Deputy Clinton gave notice that he would raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 11 on yesterday's Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate - Agreement with Irish Corn Traders' Association.
Before seeking permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment, I went through all the normal channels and used all the other means available to a Deputy to extract from the Minister for Agriculture the terms of an agreement which is supposed to exist between the Minister and the members of the Federation of Irish Feeding Stuffs Manufacturers, an agreement that they be given licences for the importation of maize and allowed without restriction to import wheat offals in return for their guarantee to take up the barley crop on 1st January each year. All my efforts failed to get from the Minister information which, I believe, should be available to all of us. I understand that the terms of this agreement are not available even to Fianna Fáil Deputies so that it must be an even greater secret than the penny per gallon increase in the price of milk.
I put down a number of questions and succeeded in getting some information but the final question appeared on yesterday's Order Paper as follows:
To ask the Minister for Agriculture when he expects to be in a position, in accordance with his undertaking, to place on the Table of the House the terms of his agreement with the Irish Corn Traders' Association regarding the importation of maize and wheat offals in return for their guaranteeing the uptake of the barley crop.
The reply was:
The arrangement with the Federation of Irish Feeding Stuffs Manufacturers, of which the Irish Corn Trade Association forms part, was published as an agreed Press Notice on 20th July, 1962. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.
I thought, on the face of it, that was a very reasonable reply and I accepted it as such. I did not ask even one supplementary question. But when I went down to the Library, I found, certainly not the terms of an agreement, but one side of the terms of the agreement and that was what the millers undertook to do. They undertook to take up what was left of the barley crop on 1st January each year at certain prices and costs, but there was no indication as to the manner in which they were to be rewarded for this service, that is, if the service cost them anything.
I am still convinced that there is an agreement in existence because this small group of feeding stuffs manufacturers—we could almost call them the privileged few—have been given a monopoly of import licences for maize and they are allowed to import wheat offals without restriction. Personally, I think this is nationally undesirable because we are not getting feeding stuffs of the right quality and at the right price because we are exporting wheat to a degree that I believe to be unnecessary and importing very large quantities of both maize and wheat offals.
Of course the terms of the agreement do not arise on this motion.
It is related to the question. These questions I have asked are all in relation to the terms of the agreement. This question I put down yesterday is also in connection with the terms of the agreement.
I understood the point was that the Minister had not placed the terms of the agreement in the Library. Discussion of the merits or demerits of the terms of the agreement cannot arise on this motion.
Am I allowed, then, to discuss the reasons for such agreement?
No. That does not arise. It is only the terms of the question that arise.
Then I can say it in few words: Is the Minister now prepared to put on the Table of the House the terms of this agreement, that is, the reward this small group get for the service they are supposed to be giving?
Is the Deputy not allowed to refer to the effects of the agreement?
Surely not. The terms of the agreement do not arise on this motion and only what arises from the question may be discussed.
If I am not allowed to discuss the effect of the fact that these people are not controlled in any way, I must give up.
The Minister was asked a question and in reply he said he was prepared to place the terms of the agreement in the Library. The Minister made a certain reply. The Deputy believes he did not carry out the terms of that reply and wanted to raise that point with the Minister and he is allowed to do that.
My speech is confined then to asking why?
I think so. Discussing the merits or otherwise of the agreement would not be in order.
I am confined then to asking the Minister on this occasion why he has not placed in the Library the terms of this agreement?
Yes.
That is a simple and short speech.
I do not mind what ground this discussion covers. I intended to deal with this matter when my Supplementary Estimate was being discussed in the House and it was entirely due to an oversight on my part that I did not do so. To get an understanding of what is involved here, one must go back to the time when we had, during the war years and afterwards, a body known as Grain Importers Limited.
On a point of order, is the Minister going to be allowed to discuss a subject I was not allowed to discuss?
I do not know what the Minister is going to say.
I am going to give a general picture of what led up to the matter about which the Deputy wants information. If he does not want that information, I do not know what he wants.
I must consider the terms of the question and it is only the terms of the question that may be discussed. We cannot discuss the merits or demerits of the agreement reached.
I want to lead up to how it came into existence.
If that involves discussion of the merits or otherwise of the agreement, it cannot arise on this motion. The only thing that I see arising from this question is: Were the terms of the agreement placed in the Library?
They were, but I think it would be better, while not wishing to suggest the procedure the Chair should adopt, to allow me to cover this ground.
I do not see how I can do it within the terms of the question. To my mind, the only thing that arises is: Did the Minister act in accordance with the terms of his reply to the question on yesterday's Order Paper?
I can answer that question very simply by saying I have actually placed on the Table of the House the agreement in question and if the Deputy reads it carefully, he will see that part of the document says:
Requirements of imported coarse grains other than oats will be determined later in consultation with the federation.
—and it has been. I have concealed nothing at all. I have nothing to conceal. I have striven to get the best arrangement for the marketing of feeding stuffs in the interests of producers that I could. I am quite satisfied that in this agreement I have provided the best machinery that could be designed to achieve that end. If I am not to be allowed to start from 1959, when the activities of Grain Importers, Limited, were brought to an end, then I cannot explain this as I should like to.
Similarly, I cannot explain the ill-effects, if I am not permitted——
Do not try to put the blame on the Chair.
The Deputy is briefed by some interested party outside. He has not the story and I am not permitted to tell it.
The Minister is briefed by some interested party inside——
By a vast knowledge and understanding of the problem.
I have some knowledge and understanding, too.
Limited.
I am sorry; I shall have to adjourn the House.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 23rd April, 1963.