asked the Taoiseach if, in order to ensure that the problems of agriculture can be discussed in an harmonious atmosphere, he will take immediate steps to end the present nationally dangerous situation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Problems of Agriculture.
1.
The Deputy has not defined what he means by "the present nationally dangerous situation". If he is referring to the unlawful campaign being conducted by the National Farmers Association over recent months which includes road blockades and non-payment of rates, this situation can be ended not by Government action but by the Association reverting to methods which are within the law. The Government are anxious to have harmonious and constructive consultations with farmers' representatives and this is the purpose of their recent proposal to set up a National Agricultural Council. The Government must, however, continue to enforce law and order and must be in a position to decide on policy freely and not under pressure from any section.
Is the Taoiseach not aware while, without question, breaches of the law are reprehensible, and while two wrongs do not make a right, partial and vindictive administration of the law by a Government is also wrong? Is the Taoiseach not further aware that every industrial dispute is always ended in the long run by mediation and will he not now take immediate steps to end the present dispute?
I repudiate emphatically that any action that has been taken is partial and vindictive. The members of this organisation put themselves at variance with the law, deliberately, by their action in blockading the roads. The law acted in due process by having those individuals summoned and fined. The sentence of the court was that in default of the payment of fines, certain prison sentences should be served. That is the usual form of court decisions in those matters. Default in the payment of fines happened in this case. The default continued over several weeks and then the due process of the law took place. That is what happened. So far as compromising matters like this is concerned, there is compromise in industrial disputes but those industrial disputes are usually carried out within the law. What has happened now is something outside the law.
Can the Taoiseach's memory not go back a short time to another case in which sentences imposed by the courts were reduced substantially by the Minister for Justice? Does he not consider that in this case there is an equitable comparison?
In that other case to which the Deputy referred, once the court sentences were imposed, no further action contrary to the law was pursued by that organisation. Fines were paid, even though at a reduced rate. There has not been any suggestion in this case that reduced fines might meet the case. If any hardship would be imposed by the amount of fines imposed and if representations were made to the Minister for Justice in the usual way, then I can assure the Deputy that sympathetic consideration would be given to such cases.
While I am not condoning any breaking of the law in regard to the non-payment of rates or road blockades, the Taoiseach must be prepared to admit that non-preservation of law and order was not the question in dispute in the first place although it has become so now. In this alleged dispute between the Minister, the Government and the NFA, would the Taoiseach now state clearly so that the public will understand the issue, the conditions on which he or the Minister for Agriculture will meet the NFA?
The situation which now exists has been created by the NFA. If the NFA wish to resume normal negotiations with the Government, then they will have to desist from unlawful agitation. They are perfectly free, as far as this Government are concerned, to engage in any lawful agitation they like but this Government will not put itself in the position that it will be dictated to by any section of the community to treat with it otherwise.
(Cavan): Is it not a fact that this Association has not engaged in any unlawful activity since 9th January last and would the Taoiseach indicate to the House whether the Attorney General has taken the most unusual, if not the unique step in these particular proceedings of demanding from the courts minimum sentences?
The courts are always independent of the Attorney General. The Attorney General can instruct his counsel or whoever appears on behalf of the State in any way he likes. It is for the court to enforce its own decision as it sees fit. As the Deputy mentioned the 9th January, I would like to throw the Deputy's mind back another couple of weeks to another date, 21st November last, three days after this Government were elected. when I, with the Minister for Agriculture, met the executive of the NFA. Within a day or two of that, there was another request from the Chairman of the NFA to meet the Minister for Agriculture. He replied— it was a request by phone—that he had not yet had an opportunity of studying the points that were put before us during the four-hour interview on that Monday. On the Friday, within a few days of it, I got a letter from the Chairman of the NFA asking that they meet the Minister for Agriculture and me again on the Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of the following week. I replied to the effect that it would be physically impossible for me to meet that organisation on any of those three days because of prior commitments I had made, one of these being, in fact, a meeting, in conjunction with the Minister for Agriculture, with members of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association. My letter would have been received by the NFA on the Saturday. On the Monday another letter was written to the Minister for Agriculture asking him to meet the NFA again and still within a week of the previous four-hour meeting to which the Minister for Agriculture replied on the following day, on the Wednesday. That letter would have been received in the normal course of post by Thursday in the NFA headquarters but before that letter had been delivered or opened, before it was opened certainly, the NFA representatives were again sitting down outside the office not only of the Minister for Agriculture but my office also.
(Cavan): There was nothing illegal about that.
On that very day they announced the first road blockade of 9th December. It was in circumstances like that the Deputy expects the Government to meet that organisation. They have already met them in what appeared to be a calm atmosphere and that was upset by the association itself.
(Cavan): I am afraid the Taoiseach has not answered either of my supplementary questions. Is it not a fact that the NFA have not engaged in any illegal activities of any description since 9th January, nor have they indicated that they propose to do so and I suggest in those circumstances——
The withholding of rates and the advocating the withholding of rates is unlawful action.
(Cavan): There is no evidence that they are doing that.
The ringleaders have their own rates paid and are trying to use the small farmers as stooges.
(Cavan): The Taoiseach and the Government have at their disposal adequate machinery for collecting rates. The law is there and the machinery of the law is there. I would suggest that the Taoiseach has not given any satisfactory answer to my question as to whether this is the first occasion on which the Attorney General has sent his advocates into court to demand specific sentences, seeking to take the discretion from the courts. Does the Taoiseach approve of that?
In view of the fact that the situation has reached such a dangerous stage, I would like to ask the Taoiseach if he is aware of the fact that the whole agricultural industry is in a state of chaos at the present moment and not only the people who are directly engaged in the agricultural industry but workers in industries such as the bacon industry are in jeopardy? Would the Taoiseach not think that it is his duty in the national interest to take the initiative at the present time?
I do not want to appear, nor am I, in any way vindictive towards this organisation. The Government want to meet this organisation in peace and harmony and in circumstances in which benefits for agriculture can best be secured and especially at this time when approaching the Budget, there is much to be discussed. As I said already, it is a matter for the NFA to restore that situation whereby we can meet them in reasonable harmony and in this particular council, but as I have said before, if any Government, whether on this side of the House or on the opposite side of the House were to give in to this kind of activity, then we may as well abdicate——
Would it be correct to say that if the NFA desisted from seeking the non-payment of rates, their representatives would be met by the Minister for Agriculture? I only want to get this clear. Is this the only one issue?
If they will obey the law.
Is this the only issue on which they are breaking the law?
No.
I think the public are entitled to know. The Taoiseach has stated now that the Minister for Agriculture will not meet the NFA because they are engaging in illegal activities. One of them is the no-rates campaign. Are there any others?
Intimidation and threats.
All sorts of threats, but this is not unusual when there are disputes.
I can assure the Deputy the Government will not be unreasonable if the law is upheld and continues to be upheld.
What other illegal activities are they engaged in?
In an effort to solve this, if the NFA call off the rates campaign and what the Taoiseach describes as their other illegal actions, will he release the prisoners and create the proper atmosphere?
The prisoners need not stay in jail. I do not want to be keeping farmers in jail and any effort by them will be sympathetically considered as far as the prisoners are concerned.
Is it not a fact that this situation has largely arisen through the failure of the Government to take action on promises made by the then Minister for Agriculture——
(Interruptions.)
Go away out of that.
——on a meat marketing board and on a small farms plan, and if they are unreasonable it is because the Government got unreasonable.
Surely this is an opportunity for statesmanship and what that involves?
Does the Taoiseach deny this situation was brought about by the Government?
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach must realise that it is he who must take action because what has been going on will get us nowhere.
The Government must not yield to any organisation that takes the law into its own hands.
Where does the Taoiseach think he is going at the present time?
(Interruptions.)
Egghead!
The pursuit of the matter will not do any good. I will allow Deputy P. O'Donnell to ask a supplementary question and that is all.
Does the Taoiseach not consider it unrealistic for the prosecution to demand the suspension of drivers' licences of farmers for simple obstruction of the public highways, particularly during this time of spring, and would he not consider the restoration of these licences?
The Deputy knows how they operate, in what terms or in what way the court will regard please made on behalf of prosecution.
(Cavan): I have never known a demand to be made——
Deputies must appreciate that in the final analysis dispensing imposition of justice must lie in the hands of the presiding judge.
They should not be sought by the prosecution.
Question No. 2.
Coercion never worked when the British were here and Fianna Fáil will not work it either. Government by coercion.