am sure it will be a decent salary. I think these men will have high qualifications and I believe that they will be excellent officers. They will have to be paid out of money voted by this House. Why should the taxpayers of Carlow, Wicklow and any of the other 22 Counties that were turned down in connection with this scheme be denied the services of these officers when they are contributing out of taxation for the payment of these officers?
Surely, it is the first principle of just government that the benefits of government should be distributed evenly over all sections of the community and over all areas? I admit that under certain circumstances, such as arose in regard to the land reclamation project, you may be justified in confining the operation of the scheme to a small area because you have not the organisation or the men to carry it out, but in no circumstances can you be justified in denying the benefit of a public scheme to a county simply because its representatives have not given that scheme their unqualified benediction and admiration, but merely offered some suggestions as to how the scheme could be improved.
I think if the Minister will look up the facts he will find that there was acceptance of the scheme. I do not exactly know what the position is in regard to Wicklow, as I am not a member of that committee, but so far as Carlow is concerned the committee accepted the scheme and did make suggestions as to how it could be improved. One of the suggestions was that local committees should be appointed to synchronise the activities of the agricultural instructors and another suggestion was that the scheme should be co-ordinated with the present scheme of agricultural instruction and that the county committees should control its administration in their respective counties.
It does seem to be wrong, and heading towards centralisation, to take control of a matter relating to agriculture out of the hands of the local agricultural committees. However, the Minister may justify that on the grounds that the entire cost of the scheme will be paid out of a central fund, out of general taxation. He may justify it on that grounds, but on whatever grounds he may justify the present scheme—and he is quite entitled to justify it—he cannot justify penalising any county because the committee in that county may have expressed their own independent views in regard to the matter and may have dared to make suggestions. There are countries in Eastern Europe, I know, where it is regarded as a criminal offence to dare to make a suggestion to a Minister. Is our Minister for Agriculture going to introduce, gently but firmly, the same system in this country? I do not know.
I hope he will reconsider this whole matter in the light of the points I have put before him and extend the scheme. There may be some county committees which have refused to work the scheme, but if there are Carlow is not one of them and Wicklow is not one of them. I believe that in so far as it is necessary for the Minister to have co-operation from county committees there will be very few such committees refusing to co-operate and even in these counties the only extent to which I think co-operation would be required would be the lending of agricultural instructors by the committees concerned to the Department. If any county refuses to lend them, the Minister may act as he thinks fit, but certainly Wicklow and Carlow did not so refuse. They did make certain constructive suggestions which the Minister could accept or reject at his discretion and which they would have been quite willing to discuss with the Minister if he so desired. But the Minister had no right whatever to penalise these counties for making suggestions.
I should like to ask him why he refused to discuss agricultural policy with the county committee of agriculture in County Carlow. He has been invited there for a long time, but so far he has declined to honour us with a visit. We would have been quite happy to discuss this project with him in a most amiable way if he honoured us with a visit, but the Minister has acted in a high-handed and dictatorial manner in this matter; he has acted in a way which, I think, tends to reduce democratic government to a farce. If county committees are to be ignored, trampled upon, penalised for expressing their opinions, we cannot have democratic government in this country and I am sure the Minister would be very slow to have that condition of affairs arising.
Years of experience of public life teach one to suppress one's feelings on suitable occasions. I wrote a letter to all the agricultural committees outlining a scheme for reorganising what are popularly called extension services. The last paragraph of that letter read:
"I cannot too strongly emphasise that this letter is not a demand, nor is it an announcement of a change of policy. It is a bona fide request to your committee for the benefit of their advice on the merits of the proposal and any decision on this matter will be taken in the light of that advice. It is in order to have the help of that advice that I venture to trouble you with this communication.”
After a lengthy discussion it was decided to postpone the matter until the Minister's letter, which was addressed to Mr. John P. Nolan, Chairman, should be copied and a copy put into the hands of every member of the committee so that they might consider it at leisure. The committee met on 14th April and, after a discussion on the various points mentioned in the letter, Mr. Burgess proposed and Mr. Brennan seconded:—
"That this committee agrees, in principle, with the views of the Minister for Agriculture for organising agricultural instruction on a parish basis, but would strongly advise against interference with existing county administrative units —each county should be dealt with as a unit and areas equivalent in size to the proposed three parishes defined within its boundaries. We also advise that administration of the scheme of instruction in agriculture should remain the function of the county committee of agriculture as we do not favour centralisation, which appears to be the intention if the Department is to administer instruction in agriculture for the whole country from Dublin. In view of the suggestion in the letter that after the proposed reorganisation, instructors in agriculture will be described as ‘parish agents', we advise the Minister against the use of the description ‘agents' and see no good reason for departure from use of the term ‘instructors'."
Now, I had not the slightest quarrel with County Carlow for holding its own view. I was most obliged to them for writing me freely and frankly their view. I noted that they took each proposal in the scheme I submitted to them, rejected it and explained the reason why. I wanted their view. I had asked them to speak out frankly and not to think that I would take the slightest offence; and, when I got their judgement, I accepted it in respect of the area represented by the members present at the meeting of the Carlow County Committee of Agriculture. Is that authoritarian? I did not want to trespass on any area where a county committee had charged itself with responsibility for instruction in the sphere of agriculture. I did not want any committee to feel that this was an ultimatum to them to stand aside while I took over, irrespective of whether or not they wanted that. I wanted them to understand that if they would prefer to operate their own agricultural extension services, according to their own plan, they were not to have the slightest hesitation in saying so.
But the proceedings did not end at Mr. Burgess's proposal. Mr. Lennon then took the field. He said he wanted to oppose. He said that the Minister's ideas about intensive instruction in agriculture were obviously of United States of America inspiration and warned that even the United States of America department of agriculture admits that soil fertility there is decreasing at an alarming rate. He then quoted extensively from Rerum Novarum. He went to the source. Quadragesimo Anno was not enough, so he went back to 1891. “On the toil of the working man nations grow rich,” said Mr. Lennon, “notwithstanding which our Minister for Agriculture expects to make our nation grow rich by appointing more ‘black-coated agents,’ and encouraging the toiler to emigrate.” Having read my letter carefully, Mr. Lennon said he was convinced of the impossibility of its application in practice and proposed, as an amendment, a direct negative to the proposition of Mr. Burgess.
Mr. Nolan then took the field and energetically seconded Mr. Lennon. But they could only muster Mr. Hogan to their support. Faithful to the principles of Rerum Novarum, Quadra-gesimo Anno and Holy Mother Church, they struck their blow, like Horatio of old and his two companions defending the Citadel of Truth. What with the terms of the resolution, which did not cause me the slightest annoyance, which I fully appreciated and with which I had no quarrel or complaint, and the bellicose sallies of Mr. Lennon, Mr. Nolan and Mr. Hogan I came to the conclusion—and I think it was a justifiable one—that the triumvirate and, indeed, the majority of the council, would object to my proposal and would prefer to run their own show.
Was not the resolution carried?
The resolution was carried agreeing in principle. But, having agreed in principle, they then proceeded to disagree with every particular. Now, I am not quarrelling with that. I asked them for their view. I was grateful to them for taking the trouble of going through my scheme and rejecting every proposal contained in it. They agreed in principle, but then proposition 1 was written down; proposition 2 was written down; proposition 3 was written down and proposition 4 was written down. I am very grateful to them for taking the trouble of studying the scheme so carefully and condemning it and rejecting it so categorically. My only reluctance to establish the parish scheme in every county in the country is the reluctance to trespass where I am not wanted. I do not want the Carlow County Committee of Agriculture to feel for one moment that if, to-morrow or the next day, on seeing the plan in operation they wanted to change their mind and say: "On seeing it in operation, we will try another" they may fear from the Department or from me, if I am Minister, the slightest irritation or reluctance to offer them the best co-operation we can offer.
But this is a parish plan. It is not a county plan. The very heart and essence of this scheme of extension services is the parish. I can understand if certain administrative counties cannot see why importance should be attached to that aspect of the plan. I have no quarrel if they say they prefer the geographical unit. This is a free country. They have a perfect right to what they like. I prefer the parish; and it is either going to be a parish scheme or it will not be a scheme I sponsor. There is nothing to stop the county committee of agriculture dividing up County Carlow into areas equivalent in size to the proposed three parishes defined within its boundaries. Why cannot the county committee of agriculture do that themselves? Any help we can give them will be given to them.
The reason that prompted the Carlow County Committee to find difficulty in regard to the parish plan was the fact that the boundaries of the parishes run into two or three counties. That did present a difficulty.
The county committee might leave me to carry out my own plan and I would get over that. If the county committee does not like that, there is no reason why they should not divide Carlow up into the parishes they prefer and thus operate more comprehensive extension services than they have at present.
Would the Minister provide the funds?
On any terms on which I can be of assistance within the law I shall help. If the county committee of Carlow changes its mind, I shall welcome their proposal. That goes for any county in the country. In so far as they were kind enough to give consideration to my letter, and a courteous dissentient reply, I am much beholden to them. I appreciate it and I do not in the least resent the difference of opinion they have expressed. I would be glad to see Carlow the fifth county adopting this plan. I would be gratified by that signal mark of their confidence. But they must rest assured that, if they are not prepared to accept the plan or express their confidence, this Minister for Agriculture still regards himself as their servant to command so long as he is fool enough to take the beggarly £1,525 which is the miserly salary doled out to Ministers of this country by the people of the country.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 23rd February, 1950.