asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will make a statement to the Dáil on his refusal to meet a small deputation of the National Farmers Association.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - NFA Deputation.
26.
I have informed the NFA that if they submit a memorandum containing their views on current agricultural problems it will be carefully examined and should it be considered desirable to have a meeting to discuss these problems in advance of the annual review this will be arranged in due course.
Surely the grounds of the Minister's objection to receiving the small deputation of the NFA do not depend solely on his submission that they should send a memorandum first? Does he think it unreasonable that, after a long and orderly march through the country and the city, he should have met this deputation?
In this matter I have sought to have the normal procedure carried out and the normal procedure, when any group of people wish to see a member of the Government about an important matter, is that they submit a memorandum in advance and the member of the Government concerned is given an opportunity of considering the memorandum and the points made in it. Then, should it be considered desirable, he decides whether or not to receive a deputation.
But, in a situation such as I am told there was in Merrion Street yesterday, a situation in which there was great tension and a likeli hood of grave disorder, should the Minister not have waived, even tem porarily, his request for a memorandum in order to ease the tension that undoubtedly was there?
I felt absolutely entitled to seek to have the normal procedure followed on this occasion.
Is it not a fact that the Minister said here last week that the farmers need not be worried? He would meet them at any time and in any place. He would go to Cork to meet them. In view of the circumstances described by Deputy Corish, surely to put a stop to this and to prevent what might arise happening —it fortunately did not arise yesterday —the Minister should have agreed to see them?
I do not think it is a matter for me to put a stop to these proceedings.
The Minister has surely the responsibility of a member of the Government.
Is the Minister not aware that on a previous occasion when Deputy Dillion was Minister for Agriculture and the milk producers marched on Dublin, they were allowed, first of all, to hold their meeting at the corner of Upper Merrion Street, as was not the case yesterday, and, secondly, the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, met the deputation immediately after the meeting was over?
I have looked up the records and, as far as I can ascertain, the demand made by the farmers on that occasion was to see the Taoiseach, and it was refused.
They demanded to see the Minister for Agriculture, and he saw them.
There were thousands of farmers here in Dublin and, as Minister for Agriculture, could he not have met the seven representatives from these thousands yesterday in his office in Government Buildings? Surely, as Minister for Agriculture, he was obliged to meet such a group. There is no justification for his behaviour.
It is not a question of being pigheaded or anything else.
Personal vanity.
It is a question of what in my opinion, is the proper way for the Government to conduct the nation's business.
Haughty Haughey.
Does the Minister agree that the purpose in requiring people, who wish to have a deputation received by a Minister, to submit a memorandum in advance is so that the Minister may be aware of what it is intended to discuss? Does the Minister seriously suggest that he was not on this occasion aware of what the farmers wished to discuss with him? Surely the memorandum should have been waived on this occasion?
I have seen so many statements and so many suggestion as to what is to be discussed that I have, in fact, no concrete knowledge of what it really is.
Would the Minister not agree it was the aim of the representatives to put their grievances before him? If he had not concrete evidence, they would give it to him. Would he not even at this late hour, and it is not too late yet, retract his decision, review the position and agree to meet this deputation this evening?
Deputy Murphy is a reasonable man. I want to point out to him now that, since I became Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, I have received, I am certain, more deputations from the NFA than any other Minister for Agriculture in the history of the State.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
As I pointed out to the House on a previous occasion, I do not think there was one single month in which I did not receive the NFA at least once, and in most months, on two or three occasions. I received them personally.
Why did the Minister refuse to see them yesterday?
I pointed out to the House before that it seemed the association had decided, as a matter of policy, to suspend constructive co-operation with me and the Government. I also assured the House when this matter was raised here before that, when the NFA showed, as I earnestly hoped they would without delay, that they were prepared to resume discussion and co-operation in a constructive atmosphere, I was prepared to meet them.
Does that mean on the Minister's terms alone?
The Minister makes the allegation of a policy of non-co-operation by the NFA with the Government, but he said he met the NFA more times than any previous Minister for Agriculture. That may be so. On all these occasions did he insist that a memorandum should be submitted first?
On most occasions it was clearly indicated to me in advance what they wanted to put before me and I am quite certain that on practically every occasion a memorandum was submitted.
When he asked for a memorandum yesterday, did he also give the message that, when he had read the memorandum, he would see them?
I did not have to wait until yesterday. I explained to the NFA on Monday, 17th October, that if they would submit a memorandum containing their views on current agricultural problems on Wednesday next—that is, yesterday—it would be carefully considered and, should it be considered desirable to have a meeting to discuss the problems in advance of the annual review, a meeting would be arranged.
That indicates that you were not going to meet them.
I think I must be, and any member of the Government must be, granted the right to make the decision as to when and where he will meet a deputation.
Surely the Minister should see the representatives of these thousands of people whom he represents? He is not their overlord; he is their servant.
Does the Minister consider that in the present difficult situation for agriculture, he is serving either the Government or the country by trying to make small boys of seven responsible representatives of thousands of farmers by leaving them sitting outside on his steps while he stays inside? Does he consider this the right way to do it, in view of the fact that these are responsible people who right through the whole campaign proved that they were responsible and yesterday proved that they were more than responsible in spite of provocation? Will the Minister consider even now treating them like the gentlemen they are and have a discussion with them to solve this problem?
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy is misrepresenting the position. As I said, since I became Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, it was my earnest and sincere desire, and my stated policy, to endeavour to work in the closest harmony and co-operation with the National Farmers Association. The fact that, unfortunately, that policy of constructive co-operation has been interrupted and suspended is not my fault.
The Minister made up his mind on Monday that he would not see them on Wednesday.
Question No. 27, to the Minister for Justice.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister is taking a serious risk.
Order.