Deputy Sweetman gave notice that he would raise the subject matter of Question No. 7 on the Order Paper of 10th inst. on the Motion for the Adjournment.
Adjournment Debate. - Chairman of Agricultural Credit Corporation.
Last Thursday, I put to the Minister for Finance a question relating to an appointment he has just made to the Board of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, Limited. I want to amplify certain statements I made at that time and to expose in greater detail the action of the Minister in this matter.
Shortly after I was appointed Minister for Finance, in 1954, the then Chairman of the Agricultural Credit Corporation came to me. He told me that he wished to retire on 31st July, when his term would be up. He told me that he had informed my predecessor that he so wished to retire because of personal reasons. I was well aware that that chairman was a strong adherent, publicly and privately, of Fianna Fáil but I believe so much in the principle of continuity, particularly in the chairmanship of a State sponsored body, unless the chairman has in any way misused the trust imposed on him, that I pressed him, in spite of my knowledge of his political affiliations, to continue. I told him that notwithstanding what I knew in that regard I was prepared and proposed to re-appoint him if he would allow his name to go forward. He told me, however, that he was quite definite on the matter and that he would be glad if I would arrange to choose his successor.
I decided that, when I was going to choose a successor as chairman of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, Limited, I would endeavour to find a farmer who had a wide knowledge of farming, and that, it would also be desirable to appoint someone who had a knowledge of business. Furthermore, I was particularly anxious to get some one who had a connection with farming organisations. Not merely in this respect but in other respects, I felt it desirable as far as possible to tie in the work of farming organisations with State sponsored bodies dealing with agricultural matters.
Accordingly, I found that the most suitable person available to me was Mr. Bland. I appointed him because in my view he was then a substantial farmer who had a wide experience of modern farming, who was experienced in various types of farming and could be described as a progressive farmer. I was satisfied at the time that, in addition to his experience as a substantial farmer in Laois, he had other qualifications that were entirely desirable for the position. He had some business experience and he had the tie-in with farmers' organisations which I was particularly anxous to see, in that he was the first President of Macra na Feirme in 1947 and also the third President of Macra na Feirme from 1949 to 1951. He also had experience in agricultural matters because he had been a member of Laois County Committee of Agriculture for some eight years; he had been a member of the management committee of a co-operative agricultural society; he was a Council member of the Irish Grassland Association and of a cow testing association. I knew that he had also been a member both of the Carlow and of the Thurles Boards of the Beet Growers' Association and a member of the Central Council of that Association. Not merely had he been on these bodies, but he had taken a part voluntarily in public life in other respects. He had been Chairman of the National Ploughing Championships Committee and during the emergency he had served in the Local Defence Force. Since he was appointed he acted in a voluntary capacity as a member of the Capital Investment Committee and another similar body, without pay or reward, for the purpose of assisting the country to the best of his ability.
I make no apology whatever for the fact that I appointed him to be the chairman because I considered it desirable that there should be a farmer at the helm of that organisation and highly desirable that the person who was in control of agricultural credit should be someone who knew and understood the efforts that Macra na Feirme and other similar bodies were making to increase agricultural production. I do not think his services as chairman of the Agricultural Credit Corporation can be challenged in any way, and I am glad to know that the Minister himself, when thanking him for his service, acknowledged that that was the position.
This time last year Mr. Bland was informed that he was not to be re-appointed on the 31st July when the original term of his office was up. As I say, it has been my belief that it was desirable at all times to have continuity in the administration of important State undertakings such as is carried out by State boards and State companies. That principle was thrown overboard by the Minister when this time a year ago he decided not to renew his appointment even though in similar circumstances I was prepared— and so informed him when he came to me in 1954—to re-appoint Mr. Barton.
It would be simple enough to deal with this matter if that were the entire story. The provisions of some of these State bodies is that where a director has been nominated, apart from being elected by the company at its annual general meeting by the votes of the Minister for Finance, he remains on until his successor is appointed. Mr. Bland when he was informed that he would not be re-appointed on the 31st July was also told that he would remain on under that power until the appointment of his successor. This year, about a month ago, the Minister informed him that he was making a new appointment and that his services would terminate on the 1st July this year.
The Minister stated the other day that the reason for that delay was that he had not made the appointment until he got the person he considered most suitable. I want to tell the Minister that it was well known in certain parts of the country long before last month that the Minister was going to appoint the present man, Mr. Considine, and Mr. Considine himself was boasting of that fact. I said the other day, and I want to repeat it, that I can conceive no reason whatever why Mr. Bland was kept on in that way except for the purpose of keeping the seat warm for the present appointee until he had qualified for the maximum pension to which he was entitled by reason of his service in his former position.
The person who has been appointed now, as the Minister said in his reply, is a retired bank manager. I do not consider a retired bank manager, no matter how brilliant he might be personally, as suitable a person to be in control of agricultural credit as a person who is a farmer, who has business experience and who has had good contact with farmers' organisations. Even if that alone were the position, the Minister would have done himself, the Government, the people, and particularly the farmers, a grave disservice by changing from a farmer to a person of that sort.
Unfortunately, however, the matter does not end there. This is a company in which there is a managing director. Notwithstanding the fact that there is a managing director, the Minister has, for the new appointee, seen fit to make a very big change in the terms of appointment. Last year, in the Budget, and frequently throughout the course of the year, the Minister pleaded for restraint in respect of income increases.
The Minister and other Ministers told the country as a whole and at large that it was highly desirable that there should be restraint upon applications for increases in incomes, in view of the country's economic position. Notwithstanding that fact, and notwithstanding the fact that there is a managing director who does all the ordinary, day to day work in that corporation, the Minister chose to raise the salary for the new appointee from £800 per annum to £1,2000 per annum—an increase of 50 per cent. That increase is indefensible and it is particularly indefensible in the circumstances in which the appointment was made.
I told the Minister on the last occasion that I did not propose to make any comment on the personality of the new appointee and I did not so intend until a barrage of interruptions started from the other side. I do not propose to make any comments on his personal character or qualifications of any sort to-night. However, I propose to comment severely on the Minister's conduct in relation to this matter. It is not Mr. Considine who should be blamed; it is the Minister for Finance, who deliberately went out of his way to break the principle of continuity in relation to State-sponsored bodies, who deliberately went out of his way to take from the chairmanship of that body a person who was not a political appointee, who had merely gone in to take up the position when it had been, so to speak, resigned and left vacant by the previous holder, and who had done in that position a really first-class job. If people are to feel, when they go in with reasonable experience, do a job to the best of their ability and are not put into that job for any political purpose, that they will not be allowed to continue in that position, then you will not get anything except political "stooges" and mediocrities to serve on State-sponsored bodies for the future. I find it impossible to believe that the Minister had any reason in his mind for this appointment, except what I said before and I must say again—that the reason for this appointment and the reason for the increase in salary is that this is one of the worst pieces of political jobbery this House and the country have seen for a very long time. I told the Minister in the course of supplementary questions on the last occasion, and I repeat to him to-night, that there can be no reason for this appointment, no reason at all except that.
Leaving the personalities of both people entirely out of it, to change from a farmer and businessman—and a person associated with one of the organisations on whom the future of progressive farming depends—to a person who, no matter how eminent he may be, would not have the necessary practical experience, is a disgraceful procedure. It appears to me shameful and disgraceful in the circumstances in which it has been perpetrated by the Minister, and in which the Minister has appointed a person, deliberately increased his salary by 50 per cent., appointed someone well known as a supporter of his own Party and a person known also to be a relative of a former colleague of the Minister in this House
I do not think that type of appointment will mean that we will get for public boards, State companies or for any public work, the type of person who will make a success of those boards. I do not know whether the Minister himself thought of this first or not. I am positive of one thing, that is, that behind this appointment by the Minister, there is the hand of the Taoiseach. Anybody who knows the facts as I know them must know that that is so. May I finally say this? Wherever public appointments are made on a jobbery basis, as this has been made, they will be exposed by me in this House and no editorials in the Irish Press and no shouting down, as was attempted by the Government Benches last Thursday, will prevent me doing that duty.
I am rather surprised at the Deputy saying he is a believer in continuity in these positions. He did not prove that when he was Minister himself. However, it is a good thing to pay tribute to that principle. We should follow that principle as far as possible, but there are other things more important.
I want to say that I am not satisfied with the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I do not think they have been doing very much in the way of giving agricultural credit when we see that in the last five or six years the average amount sanctioned or given out by the corporation was about £250,000 per year. That is a very small portion indeed of the amount of credit needed by the farmers. I am not laying the blame on the board; I do not think it is the fault of the board. It is more the fault of the procedure that has been followed and is being followed in that institution.
Because of the dissatisfaction on my part and on the part of other Ministers, the Minister for Agriculture and I have had consultations on what should be done. At one time, I, as Minister for Finance, did suggest to the Minister for Agriculture that we might wind up the corporation or, failing that, that we should put it in a position in which it could do something substantial in the matter of agricultural credit here. We have decided to follow that course. We have decided that they should try to meet, as far as they can, the needs of farmers requiring credit. In this reorganisation, if I might refer to it as such, it will be essential to have a man who has had administrative experience in agricultural credit. The Deputy may have his views that in a job like this a farmer would be better than a man with banking experience. I must say I do not agree with him in that. In my view, a man with experience in agricultural credit will be more likely to be able to take charge as chairman—of course, there is a managing director— of this reorganisation aiming at giving credit more widely and, I hope, meeting the needs of the farmers.
In due course, I hope the Minister for Agriculture and I may be able to meet the board. We have put our ideas down but we have not completed the arrangements necessary to put these ideas into operation. That will entail discussions with other bodies, but as soon as these discussions are complete we intend to meet the board and to go into this new policy, and into future policy also, with them. If Deputies will wait and if they can take an objective view of this—that may, indeed, be difficult to expect—I think they will agree that it will be necessary to have a man with administrative experience as chairman of the Agricultural Credit Corporation.
I think the same considerations might apply to the salary. The man who will be chairman of this board, when this reorganisation goes through, as I hope it will,—that depends on the concurrence of other bodies—will have a job that will be practically full-time. Certainly he will have to report in every day—I do not say he will have to work an eight-hour day—for at least a number of hours, just as a governor of a bank or a man of that kind has to attend in the ordinary bank to deal with applications that may come in.
The Deputy certainly has more knowledge about this man than I have. I can truthfully say that. I knew this man some 35 or 40 years ago. I was in jail with him when we were fighting for our country. Naturally, I have a high opinion of him for that reason. I have had very little contact with him since. I presume he is a supporter of Fianna Fáil because most of the people who fought for the country are—
Was that in the Civil War?
Yes, he fought with me in the Civil War, too. Why would he not?
He sullied his own nest.
Was he blowing up banks, or something?
A Deputy
You were not in it, anyway.
It is extraordinary how men who fought for the country are hated over on that side of the House.
It is extraordinary to hear the people who talk about fighting for the country.
There were more people in this country who fought for the country than Deputy Mulcahy.
But did they continue to fight for it?
There were people born since then and entitled to consideration also.
It is funny to hear the people who talk about fighting for the country.
Civil War quislings.
They did not renege at a certain time.
But they reneged at the wrong time.
I presume this man is a supporter of Fianna Fáil. I do not think he is a very prominent supporter.
Ask the Taoiseach.
He is a good man for the job. I believe he is the best man for the job. It may be true, but I did not know, that he is related to a colleague of mine. The Fine Gael Deputies know all these things. They have some sort of a "Who's Who" and they can just look up these things. They look them up because they are interested in what they call jobbery——
I am certainly interested in exposing it.
I was responsible for recommending this man and responsible for getting his appointment through. The Taoiseach did not object. Neither did the Taoiseach ever ask me to appoint him. I am taking sole responsibility and I am quite confident that I shall not be ashamed to admit that I did take full responsibility for him. I ask Deputies opposite, in spite of their opinions at the moment, in spite of their anxiety to make mountains out of molehills, to keep an open mind until we have an opportunity of promulgating our new policy on agricultural credit and see if agricultural credit will succeed better in the future than in the past. After all, if it does, if we can serve the farmers better than we did in the past, it will be a very small matter whether we appointed A instead of B as chairman, so long as the new policy is a success.
What was wrong with B?
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, July 16th, 1958.