Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Dec 1963

Vol. 206 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 41—Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration
—(Deputy Donegan.)

The Minister, to conclude.

On a point of Order, so far as I am concerned, nothing ever passed between me and the officials of the Department of Agriculture that I would not be very pleased to have posted on Nelson Pillar. I do not believe that the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture adversely criticised my administration to the present Minister, or to the late Deputy Tom Walsh, but whether he did or not, I want to submit that the administration of Government will become wholly impossible if the permanent head of the Department cannot freely and frankly discuss the business of the Department with the political head of the Department, the Minister, without apprehending that such private conversations will subsequently be used in this House to denigrate the Minister's successor or predecessor. I suggest to the Minister that this practice of purporting to quote private conversations with official advisers is obnoxious and gravely detrimental to decent administration.

I do not think the Deputy really understood what I was trying to convey. It was not intended at all as a criticism of any of my predecessors but to illustrate a practice that was to my mind misleading inasmuch as a certain stock reply was being given to a certain type of question. When I came into the Department to act in a temporary capacity for a colleague, I saw this reply. I had good knowledge of the subject to which it referred and I merely made an inquiry about its full meaning. When I got the explanation, I at once dictated an alternative reply on the telephone to the official concerned which I thought represented the situation from the point of view of the Deputy seeking information on behalf of a constituent and was far more accurate than the one that had been in use.

I certainly would not depart from any standards or make use of conversations that take place between officials or attempt to attribute any such behaviour to any predecessor of mine. This is an entirely legitimate matter. When I left the House after giving the reply which I had designed, the individual concerned said: "I am very glad that that reply has been given. It is far more accurate than the replies we have been giving in the past to the same question".

On a point of order, I think this is very important. The Minister must know that every Parliamentary question to which a draft answer is prepared passes from the Section to the Secretary's office and it is vetted by the Secretary's office and suggested to the Minister as a suitable reply. The Minister comes in and gives that answer on his own authority and answers for it. The clear implication of what the Minister is purporting to say is that on a particular day he left the House and met the Secretary of the Department who said that he rejoiced that the Minister had changed the form of an answer that had habitually been given by his predecessor in office because the previous form of answer was calculated to deceive and now a new form had been worked out which told the truth. I do not believe the Secretary ever said any such thing but if he did, he was entitled to say it in confidence to the Minister and not have it repeated in Dáil Éireann. Otherwise the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture can discuss nothing with the Minister lest he walk in and repeat it in my presence or anybody else's.

I never knew, during my time in public life, a Secretary of my Department to make any comment of any kind on any of my predecessors.

That has been my experience also. That is why I have mentioned this matter.

If he did, I would take a very poor view of his behaviour. I know the procedure very well; I ought to. The question is sent to the Section. The Section sends a rough reply to the Secretary who vets it and gives it to the Minister. I have the right to change it and I have changed thousands in my time because I did not think they were the type of replies that should be given. In this case, a certain reply became standard. It was not that it was deliberately misleading but it did not convey the situation as it was to the person concerned.

I put this point of order to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is it consistent with the order of this House that a Minister should report to the House conversations that have taken place between him and a permanent head of his Department? I suggest that it is the Minister's duty to answer for his Department to this House and that he should not report to the House conversations which have taken place with the officials of his Department.

This happened ten years ago. The individual concerned retired ten years ago.

I feel this is not a point on which the Chair can take action. There are different points of view in this House on these matters.

Is it in order for a Minister, answering for his Department, to say that the Secretary, or Assistant Secretary or Principal Officer made such and such a statement or is it the Minister's responsibility to answer for his Department himself? If we get to the stage where the Minister is not to have responsibility for his own acts, administration becomes quite impossible.

It has never happened, and it never will happen in my case. I have never made any statement refering to the officials of my Department. I merely said that a standard reply was being given and I explained that I thought a different reply would be more accurate than the one which was handed to me in the way Deputy Dillon has described.

Are you to quote the Secretary or not? That is the point and I suggest that you should not quote him.

Do not be so sensitive about it.

I am submitting a point of order that no Minister in this House should purport to quote the Secretary of his Department.

Do not be so self-righteous.

The Parliamentary Secretary is both stupid and ignorant in this matter. I submit that none of us, either Minister or ex-Minister, should purport to quote to the House the words of the Secretary of his Department.

I see nothing wrong in what I have said.

I do not see anything the Chair can rule against in a Minister quoting an official in the House. The Chair would act, for instance, if an official were attacked in the House.

If a Minister proceeds to quote one of his officials, he opens to every Deputy the right to attack that official. If anyone quotes here what an official said, I am entitled to attack that official for what he said and I think that would be shameful.

Is that not what ministerial responsibility means?

The Chair has no responsibility in this matter.

I know very well what my responsibilities are and I will observe the code as well as any other individual in this House or outside it. What I am attempting to explain was why I did not leave in the standard type of reply when I knew that there might be thousands of applications under a particular scheme and the one concerned in the question might not be reached for three, four or five years. When the type of reply which indicated that this applicant would be dealt with in the order of priority came to me, I considered that it was not enough in a case of that kind. I think a Minister is bound not only to say that but also to say that the case may not be reached for a number of years.

It was because I changed the reply so that it indicated clearly the position in this case that the gentleman in question made the remark that he was glad that that form of reply was put in because the other form of reply was not really accurate. The first form was accurate for the reason that the application would be dealt with in the order of priority but it did not say when it would be reached. It was better to convey the information that it might not be reached for a long time. It is nonsense to suggest that in relating that story, I was departing from the decent standards and practices that are well known. If a Minister points to an incident like that, it cannot and should not be taken as criticism of any kind.

It is a criticism of the Minister's own standards.

This has been a nice, quiet discussion so far and I want to keep it that way.

You are not helping it.

You would not be good judge, even if you were presen in the course of the discussion.

Schemes decided on by Government Departments, and the Department of Agriculture in particular, should be as simple as possible. My criticism of the interest-free loans scheme expounded by Deputy Dillon is that it has that defect. That is why, in fact, I told the story that I did tell.

Is the Minister sorry he told it?

I know it is not easy to make all schemes simple. Indeed, that would be impossible because one has to try to provide against all sorts of possibilities. If one looks, however, at the availability of credit and how credit facilities have been expanding, the farmer has been fairly well served in that regard in recent years both through the banks and through the Agricultural Credit Corporation. One of the best schemes introduced was the unsecured loans made available by the Agricultural Credit Corporation, loans of £200 where the farmer applies direct and loans of £400 where the farmer is supported by a co-operative society.

Although that scheme has been in operation only 12 months the Corporation are now expanding it and they will in future make unsecured loans of £400 available direct on application from a farmer or a loan of £500 where the application is supported by a local Co-operative Society. I do not think there are many farmers —I am thinking now of comparatively small farmers—who will not find that sum adequate for their needs. Special types of development might require more capital but I believe the amended scheme will make a tremendous difference in making available credit in all cases and under the simplest conditions. That is what farmers in general like.

Interest-free loans as abumbrated by Deputy Dillon are another matter. Deputy N. Egan pointed out that it is not so long ago—ten or 12 years— that I introduced interest-free loans for farmers after the disastrous losses in sheep during the snow storms of 1947. Deputy Dillon was quoted here by Deputy Egan; he spoke in very uncertain terms about the wisdom of these interest-free moneys. A man is, of course, entitled to change his mind. I merely make the reference. I had forgotten the matter until I heard Deputy Egan give the quotation.

I should like to see the quotation.

It is on the records. There was some discussion on the heifer scheme. I was not present for all of it, but Deputy Egan dealt with the scheme in great detail today. The main criticism of the scheme was that it would be of no use to the small farmer; that he had not the carrying capacity; that most of them who were creamery milk suppliers probably had a herd equal to the amount of land available, and so on. The one thing those who criticise the scheme forgot is that the scheme is designed to increase the cattle population over a stated number of years up to 1970. Deputy Dillon made a forecast, a justifiable forecast. He said he did not believe the objectives set out could be attained. I agree the objectives are fairly ambitious.

An increased output of 43 per cent.

The objectives are fairly ambitious. While I have no doubt the means are there to achieve them, naturally I cannot swear that they will be achieved, but I certainly believe the introduction of this scheme will have a considerable influence on increasing the cattle stocks in the period.

Is the Minister satisfied about the quality of the stock?

The scheme was not designed for the small farmer or the large farmer. It was designed to increase cattle stocks by a certain number by a certain time. No matter what scheme is introduced, whether it be for farm buildings, land reclamation, the installation of water, the fertilisation of land, one will always find a number of people who have already made progress to the extent outlined in the scheme under their own steam. They have a new house. They have good outoffices. They have improved their land. They have the land in good condition. One might just as well say a scheme should not be introduced because every land owner will not benefit from it.

In introducing this scheme I was quite conscious of the fact that it would probably induce farmers who do not now keep cows to do so. I was furthermore conscious of the fact that, if we could not induce people who had no cows to come in, then we could not reach the objectives set out. Every objective will be attained provided we get the response. Deputies know we are spending a great deal of money to encourage farmers to use more fertilisers, to improve their land, increase its carrying capacity, and so on. Surely it is a sensible course to encourage them to increase their livestock numbers in order to take full advantage of the progress that is being made and that will continue to be made in the years ahead.

I have read discussions by different committees of agriculture and statements by different people who seem to misunderstand the scheme entirely. It is not designed for any particular class of farmer. It is designed for everybody. It is designed to improve the economy. The small farmer, even if he has the number of cows already that he is capable of handling, will benefit through the availability of customers for his heifers. One may not benefit to the same extent as another, but benefits of some degree will certainly accrue to all. It is the overall position we are aiming at; it is that position we are seeking to improve so that, instead of exporting 1,000,000 or 1,150,000 cattle we will export 1,500,000. That is the goal to aim at and, if we achieve it, our economy will improve to that extent.

Deputy Corry and other speakers referred to a matter which is scarcely relevant to this debate, but I should like to make a few comments. They were speaking in connection with the development by the Sugar Company of vegetables and fruit processing. The Sugar Company have taken on this task. It is a tremendously interesting effort. If it is successful, it will be of great importance to the country. The future development should be largely left to the company that has taken the initiative. The question of the availability of grants was raised here. The State has given generous support in the way of guaranteed credit for this development work. When you consider the various projects mooted all over the country, that is not an easy matter for a body like An Foras Tionscal to handle. They would not be the best judges in the world as to the line of development that should be followed, the locality and all the rest of it. An effort is being made at present to find means by which the shifting of these applications would be left to a body such as the Sugar Company or Erin Foods themselves rather than being handled through an organisation like An Foras Tionscal.

We are all interested deeply in this venture. There is plenty of competition to be met. I am sure that not everything will be as successful as we would like it to be. But it is better, while giving all the encouragement we can, that we should be hesitant about being critical of this or that approach. After all, they are merely looking around for the proper approach so that the effort will be successful.

Deputies on this Estimate each year are inclined to be depressing in their comments on the state of affairs in the country. I enjoyed listening to a Deputy who said I had been very subdued when presenting the Estimate. It is not often I get the headings, but on the Farmer's Journal the following day I read: “Minister's Fighting Speech”. I asked myself whether they or the Deputy who described my speech as subdued was correct.

Without being boastful, I think there are many indications to show the tremendous progress made in agriculture over the years. We hear of the difficulty of purchasing land or even renting land; the cost and the demand for it; the price land makes. Apart altogether from this talk about the few foreigners who bought up a bit of land, we know the price land makes purchased by our own people. Surely all these things are indicative of progress? The young fellows coming on to the land now perhaps have a different approach from those who went before them. When you think of them, when you think of all the provisions being made to help and encourage them, do not all these things point in the right direction? If we could get the majority of our farmers to do better the things they do by tradition, we would make great strides in a short space of time.

You only have to look at the country in which you were reared to see what progress has been made, for example, in housing, farm buildings, drainage. In a short time I will be announcing an improved scheme of farm building grants. I do not know of any other policy one can pursue. If we could get our agricultural advisers and the people of the land to row together along the lines I have indicated, I see no reason why the progress that undoubtedly has been made should not continue and be greatly accelerated in the future.

As I said before, agriculture is not spectacular. You cannot assemble results in one place and say: "That is what we have achieved." The results are scattered all over the country— the results of what the Department have been trying to do for agriculture in the past and of what, I hope, they will continue to do in the future. I do not see any reason to be pessimistic. I do not believe half the stories I hear about farmers either here or elsewhere. I know farmers have to work hard while other sections of the community, because of the way they are organised, can extract advantages which cannot be obtained by farmers. But, notwithstanding that, notwithstanding views firmly held, such as those we have heard from Deputy Corry, there is no reason to be as depressing as some Deputies are.

I was being asked, for example, about beet and the best acreage and what could be done for those who would not be permitted to grow the acreage they were willing to grow. However, I am informed by the Sugar Company that there is one factory that cannot get an adequate supply of beet. That seems a very strange thing because the area in which it is located should have labour sufficient and land sufficient to meet the requirements. A lot of harm can be done by public men speaking in that depressing way to those who I know have difficulties. Small farmers anywhere, whether it is in the west, the north, or the south, have a tough struggle but if public men depress them by telling them they have no living, that there is no future for them, such an approach is not designed to give us the results we all wish for and towards the achievement of which we all, I hope, try to make some contribution.

I do not feel at all like that. In the areas I know best—and they are no different from areas in most other parts of the country—tremendous advances have been made over the years. I can sense in the atmosphere around a far keener awareness of the importance of taking advantage of all the schemes designed to help farmers. I look to the future with confidence that progress at an accelerated rate will be made in this important industry.

May I ask the Minister two questions? First, is he prepared to say anything on the subject of milk prices or the matter of the continued collection of the levy to which I referred when speaking on his Estimate? Secondly the Minister may remember I directed his attention to the problem of the new quarantine proposal and I asked him whether it is unchanged in international quarantine agreements. My recollection is that when I was in office, I was advised that if you had a quarantine station on your territory, even situated on an island, and an outbreak of a notifiable disease occurred in the quarantine station, you would lose your international reputation for being free of that disease; whereas if your quarantine station were in Great Britain, the Isle of Man, or some territory not immediately under Irish jurisdiction, you could just as effectively operate quarantine without putting the country's reputation in jeopardy.

As far as I know, there never was an international agreement or acceptance of the point Deputy Dillon made in the course of his remarks in the Estimate. I said in my speech that we consulted the veterinary people in America and not only that but they actually came over here and inspected the place, and we took all the precautions that could possibly be taken before arriving at this decision. That is really all I can tell the Deputy.

As regards the second matter, milk prices seem to be always a political question. I cannot prevent that and I do not want to, as far as that goes. Let Deputies rip away and make the question as political as they like. However, I have repeatedly explained the position and I explained it here the other day in reply to a parliamentary question in which I said that the idea of the levy was recommended by the advisory body on agricultural marketing. Dr. Greene, the President of the NFA was chairman of that committee. Mr. Feely, who is now President of the ICMSA, was also a member of it. Mr. Mooney of the NFA was also a member and there was another farmer representative whose name I cannot now remember, as well as Mr. Barry who is Secretary of the Creamery Managers Association.

This committee made this recommendation before Bord Bainne was established. It was on the basis of this recommendation that An Bord Bainne was founded. I thought that recommendation was a sound one and I still think it. The idea of establishing a board composed largely of producers' representatives and saying to that Board: "You have the responsibility of marketing any surplus milk products there are", and at the same time saying to this body: "The Exchequer will carry the cost fully of all you spend in doing that"—I do not think that is a reasonable approach nor do this committee, because they recommended to me, without any dissentient, this proposal. I am not sheltering behind that proposal because it was made in that form but I am mentioning the fact that it was made by such a committee and that I personally agree with that principle.

The fact that there is a levy does not at any time deter a Government from examining and reviewing the price of milk if they can make financial provision for increasing the price. However, it is not fair or frank to say that milk prices should be increased because, say, the butter market and the milk products market are better now and the amount of subsidy is not as large as it was. That may be a condition existing for only a few months. Who knows what the market will be in future? As far as Europe is concerned, outside Britain, since the market was regulated by this new quota system, the prices obtainable for milk products are very low indeed and there is no justification for anybody saying— I do not care who he is or where he speaks—that we can look forward with complete freedom and ease as regards these products.

I do not mean to say that these fears should influence us unduly or prevent our taking a course here such as the course I have been pursuing as a matter of policy, trying to increase supplies, trying to develop creameries in areas where there were no creameries. I would not accept, as has been suggested by some people, that there will be no problem in the marketing of these products in future, that we can abandon everything because things are not so bad over the last few months. The principle of the levy is enshrined in the Act which set up An Bord Bainne and it is no hindrance whatever. The Board strikes the levy, having regard to what they think will be their resources. If the prices go up, then the one-third that has to be borne will be smaller than in the past. That principle is a sound one, and if the Government have the money and feel there is justice in the demand and feel there can be an increase——

Do the Government intend to do so?

As we say at Question Time, that is a separate question.

A six-marker.

Question, "That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration," put and declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share