asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the number of times he has met and has had discussions with the NFA and the number of occassions on which officers of his Department have received the NFA over the past three years; if he has any plans for bringing to an end the dispute with the NFA; and, if so, if he will give details of these plans.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Discussions with NFA.
34.
During 1967 and 1968 consultations with farm organisations on agricultural policy matters were conducted through the medium of the National Agricultural Council. As the Deputy is aware, the NFA boycotted this council and declined repeated invitations to join with me in the very useful discussions which were taking place there. However, I had talks with the NFA president on three occasions during that period.
During 1969, when the National Agricultural Council had ceased to function, I met the farm organisations as and when the necessity arose. Meetings with the NFA took place in February about the Third Programme, in March-April on general agricultural policy matters and in November on milk pricing arrangements. There were no separate meetings with officials.
As regards the second part of the Deputy's question, I must repeat what I have said on a number of occasions previously, namely, that I have no dispute with the NFA or with any other organisation of farmers. I have repeatedly stressed the importance which the Government attach to close and effective consultation on policy matters between the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and farmers' representatives and I have stated the Government's position in this matter in reply to previous Dáil questions on 10th December, 1968, and again on 23rd October, 1969. On these occasions I referred to talks which were, and so far as I know still are, proceeding between the two main farming organisations aimed at defining functions and working relationships between them. Some time ago I was given to understand that these talks were progressing satisfactorily and I was very glad indeed that this was so. If the organisations can agree on the machinery which should form the basis for consultation between themselves and the Government, there would be no difficulty whatsoever in establishing satisfactory working relationships with the Minister and his Department. Pending such agreement, organisations are being given the opportunity to express their views on current problems as they arise and I have recently invited the major organisations, including the NFA, to early full-scale discussions with me on the agricultural situation and prospects.
Is the Minister aware that during 1964, 1965 and 1966 the Minister met the NFA on 67 occasions and the officials met them on 85 occasions, making a total of 153 meetings, but in 1969 there were only three meetings? Would the Minister not agree that there should be co-operation and consultation with the farmers' organisations just as the Government have with labour and employers, due to the fact that we may, inside the next few years, become members of the EEC? Would the Minister not agree that the present impasse is doing untold harm to the economy?
I fully agree with the first part of the Deputy's views on this matter, that consultation is very desirable and would be very useful, but I do not in any way feel that I or the Government are responsible for any lack that may have appeared during these recent couple of years. In addition, I would say it is fairly evident from the various statements made by me and others on behalf of the Government over these years that we desire this consultation but that there should be order about the method of consultation and some coming together of the various organisations which in many cases purport to represent the same people. It goes without saying that for the most orderly and most useful consultation this is desirable. I still believe that and I have believed it all along; I have reiterated it on many occasions and I am saying again that we want this. On the other hand, it would be fair to say that the 150 meetings that took place in the years mentioned by the Deputy could be said in those circumstances to have been overdoing things quite a bit and without perhaps any great return from them. Also the damage that the lack of such frequent consultation is said to have caused to the economy is certainly not evident in regard to the well-being and rising prosperity of the farming community during the time when there were not so many consultations.
May I ask the Minister, since he became Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and as a Deputy from north-east Donegal, how many times has he asked for the opinions of the NFA in his own constituency to see what they think should be done to promote the agricultural industry in north-east Donegal.
The Deputy must be more aware than most Deputies in the House that, so far as the NFA in Donegal are concerned, I scarcely need to ask them what their opinion is about anything: it has been forthcoming all too readily on all too many occasions and without very much point to it other than the denigration either of the Government, the Minister or the Department.
Further arising out of the Minister's reply, if the NFA boycotted the National Agricultural Council, surely the Minister and the Government must take responsibility for that because they arrested the members of the NFA and put them into Mountjoy the very evening the farmers were to meet and decide on the men for the council.
The Deputy may not make a speech.
I am not making a speech. If the Minister claims the NFA were responsible, then I want to put him right because it was he who arrested them and put them into Mountjoy and the responsibility was that of the Minister and the Government——
The Deputy should endeavour to behave himself in Parliament.
The Government were responsible for arresting them the night before.
May I request the Minister to give me an answer to my question: how many times since he became Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has he invited opinions from the executive of the NFA in his own constituency and how many times has he indicated to them that he would be prepared to meet them?
I should like the Deputy to know that through my own very frequent contacts in my constituency, which are mainly with the farming community, I reckon there is little that could be contributed by the said organisation in the frame of mind they have been in, particularly the gentleman at the head of it in Donegal, over the last three years.
That is not a reply to my question at all. The Minister is using this opportunity to slander a decent man who has given a better service to the agricultural community, for nothing, than the Minister has, and he is paid for it.
Which man am I talking about?
I know. The Minister does not have to name him. The Minister has just said the person who led them.
I did not name anybody.
The Minister has named the person by saying the person who led the NFA.
I did not mention any name. The Deputy well knows I mentioned no name or names.
The Minister did not have to but, for the record, that man has given more service for nothing than the Minister has and the Minister has been paid a handsome salary for mucking up the job.
If the Deputy knows the head the cap fits, well and good.
Could the Minister state if the row between the NFA and the Government has not done any harm to the economy during the last three years? Is the Minister aware that three years ago we had a favourable trade balance with Britain and that we now have an adverse balance of almost £90 million? Surely it has done untold harm to the economy.
It would be a national disgrace if the Deputy were to get away with that one.
It is quite true. I will give the Minister the figures if he wants them.
The farmers are better off today than they were then and they have been progressively better off in each of the last three years. That is the point I have been trying to make. Let the Deputy not try a statistical twist to try to prove a point, which is not true, to be true.
We had a satisfactory trading balance three years ago. We have an adverse balance of £90 million this year. Those are the facts. I got that from the Taoiseach yesterday evening in reply to a written question tabled for written answer. It is not a yellow document.
I am calling Question No. 35.
How much butter was exported to Northern Ireland?
It is the Six Counties to me, Whatever it may be to the Deputy. I should like to say to the Deputies who are particularly concerned about the NFA, in relation to whom it is alleged a row has been generated, that there is no row outside this House.
Is there not? The Minister has no row with the Taoiseach, he will tell us!
As of this moment, and since three o'clock, the NFA president and two or three other people are awaiting me in my office for consultation.
We welcome that. It took the Minister three years, but it is better late than never.