asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware that farmers in several districts in Cork South-West are precluded from growing beet; and whether in view of the injustice caused to these farmers who are anxious and willing to grow beet he will ensure that in the future they will be given an opportunity of doing so.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Beet Production in South-West Cork.
50.
I understand from Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann that during the past three seasons, the maximum acreage which the Mallow factory could handle has been fully taken up by regular growers and that it would not be possible to give contracts to new growers in south-west Cork except at the expense of those who have grown the crop regularly over a period of years. The allocation of contracts for the growing of sugar beet is, of course, a matter for the company.
Does the Minister not consider it unfair and unjust that farmers in several areas in West Cork are precluded by the Sugar Company from growing beet, even though a factory is located in the county? Does he consider it fair on the part of an industry established by Government initiative to adopt such measures against a certain section of the community?
I do not know the day-to-day business of the Sugar Company but I should imagine they would be glad to afford an opportunity to every farmer, not only in West Cork but everywhere else, to grow beet for their concern, if they could handle it and market it. The fact they have confined themselves to those who have been supplying beet for a number of years is a proof that they cannot do better than they are doing. I understand that three or four years ago it was possible for farmers in south-west Cork to contract with the Sugar Company, if they so desired, and they did not do so. Even though I have no responsibility for the decisions of the Sugar Company, I do not think it unreasonable that in these circumstances the company should decide to continue to give the contracts to those who have been, as it were, their constant customers.
Is the Minister aware that the main reason the company do not give the contracts is to save subsidising transport? In other words, the Company are anxious to get the beet grown as near as possible to the factories, thereby saving themselves transport costs or the subsidisation of transport. That is not fair in the case of a nationalised industry and it is the Minister's duty to see that those responsible carry out the service they are supposed to give on a national basis. Is it because——
The Deputy is making a protracted statement.
I am asking a question. Is it because a group of farmers live 60 miles from the Mallow factory that they should be treated differently from a group living ten, 20 or 30 miles from the factory?
Is the Minister aware——
Are we to take it——
Deputy Corry.
Are we to take it——
I have called Deputy Corry.
Is the Minister aware that the only reason we have not an expansion of the growing of beet by the Sugar Company is solely the national levy agreed upon by Deputy Norton and Deputy Dillon?
That is not true.
A typical "Corry" twist.
Order.
It is in the Agreement.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Corry would not give the British rats. He said so in this House.
What does the Deputy know about it? He was not here.
I read the record.
(Interruptions.)
Will Deputies please allow the business to continue and not indulge in disorderly interruptions?
Are we to take it that the Minister approves of a policy being operated by the Sugar Company which will inevitably create a vested interest in the distribution of these contracts?
The Deputy should have no difficulty in interpreting my comment, as an individual, in relation to what the company are doing. The company want, as Deputy Murphy has said, a limited amount of beet. They have been contracting with growers for a number of years. If the position changed in such manner that they could handle an unlimited amount of beet, they would naturally throw the contract system open to all and sundry. If, however, they want only a limited amount, I suppose one would expect——
The Minister is still not answering my question. He is wandering all round the bush.
——that they would behave as we would if we were members of a group : we would continue to confine the contracts to those who had been contracting with us for years. We would think of the consumer and try to have beet produced at the cheapest possible rate so that sugar costs would be kept down and the interests of the consumer would be protected.
(Interruptions.)
Order. Question No. 51.
Arising out of Question No. 50——
Question No. 51.
Arising further out of Question No. 50——
I have called Question No. 51.
On Question No. 50——
The Deputy will resume his seat.
On a point of order, are we not finishing Questions at 4 o'clock?
I am endeavouring to get Questions finished. If Deputies insist on having a debate on any and every Question——
I understand there was no agreement to finish and people were left under the impression that Questions would finish at 4 o'clock, as is customary on the first day. Appointments have been made for immediately after normal Question Time but, if you are going to run all the Questions on the one day, and that without any consultation between Parties, these appointments will have to go by the board.
I understood all the Questions were to be taken.
There was no agreement by this Party.
I do not know about that.
On what grounds, Sir, do you preclude me from asking a supplementary question on Question No. 50?
I have called Question No. 51.
Sir, I want to object to the decision taken, without consultation with the Labour Party, to continue these Questions. I protest against this. There is no authority for doing this without the permission of the Parties concerned.
I understand that all the Questions put down for this week were to appear on the Order Paper to-day. It was the desire of Deputies to have them answered to-day. However, if there is any objection to that, we can leave them over.
There was no such agreement and the Taoiseach will remember making a precisely similar objection when he was in Opposition. There was no agreement to have all the Questions answered to-day. We were not consulted about the matter.
It was made perfectly clear that any Questions for to-morrow would be put on the Order Paper for to-day. We were seeking to end business as early as possible to-morrow and it was agreed all Questions would be finished to-day.
I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary should make that statement because that point was not made to me. During the discussion there was no reference to Questions, good, bad, or indifferent.
It was made to the Leader of the Labour Party.
I am the Party Whip.
May I say a word? I think this has a longer history than the Parliamentary Secretary says. The aim was, I assume, to try to finish business pretty early to-morrow and for that reason the Parliamentary Secretary and, I suppose, the Taoiseach, decided the endeavour would be to finish all the Questions to-day.
That would be inevitable.
If the situation has now arisen whereby about 200 Questions will go on to 5.30 p.m. or 6 o'clock, would the Taoiseach not consider, with the agreement of the House, having Questions taken to-morrow before 3 o'clock?
May I say I regard it as the right of Deputies to have the facility of oral replies to Questions tabled by them. If the Dáil, in fact, completed its business to-day, these Questions would have been answered in writing. If there is a desire to have them postponed until tomorrow, I have no objection.
Let us take them at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.
No. I regarded it as a facility that questions tabled for to-morrow should be brought forward today, but if Deputies do not want the facility, it will be all right.
There is plenty of time to deal with them tomorrow.
Or next week.
Am I to take it that questions will finish now?
Could we not take them tomorrow at 12 o'clock or I p.m.?
I should not like to fix an hour as that would affect a number of engagements which Ministers and Deputies may have made.
In fairness to the Parliamentary Secretary, the Whips agreed and the Parties agreed to adjourn at 2 o'clock in which case the questions would not have been asked at all.
I thought it was made perfectly clear that we were allowing about two and a half hours to finish questions today. I think that was discussed with all the Party Leaders.
The Party Whips make these arrangements. It was not discussed with the Party Whips.
I admit that it was not discussed with Deputy Tully but with the leader of the Labour Party.
Why not continue questions now?
I think the better course is to get rid of the questions now.
Am I to take it that we should continue with the questions now?
I object.
It is a matter for the House.
It is a matter for the House but there was no prior consultation with the Whips of this Party. If there had been, we would have got agreement, but in the absence of agreement, everybody has made alternative arrangements.
The normal procedure is for questions to finish at 4 o'clock but if they go beyond 4 o'clock, there can be no objection to their being finished. This matter should have been raised at 4 o'clock.
This has to be done by agreement.
People get browned off. We are about fed up with questions.
I take it that questions are proceeding.
There is a strong objection by the Whip and the Leaders of this Party. They were not consulted. It is not the function of the Chair to insist in these circumstances that we should proceed.
That is a most unfair statement. I consulted with the Leader of the Labour Party in regard to every suggested item of business for this sitting. It is not a correct statement to make. It is not easy to get in touch with the Whip of the Labour Party.
That is not correct. I spoke——
Was it announced at 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock that we would proceed with all the questions? The agreement the Parliamentary Secretary talks about was an agreement to the effect that all questions would be brought forward to today. I do not say that my personal opinion would not have been that we should dispose of all of them today but as individual members with different questions down have made individual arrangements, I assumed that at 4 o'clock they would state their objections. I agreed with the Parliamentary Secretary that we should bring forward all these questions to Wednesday because, if we adjourned tonight or tomorrow, the questions ordered for Thursday would not have been answered at all. It was for that reason that I agreed with the Parliamentary Secretary.
I understood that all questions would be asked——
I think it would be better if questions were ordered for 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock tomorrow in consultation with all the Parties.
I am quite agreeable to that.
Fair enough.
In view of the fact that Friday is a holiday and in view of the weather conditions, I think questions should be continued. It may be all right for Deputies living contiguous to this House to say that questions should be postponed until tomorrow afternoon. There are a number of Deputies who reside long distances from this House. Having regard to the fact that the House has continued to take questions from 4 o'clock to 4.25 p.m., I think we should continue.
The Chair is bewildered.
Would the Labour Party have a meeting about it?
The Minister should have a meeting about the strike in Cork.
The usual procedure is that the Whips meet.
I will comply with whatever Deputy Corish requests.
I suggest that we continue for half an hour and take the balance of questions tomorrow at 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock.
We will continue until 5 p.m.