asked the Minister for Agriculture whether the report that he stated at the European Sub-Commission of F.A.O. that Ireland might be wiser to import fodder and cereals and convert its agriculture increasingly to animal production is correct; and, if so, whether on this occasion he was expressing a personal view or Government policy.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Statement of Minister for Agriculture.
On the occasion referred to I reiterated my frequently declared opinion that the unique ability of this country to deliver perishable agricultural produce in a fresh condition in our external markets should be exploited to the fullest extent, and therefore in addition to increased quantities of oats and barley produced on their own holdings, farmers should purchase more and more feeding stuffs in the shape of maize and concentrates with a view to achieving an output of live stock and live-stock products, i.e., cattle, sheep, pigs, fowl, eggs, milk and milk products far in excess of what could be produced if such foodstuffs as could be produced at home only were their only raw materials. The Government policy may be summarised in the phrase "one more cow, one more sow, and one more acre under the plough, and is being successfully pursued with a view to getting the greatest possible production of home-grown feeding stuffs and the importation of such additional quantities as can economically be converted into a profitable agricultural exportable surplus.
Am I to take it from the reply that the statement the Minister made represented, not a personal view, but Government policy?
I do not think I can profitably add anything to the reply already given.
Is there any difficulty in the Minister's indicating whether the statement made by him at a foreign conference which he attended as an official representative of this State, was a statement of Government policy or a personal view of his own?
I have stated the facts in the answer I have given to the Deputy. I do not intend to adopt any suggestions the Deputy may make by way of supplementary questions, but, if he seeks any further information and puts down a question, I shall gladly try to provide any additional information required.
Is the Minister aware that I addressed the question to the Taoiseach, because it is a matter of grave dissatisfaction that the public are unable to distinguish between statements made by Ministers as such and the personal views of individuals who happen for the time being to be Ministers? When a Minister travels abroad on official business and makes a statement which appears to suggest that the Government have arrived at a decision upon policy, it is obviously unsatisfactory that the public should not be told whether that is in fact an expression of Government policy or of the individual view of the person making the statement.
The Deputy is having recourse to the old and mouldy political device of alleging that I made a certain statement and, on being informed of what I actually stated, ignoring the contents of my reply and reverting to his maundering attempt to distort an alleged report of a statement that he read somewhere or that it was suggested I made. The Deputy's question was (question read). If he asked me whether I had advocated the beating up of the wives of delegates or whether that was Government policy or not, I would be obliged to state categorically what my observations at F.A.O. were in respect of wife-beating generally. I have stated for the Deputy's information what I indicated to F.A.O. on the subject of the Government's policy relating to general agriculture in this country. What is there stated is the policy of this Government. In respect of the contents of my answer, I will endeavour to give the Deputy any information he wants. In respect to his confused report of a report, I have nothing to say.
Is the Minister aware that the words quoted by me are the exact words used in the despatches sent out by the Press agencies which covered the conference? Am I to take it that the Minister is now denying that he used these words?
I have nothing to add to the answer that I have given.
Will the Minister answer a straight question?
I have answered a straight question, but I have not the slightest intention of wrestling with the managing director and editor of the Irish Press on the floor of this House, having had bitter experience of doing so before.
Is the Minister aware that these despatches were published in all the newspapers?
I have not the slightest intention of having any kind of contacts with that kind of dishonest chicanery. If the Deputy wants to know what I said at F.A.O. there it is in detail as read out to him. On that I will give any information that he wants, but on the twisted reports which he receives and publishes I have no comment to make.
Is the Minister aware that the report which was received from the Press agencies was widely circulated and discussed here? In view of the fact that nobody knows what Government policy is, will the Minister say now whether that report was correct or not correct?
The reports which reached the Irish Press office are of all sorts and descriptions and usually false, if they are the ones that come out afterwards as the truth. What I said at F.A.O. is there set out. On that I will furnish any information to the Deputy if he wishes to seek it by way of Parliamentary Question. On the reports that reach the Irish Press office I have no comment to make.
When the Minister is asked a straight question, he has nothing to give out but personal abuse.
I have answered a straight question. I have stated what Government policy is. On the reports that reached the Irish Press I have nothing to say.
It was a pity that you did not go to Donegal, because if you had we would have got a bigger majority there.
Question No. 39 called.
I think, Sir, you were about to say something.
I was. I was going to say that the avocations which Ministers or Deputies follow outside the House are not a matter for debate.
May I submit that if a person who works on newspapers chooses to quote, or alleges to quote, what the news agencies are supposed to distribute it is a matter for legitimate comment?
Was the report correct or not?
On the particular ruling given by the Chair, may I ask when did that become a ruling of the House, because my professional occupation was discussed ad nauseam at length in this House by the gentlemen opposite?
That was a matter of public interest. You were paid out of public funds.
If this is a ruling which the Chair is making I want to say that, I think, it is an admirable ruling. Like the Minister for Defence, long before I was a member of this House I was discussed in this House in my professional capacity on repeated occasions.
(Interruptions.)
And you should be discussed.
Question No. 39.