In regard to the subject-matter of this question, the method of the investigation or the extent of the investigation by the Milk Costings Committee is not relevant for discussion. The only matter that is relevant is the question of the changes in organisation, staffing and otherwise, of the costings inquiry and when the next meeting will be held.
Adjournment Debate. - Milk Costings Committee.
I am sorry to have to delay the House later but it is not very often I raise a matter on the Adjournment. The reason I have raised this question is that I found it impossible to get satisfactory replies from the Minister in relation to the working and the administration of this costings committee. To-day I asked the Minister:-
"If he will state when the next meeting of the Milk Costings Committeewill be held and what changes have taken place in the organisation, staffing and otherwise, of the costings inquiry since the last regular meeting of the costings committee."
The Minister has already informed me that the last meeting of the costings committee was on the 19th November, but on the 20th November, on an adjournment debate dealing with a similar matter the Minister said:-
"The committee met again yesterday and were unable to agree".
Again on the 20th November, at column 2082, Volume 134, No. 14 of the Official Debates, the Minister said:-
"...I have taken the further liberty of asking the farmers who have already consented to participate in the work to continue to do so. I am circulating every one of them and if a majority declare that they wish to have the costings carried out, my Department will do it..."
That was the day after the last meeting of the costings committee. The Minister told me to-day that certain changes have taken place as far as the administration of this costings committee is concerned. The technical adviser, who is an independent person, has ceased to act since the 19th November and no meeting of the committee has been held since that date. Again, on the 20th November the Minister as reported in column 2079 stated that he had received a letter from the chairman of the costings committee in which it was stated that the committee found themselves unable to continue their work because of disagreement about the question of including provision for interest on capital and reward for managerial services in costings. That was the Minister's statement on 20th November.
In reply to my question to-day the Minister stated that certain changes have taken place, that the technical director has ceased to take charge of this investigation. On 20th November last the Minister said that he had circularised the farmers stating that if the farmers wished the Department would continue the investigation. Now from 20th November until to-day therehas been no meeting of that committee. The technical adviser or the technical director of the committee has resigned. The members of the committee have not been called together and I wonder whether we are to take it from the Minister's statement that the Department will carry on the work themselves, irrespective of the committee and irrespective of the technical director? Which view is correct? The Minister told me on 26th February, that the committee was in existence and was carrying on while on the 20th November the Minister quoted a letter from the chairman of the committee to say that the committee had been dissolved.
The Deputy is discussing far more than is contained in his question to-day. I ask him to confine himself to that.
My question to-day was to ask the Minister for Agriculture if he will state when the next meeting of the milk costings committee will be held.
That does not allow the Deputy to travel over the whole range of meetings.
I asked when the next meeting would be held. The second part of the question is directed to ascertaining what changes have taken place in the organisation, staffing and otherwise of the costings inquiry, since that last regular meeting of the costings committee. I am endeavouring to relate my remarks to the question of the changes that have taken place in the organisation, staffing and otherwise. The Minister speaking here on the 26th February said: "As far as I am aware, all the necessary principles have been agreed to". I asked the Minister whether the costings committee had agreed to include the question of interest on capital among the other charges and the Minister said: "I understand they have agreed on all the principles", when in fact from the letter the Minister quoted on 20th November last, it appeared that the costings committee had dropped out because they could not agree on principles.No meeting of the costings committee has been held since it dropped out because the members could not agree on costings principles.
I want to know what is the exact position. Is the Department carrying on this inquiry on their own? Have they told the farmers who agreed to keep records for them and who were told that the inquiry was being carried out under the control of an impartial costings committee with an impartial technical director in charge, that the committee broke down on the 19th November last because they could not agree on costings principles? Yet the Minister could tell me on 26th February that they had agreed to all the necessary principles when in fact they had not met from 19th November.
The Deputy is travelling very far. I have already cautioned him in that regard.
I am endeavouring to extract the information which I asked for in the question. I do not want to delay the House any longer. The information I sought in the question was what changes have taken place in the organisation, staffing and otherwise of the costings inquiry since the last regular meeting. The last regular meeting according to the reply given to me by the Minister on 26th February was 19th November. I thought I would be entitled to quote what the Minister said on 20th November.
The Deputy has quoted it.
On 20th November the Minister quoted the chairman as having stated that the costings committee had broken down because they could not agree on the question of costings principles. Yet on the 26th February the Minister informed me that they had agreed on necessary principles. I do not know what the position is at the moment and I want the Minister to give me some more information than he gave in reply to my question to-day. I want him to tell me and the House what is the present position. Is this costings committee in existence or is it not? If the technical adviser has had to withdrawfrom the inquiry, who is in charge of the inquiry? Is it an officer of the Department? If it is an officer of the Department who is in charge of the inquiry, am I to take it, as stated by the Minister on 26th February, that the inquiry is being carried on by the Department and that is being done as a result of a circular which the Minister stated he sent to the farmers concerned? The Minister told us on the 20th November:—
"I have taken the further liberty of asking the farmers who have already consented to participate in the work to continue to do so. I am circularising every one of them and if a majority declare that they wish to have the costings carried out, my Department will do it."
Is that the inquiry that is going on at the moment? If it is, have the people been told that the costings committee met since they broke down and disagreed on 19th November, or is this just a purely private inquiry that is being carried on by the Department? Would the Minister also tell us whether the issue on which the inquiry broke down on 19th November was the question of including interest on capital and reward for managerial services in the costings, and whether any decision has been arrived at on that score? I should also like to know whether the Minister is now satisfied that he was directly informed when he told me on 26th February that the costings committee had agreed upon all the necessary principles.
Deputy Lehane seems to have forgotten that this is an independent body set up by me, a costings committee, to investigate the cost of producing milk. That committee met under the chairmanship of Professor Smiddy and continued their deliberations at several meetings during the months of September, October and November of last year. Some time prior to 20th November, they had a disagreement regarding managerial costs and interest on capital, and I was informed that they were unable to come to an agreement. I came to the House, here, and, whenthe question was raised on the Adjournment, I stated the position. I was asked by the House to make an effort to bring them together again. This I did on 26th November, and, after a lengthy discussion with them, the following decision was come to: All the members of the committee indicated that they would be agreeable to proceeding on the basis of a formula by which the costing principles to be followed in the report are to be decided by the committee as a whole, or, failing that, by a majority of the members of the committee, each member being, of course, free to make such comments on the report as he thinks fit. That was the final agreement made in my presence.
The Minister said that the last regular meeting of the committee was held on 19th November.
Mr. Walsh
That was 26th November. I could not say when their last regular meeting was held, because, as I have stated, I have no function whatever in the matter. This was a meeting the committee had with me in my office, and, as a result of the discussion we had, this was agreed to. I understood that that finished the question of principles, that all the other matters regarding the principles in connection with costings had been agreed to and it has not been necessary since to hold a meeting of the committee.
Has there been any result from it?
Mr. Walsh
Yes, the investigation continued as a result of it, with the approval of the representatives of the producers and all the people interested.
On a point of order. The Minister told me——
That is not a point of order.
——on 26th February that the last meeting of the committee was held on 19th November.
Mr. Walsh
I am telling the Deputy what happened in my office. I cannot say when they had a meeting. I remind the House that I do not get theminutes of their meetings and I have no connection whatever with them. They have their own arrangements, have their own secretary and so forth, so that I have nothing whatever to do with that costings committee. With regard to the other matter which has been raised, the circular to which the Deputy referred, I mentioned that circular in the House on that occasion. In view of the breakdown that has taken place, I issued a circular to the farmers then carrying out the investigation, setting out that, if the committee broke down, I was prepared to carry on with it, but there was no necessity for that because the committee had agreed on the formula I quoted and there was no necessity for any interference on my part.
I have no responsibility for the staffing of the committee. We did recruit graduates for the committee early on and there are a number of graduates, field men, to the number of about 26, under the control of the technical director. The technical director, as the House knows, was Professor Murphy. Some time ago, Professor Murphy notified me that he was unable to continue, owing to ill-health. I have conveyed that infornation to the chairman and it is for the chairman and the committee to decide what technical director they may put in his place. At the moment, his assistant, who is an official of the Department, is carrying on until such time as the director is appointed. The investigation is being carried on by the assistant director and the committee is still functioning, as far as I know. There will not be any necessity for the committee to meet again for possibly another month or two. I see no reason for it myself—they have decided on all the principles, so far as I know, and I cannot see any necessity for a meeting. They may come together later on around that time—for instance, they have to make an agreement regarding the value of calves and so forth—but until such time as that, it will not be necessary for them to meet. Later on, when the report is being prepared, they may have very frequent meetings, but at the moment there is no necessity for it. There isno more I have to add, beyond pointing out these matters to the Deputy.
What about the issues on which they broke?
Mr. Walsh
They have not broken on any issue at all. They disagreed, and, as a result of representations made to me by Deputies on all sides of the House, I called them together and told them that they should compose their differences, and they did so. After a lengthy discussion lasting two or three hours, this formula was agreed on and there was nothing more to be said or added. The investigation proceeded in the ordinary way after that. I told the Deputy in February last that the principles had been agreed on and that there was no further answer I could give. So far as I know, all the principles have been agreed on.
Was every member of the committee present at the meeting?
Mr. Walsh
Yes; every member was present on that occasion.
Except the secretary. There was no meeting of the committee since 19th February?
Mr. Walsh
Except that they held a meeting after parting with me The formula, however, was agreed on in my presence.
I thought the Minister said that they did not meet.
Mr. Walsh
I do not know whether they met since or not. As I have said, I am not supplied with the minutes, nor am I told when meetings are being called. I am not given any information and I do not want any information because I have nothing whatever to do with it. The committee is completely independent of me and of the Department. I want it that way and I have said so from the beginning. I want to have no interference from my side with the committee.
Did the Minister not say in February that there was no meeting? Now he says he does not know whether there was or not.
Mr. Walsh
I have said that my information was that there was no meeting in February, so far as I know, and that all the principles were agreedto. That is the answer to the question I was asked in February, and that is still the answer—all the principles have been agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 12.10 a.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 15th April, 1953.