Vol. 224 No. 14
asked the Taoiseach if, in view of the impasse which has arisen between the Minister for Agriculture and the National Farmers Association, he will invite the National Farmers Association to meet him with a view to restoring satisfactory relations between the National Farmers Association and the Government.
3.
asked the Taoiseach if, in view of the serious situation which has developed because of the refusal of the Minister for Agriculture to meet representatives of the National Farmers Association, he will arrange for the resumption of discussions between the Minister for Agriculture and the National Farmers Association.
With your permission, Sir, I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has stated, on a number of occasions, that if the National Farmers Association decide to resume normal and reasonable discussions with him on farm problems, and so inform him, there will be no difficulty so far as he is concerned in arranging this.
The Government have, however, no reason to think that the National Farmers Association leaders desire normal and reasonable discussions. On the contrary, their parades and the harassing of Ministers attending public functions appear to be designed to intimidate the Government. It is reasonable to assume that the issuing of an invitation as suggested in Deputy Cosgrave's question would be regarded by them as implying the success of this policy of intimidation. A Government which made concessions to such tacties would be not only defaulting on their obligations to preserve the elementary principles of democracy, but would also sacrifice any entitlement to public respect. In these circumstances it would be a matter for the Government, and not the Minister, to decide when and in what manner discussions with the National Farmers Association representatives should be resumed.
Furthermore, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is the member of the Government with special responsibility in agricultural matters. The Government have collective responsibility, and in regard to this matter as in all others the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has acted with the full approval of the Government and I would not take any course which would carry an implication that this has not been the case.
To avoid the possibility of any future misunderstanding, it is necessary perhaps to remind the Dáil that there have been two Budgets in this financial year, each of which imposed considerable additional taxation, the proceeds of which are being spent, in the most part, for the benefit of agriculture. The money available to the Government for the financing of the public services in the present financial year is now fully allocated, and the Government are not prepared to contemplate a third Budget. Any discussions which may take place with farmers organisations, as with others, must be within the context of the financial realities.
While not wishing to enter into the merits of the present dispute between the Minister for Agriculture and the National Farmers Association, or to comment in any way on the remarks of the Taoiseach, does the Taoiseach not think, that while preserving the special responsibility which the Minister for Agriculture has, no procedural technicalities or differences as to a method of approach should be allowed to stand in the way of direct consultation merely for the purpose of discussing whatever problems are at issue between the Minister for Agriculture, on the one hand, and the NFA on the other?
That is a very naive interpretation of this situation. The issue between the Minister for Agriculture and the NFA is not a question of discussions. It is a campaign by the NFA to bully the Government into transferring to them the responsibility for agricultural policy now exercised by the Government through the Minister for Agriculture.
We have not to look too far for a recent example in which the British Prime Minister was faced with the strength of the British trade union movement in circumstances which could be described as an attempt either to barrack or to bully and the Prime Minister, without any set agenda in advance, came out openly and met the assembled representatives. He said: "I am prepared to receive a deputation." If he was prepared to do this, recognising the power, force and influence the British trade union movement means for the British Government, does the Taoiseach not consider that a rational and detached look at this situation would force anyone to the conclusion that if the Minister, without any preconceived conditions or pre-laid-down agenda would say: "I am prepared to meet their elected representatives and discuss the matter with them"——
The people who are laying down preconditions are the NFA. May I refer the Deputy to the statement made by the President of the NFA when he said that even if Mr. Haughey were to meet them tomorrow, it would not mean the end of the agitation. The Minister would have to give certain guarantees and unless these were satisfactory, the agitation would continue and they would continue the squatting outside Government Buildings. These are impossible conditions and the Government that would accept them would not be worthy of the name.
I do not think it was wise to make that statement but that is a matter for Mr. Deasy. I suggest to the Taoiseach that after parading and being out in the present inclement weather, a person who made a statement in those physical conditions could be excused some exaggeration. I suggest there is close at hand a much more impressive example of a member of a Government being prepared to meet and discuss questions in conditions in which his Government's life was much more likely to be at Stake. The British Prime Minister was prepared to discuss and he said: "Come in and discuss it," without laying down any conditions and as far as I know, the trade unions did not lay down any conditions in advance.
The Deputy is no doubt aware that the NFA announced their intention of organising this agitation months ago. The fact is that they have used as a pretext for this demonstration the refusal of the Minister to receive a deputation but the refusal to receive the deputation last week has no relevancy to the matter at all. If they want to resume reasonable and normal discussions, there is no difficulty about that. My advice to the NFA is that they should get off the ground, walk over to their office, write a letter and say: "Let us sit down and talk over this matter." If they do that, these discussions will take place. Why are Deputies laughing? I have no doubt that the NFA is an important organisation but the Government of the country is equally important.
Is it not a fact that in a free democracy people are entitled to agitate within the law, whether it is embarrassing to the Government or to a Minister, to the Opposition or to Parliament? We may have different views as to whether it is a wise course or the most productive but it is not in the public interest and in the interests of the farmers that whatever procedural questions or technical questions of protocol may have arisen should be waived and people should be prepared to enter into discussions to see what measure of agreement can be arrived at or what the prospects are of discussing in a rational way the questions at issue?
There is no problem of procedure or protocol. As I understand it, an agitation is being conducted by this farmers organisation for the purpose of forcing the Government to transfer to their leaders the responsibility for agricultural policy which the Government exercise. That is an impossible agitation for any Government to take cognisance of.
Leaving aside the method adopted, provided that people, whether trade unionists, industrialists or farmers, act within the law, are they not entitled to put their case in the way they think best? That is an essential right in any democratic society, though it may be embarrassing to the Government of the day. Does it not seem rational that a Government who have responsibility for over-all economic questions should enter into discussions with those engaged in that industry, even if these discussions should break down?
As long as the responsibility of the Government for national policy is recognised, there is no problem, but this is a demand that it should be transferred to the NFA leaders. That is the real issue involved here.
I believe that the Government and Parliament have the ultimate responsibility but I suggest that any procedural difficulties or any ill-feeling, whether of a personal character or otherwise, there may be between individuals in this organisation and the Minister or between certain members and certain Ministers, should be submerged in the national interest and that discussions should be initiated on some rational and reasonable basis.
I agree with the Deputy that it is desirable that normal and responsible discussions should be resumed but it is not the Government who are preventing these discussions.
Perhaps as a result of this discussion here this evening everybody will think again about it and it may be possible to get a reasonable approach to it.
I hope so.
Are we to assume from what the Taoiseach has said that the Taoiseach and every member of the Government stand firmly behind the decision of the Minister in refusing to meet——
Yes.
——the representatives of the most important industry in the country, agriculture? Is it the position in 1966 that the Taoiseach and the Government stand firmly behind the Minister for Agriculture in his refusal?
The Deputy has been misled about the situation. The question of whether the Minister for Agriculture receives a deputation or not is of no importance in this regard. The NFA decided on this agitation months before that question arose and I am certain they would have conducted it, as they made it clear they would, whether the Minister received the deputation or not. This is only a red herring. The real issue is whether the Government are going to remain responsible for agricultural policy or going to abdicate that responsibility to the leaders of this organisation. We are not going to do that.
Matters of policy are discussed with trade unions and others.
There is no problem about having discussions with this organisation.
The Taoiseach has said that if the farmers leave the steps of Government Buildings, go over to NFA House and write a letter, they will be received and discussions renewed, that all that is necessary is that they leave the steps immediately and the Minister will receive them.
The Taoiseach is well able to speak for himself. I want to see a reasonable attitude. This is a very important matter, a Cheann Comhairle, and I want a reasonable answer. What is the difference between the members of the NFA getting off the steps, going to NFA House and then coming back and getting off the steps and walking into Government Buildings to meet the Minister?
I was referring to normal and reasonable discussions. The President of the NFA said that meeting the Minister will not end the agitation. They want guarantees from the Government, an abdication of Government authority. When they are asking for that, they are asking for something impossible.
Is it not a fact that the Government have a responsibility to meet the representatives of our most important industry?
I do not accept that the people squatting in Merrion Street represent the agricultural community.
We cannot allow everybody to ask questions at the same time. Seven or eight questions have been asked already. This cannot be allowed to continue for ever.
When the Taoiseach remembers that Irish farmers seeking land reform were able to meet and have discussions with absentee landlords in days gone by, is it not reasonable to assume that an Irish Government ought to do what absentee landlords did years ago?
The Government have no difficulty whatever in meeting the Irish farmers. We are not being asked to meet the Irish farmers. We are being asked to meet a small group of ambitious men who want to take over from the Government their responsibility for agricultural policy.
Deputy Clinton rose.
I will have to call the next question. I cannot allow all the Deputies' questions.
Take it easy, a Cheann Comhairle.
This is my question and I have asked only one supplementary.
This is the only one, then.
What about me?
I cannot allow 140 Deputies to ask questions.
Why not?
I have a good one.
Is the Taoiseach not aware that it was the Minister for Agriculture who cancelled the last appointment with the NFA?
No.
At very short notice.
Cancellation was deliberately arranged.
That was convened and arranged in a very normal manner. In view of the fact that that one was cancelled, surely it is possible now for the Taoiseach to arrange a meeting with reasonable men who have gone through an immense amount of hardship?
May I suggest to the Deputy that he should read again the speech made by the President of the NFA at their annual meeting where this arrogant demand was asserted that the Government should submit to them in all matters of agricultural policy? This is an impossible demand which no Minister or no democratic government could accept. Deputies opposite may have the responsibility of government some time. May I advise them never to submit to this type of bullying dictation by any organisation? If they do, that is the beginning of the end of democratic government in this country.
I submit to the Taoiseach that he does not know what these men want because he will not meet them.
Question No.4.
May I ask a question?
