Deputy Davin on a matter of personal explanation.
Deputy's Personal Explanation.
At Question Time yesterday, in answer to what I am sure you, Sir, would regard as a relevant supplementary question addressed to the Leader of the House, the Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce surprised me when he said "I want to take up Deputy Davin". Deputy Davin was not in the business at the time at all, and he then went on to say that Deputy Davin had informed him that the Lower Prices Council wished him, the Minister, to receive a deputation with regard to egg prices and that the secretary of the council had denied having made any representations to Deputy Davin. I want, Sir, with your permission, very briefly to put the facts on record and to refute what I regard as an unfounded, unfair and untrue statement.
A factual statement is all that can be made.
On the 22nd August, at the request of the secretary of the Lower Prices Council, Mrs. Maureen O'Carroll, who is a cultured highlyeducated lady, a graduate of the university—
That is not denied.
——I met her at Leinster House. She put before me the big file of correspondence which had been going on between the Lower Prices Council and the Minister for Agriculture in which it was finally stated that the Minister for Agriculture had no jurisdiction to deal with the request made by the council that there should be an investigation by the Prices Advisory Body into what was regarded as the excessive price of eggs. I indicated to Mrs. O'Carroll at the end of the interview that, if she would confirm what she had said to me in the dining room of Leinster House, I would make representations to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. A few days afterwards I left for the conference at Berne and was absent for almost three weeks. When I came back I received the following letter, which was subsequently sent to the Tánaiste, from Mrs. O'Carroll:
"Dear Deputy Davin,
Further to our conversation on August 22nd, I am enclosing copies of the relevant correspondence between the Minister for Agriculture and the Lower Prices Council re the unjustifiably high prices prevailing for eggs in late 1951 and early 1952.
As I pointed out at our interview, eggs have risen steeply in price since the middle of August. For the week ending September 12th the price to the producer was 3/3 per dozen, the dealer received 3/4½ and the consumer paid 5/3 to 5/6 per dozen. In view of the foregoing you will, I am sure, agree with me that expeditious action is necessary in order to prevent a recurrence of the vicious exploitation of consumer and producer when the seasonal scarcity occurs.
You have seen the documentary proof regarding the prevailing prices at the time covered by the enclosed correspondence. I also enclose some newspaper cuttings which show the amount of interest aroused at that time. Yet, there was nothing done by either the Departments of Industry and Commerce or Agriculture.
I trust you will put the matter before the Parliamentary Party and that immediate action will be taken either to have a deputation from the Lower Prices Council received by the Minister or to have a public investigation.
Allow me to thank you on my own behalf and on behalf of the council for your interest and for the courtesy afforded me at our interview.
Yours sincerely,
Maureen O'Carroll."
A few days after I returned from the Berne Conference, I met the Minister for Industry and Commerce at his own request on the morning of 19th September, in connection with another matter. At the end of our discussion, which was a short one, I mentioned this case to the Minister and I gave him briefly an outline of the position as I saw it and suggested to him that, as Acting-Taoiseach, if this was not, in his opinion, a matter for further inquiry of action by the Minister for Agriculture he, as Acting-Taoiseach, should take the necessary steps to deal with this reasonable request. At the end of that interview I walked across the road to the Labour Party offices and I dictated and sent by hand the following letter to the Minister:—
"Dear Minister,
Confirming conversation of to-day concerning the contents of the attached communication and enclosures from Mrs. M. O'Carroll, secretary of the Lower Prices Council, I should be obliged if you would, as promised, consider—
(1) the question of receiving a deputation from the Lower Prices Council, or
(2) referring the whole matter to the Prices Advisory Body for early investigation and report.
Yours sincerely,
W. Davin."
Mrs. O'Carroll was advised of what had been done in that regard on 30th September. On 3rd October, presumably after investigation, the Minister addressed the following letter to me:—
"Dear Deputy Davin,
With reference to your letter of the 19th September, 1952, with which was enclosed a letter from the secretary of the Lower Prices Council concerning egg prices, I fear no useful purpose would be served by an interview with the deputation from the council, as suggested. You will probably be aware that, in the main, eggs are handled by dealers and wholesalers who must be registered, and it is incumbent on the wholesalers to grade and stamp all eggs handled by them."
It is matter prior to the interview that is in question and not matter after the interview.
When I challenged the accuracy of the Minister's statement that I had no authority to submit that matter to him he said: "Check up with the secretary of the council." I have done so.
I understood the matter was that Deputy Davin was asked by the association to which reference has been made to seek an interview with the Minister in regard to that association. It is upon that I allowed Deputy Davin to make a personal statement.
But after I denied this the Minister proceeded to challenge the accuracy of my statement.
I will not allow any discussion on the price of eggs. I will only allow Deputy Davin to put himself right with the House in showing that he was authorised by this lady to seek an interview with the Minister. That is the only matter upon which I will allow him to make a personal statement.
On a point of order. Does it not arise that what the Minister raised here was matter subsequent to the interview and that the Minister introduced into the situation here a challenge that Deputy Davin was not authorised to act at all?
What the Minister questioned was Deputy Davin's authorisation to make an appointment in respect of the particular association. That is the only matter upon which I will allow Deputy Davin to put himself right with the House.
I bow to your ruling in that, and——
There is no "and". It is straight-cut there. The Deputy may put himself right with the House in respect of his authority by that association to make an appointment with the Minister.
The Minister refused to accept my word on this matter yesterday and suggested that I should check up with the secretary of the Lower Prices Council.
I am allowing the Deputy to put himself right with the House in showing that he was authorised by the association. Beyond that the Deputy cannot go.
I have checked up with the secretary of the Lower Prices Council. She came to Leinster House last night to see me and repudiated in the most emphatic language the unfair, untrue and unfounded statement of the Minister that I had no authority to raise the matter with him. I have given sufficient information to the House to prove that I made representations to the Minister at the written request of the secretary of the Lower Prices Council.
It appears from the letter which Deputy Davin has just read——
And which you got.
——which was addressed to him by the secretary of the Lower Prices Council that I have unintentionally done him an injustice, an injustice which I am now anxious to rectify. In explanation of my remark yesterday, however, I would like to say that——
Why not leave it at that?
——following the letter which I sent to Deputy Davin on October 3rd, stating I understood that the Prices Advisory Body had been approached by the Lower Prices Council on the subject of a public inquiry into the price of eggs and that no doubt the body would consider whether a public inquiry was warranted, I received a memorandum of an interview between the vice-chairman of the Prices Advisory Body and the secretary of the Lower Prices Council and in that memorandum it was stated that the vice-chairman of the Prices Advisory Body understood that the Lower Prices Council——
On a point of order. I understood the Chair to rule that the only matter relevant for discussion at this stage was the veracity, or otherwise, of the allegation made by the Minister in connection with Deputy Davin's authority to raise the matter. The Minister is now going into subsequent matter.
The Minister is entitled to say what induced him to make the statement. The Minister is entitled to put himself right with the House, too.
I will only take two minutes to do it. The vice-chairman of the Prices Advisory Body said that the body understood that the Lower Prices Council had, through the medium of Deputy Davin, requested an interview with the Prices Advisory Body. The secretary of the Lower Prices Council interjected that the council had made no such request to the Minister. Later the secretary of the Lower Prices Council said that she was completely unaware that Deputy Davin had written to the Minister asking for an interview for the Lower Prices Council or for an investigation by the Prices Advisory Body.
It is clear now from the letter Deputy Davin read here that she had so requested Deputy Davin.
Will the Minister take my assurance that that was so? I do not go around talking to Ministers. That letter was sent to the secretary of the Lower Prices Council and at the last meeting it was approved and I was requested to press for an interview. That is why my colleague, Deputy Kyne, put down the question. Does the Minister accept my word now?
I understood Deputy Davin to say that he received the letter that he read out here but I am drawing his attention to the fact that on 4th October, when the secretary of the Lower Prices Council was interviewed by the vice-chairman of the Prices Advisory Body, these statements to which I have referred, were made.
But I sent the Minister the letter which I read.