asked the Minister for Agriculture when it is proposed to introduce legislation making provision for the investigation of costs of production in agriculture.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Agricultural Costings.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he has yet set up the commission to inquire into the costings of agricultural produce; and, if not, whether, with a view to improving our post-war agricultural plan or policy of encouragement to farmers, by providing for prices based on the cost of production plus profit, he will establish the commission immediately.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will now give an approximate date for the introduction of the Tribunal on Agricultural Prices Bill.
As Questions Nos. 54, 55, and 56, relate to the same subject, I propose, with your permission, a Chinn Chómhairle, to take them together.
In replying on 28th January, 1947, and 6th May, 1947, to similar questions put to me by Deputies Heskin and Corry I gave the House to understand that it was my intention to set up a permanent tribunal or commission to advise as to appropriate producers' costs for agricultural products. Since then I have given the matter further consideration and have decided that instead of the proposals then contemplated I propose making a submission to the Government recommending the establishment in my own Department of a costings section to advise me on matters relating to costs of production of agricultural products.
Is the Minister aware that during the last session he gave a very definite undertaking that he would introduce legislation to set up a costings commission to inquire into farmers' costing with a view to fixing fair prices? On the strength of that promise, two important motions were withdrawn, one by Deputy Corry and another by Deputy Allen. Is the Minister going to violate that solemn promise which was given? Is that the manner in which agriculture is to be treated? Promises and assurances are given when awkward demands are made and then these promises are broken.
The Minister is aware that assurances somewhat of the kind referred to by the Deputy were given in this House, but the Minister has a right to change his mind. The Minister has changed his mind, and, with the approval of the Government, I propose to do, in relation to this matter, what I have told the Deputy.
Will the Minister say why he has abandoned the idea of such a commission?
Because I feel I have very good reasons.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
What are these reasons?
I thought it was rather a compliment to the Minister for Agriculture that he should on coming in contact with reasons which are convincing, change his mind rather than that he should be subject more or less to criticism and abuse for it.
Deputy Corry has not started at all yet.
Will the Minister not agree that if he changes his mind with regard to certain undertakings given by himself and his predecessor on matters of this sort, the House is at least entitled to know, as a matter of courtesy, why he does so?
The Minister is telling the House that he has changed his mind, but, at Question Time, one cannot very well go into great detail as to the reasons for doing so. I could give some of them and I will give the House one or two illustrations. In considering the setting up of a costings tribunal, I had to ask myself what kind of tribunal it would be, in what way would it be constituted. I had to ask myself if it would be a tribunal of technicians. If I said it was to be a tribunal of technicians, and it would seem that it should be, the farmers in the House and the people speaking for the farming community here and outside would not accept a tribunal of that kind. If I were to come to the House with a tribunal composed entirely of farmers, other sections would naturally say: "We have no confidence whatever in such a tribunal". If, on the other hand, I were to come here with proposals for the establishment of a tribunal composed of technicians and farmers, I could see it as a tribunal, such as some of those I have already got, on which there would be a struggle—not an attempt to analyse a particular problem and to find out exactly the position—as to what kind of determination should be reached and that ultimately, irrespective of the kind of tribunal set up, it would fall on the shoulders of the Minister for Agriculture to settle such matters. Since it is mainly the responsibility of the Minister to make decisions of the kind and to face the House and the country, I felt I would be on the right road in setting up in my own Department a body which would advise me on these matters, and that I would then make my decision and defend it when it was made.
Would the Minister say whether it is now proposed to give the industry an opportunity of giving evidence before this body? How is it proposed that this body should carry out the necessary investigations?
We must have the body before we know how we will go into these matters.
It is to be a Civil Service body, anyway.
Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
Question No. 57.
Has Deputy Corry changed his mind, too?
Deputy Corry's mind is his own.
Deputies with stentorian voices might not use them to drown the voice of the Chair when calling the next question.
I can be terribly persuasive at times.
So I gather