Deputy J. Ryan has received permission to raise on the Adjournment the question of the reasons why officials in the Department of Agriculture have been instructed that all representations made to this Department concerning applications under the farm modernisation scheme must be processed through the office of the Minister of State at the Department.
Adjournment Debate. - Farm Modernisation Scheme Applications.
First of all, I thank the Chair sincerely for granting permission to raise this very important matter. In my view it is vital for the continuing viability and independence of our civil service. I have been 25 years in public life and seven years in the Dáil. I would like to pay tribute to the civil service, both at local authority and at Departmental level. In my experience they have always been very helpful and concerned for the welfare of our people. Indeed I might add their task at times is very difficult with exceptional work pressure, shortage of staff and, on many occasions, shortage of finance which deprives them of the opportunity to give their maximum efforts to ensuring a proper service for our people. This type of viability and independence in our civil service is an essential facet in any democracy.
My raising this matter today is the outcome of what happened last week. As I have normally done in the last couple of years, I telephoned the Department of Agriculture about a simple matter of farm modernisation grants for three farmers in my area whose grants had been approved but who were still waiting for the cheques; some of them need the money very badly. I was amazed when I was told that the necessary information could not be given as instructions had been issued to the officers of that Department that in future all such inquiries would have to be channelled through the Minister's office. I was very alarmed at this development. However, I went home at the weekend and this morning once again, at 10.10 a.m., I made the same effort to obtain the information to assist my three constituents in obtaining their farm modernisation grants and I was given the same answer. This is what prompted me to raise this matter in the House this morning. I regret that I may have been a bit disorderly; it is not my usual form. But I felt so strongly about it that I had to raise it in the House. It was categorically denied by the Minister that he had issued any such instructions. It may be that the Minister of State issued the instruction. I do not know. But following the discussion this morning I once again telephoned the Department and was again told that the information would have to be channelled through the Minister's office and was given the same reason. Because of my dissatisfaction and my concern in the matter I tabled a Private Notice Question, as has already been outlined, which was, perhaps rightly, ruled out of order. Surely my efforts and the answers I received are sufficient proof that there has been ministerial interference in the very good relations that have existed between Deputies and Departments. I say this in the plural because I have evidence of a similar tactic evolving in another Ministry. One might say at this stage, having read this morning's newspapers, that this is an echo of the Garda allegation of political interference.
We are only dealing with one matter at the moment.
I am concerned as a public representative—and all public representatives would be concerned—about this attempted shutting out of selected politicians. It must concern all who respect democracy. The right of public representatives to represent their people must be vigorously defended. Otherwise Dáil Éireann, because of this erosion of power, will be similar to the local authorities whose power has been eroded in the last couple of years through recentralisation. This is a trend that I fear. We have been sent here to represent our people and look after their interests and if some party or Government attempt to interfere with the national and democratic right of representation it is a negation of democracy.
Let me take it a stage further. Where will the man in the street stand in this whole affair? Where can he go now for assistance? Apparently the Minister is now the all-powerful one. No one else will be allowed to resolve problems. This attempted erosion of the right of public representatives democratically elected by the people must be stopped. It may be seen by some as a simple matter. But as far as I am concerned this is not the open Government that we were promised. It is not a desirable development to have ministerial representation and not public representation. I am concerned and that is why I asked to raise this matter here this evening. I want to be assured that this is not a trend that is going to creep in because I am concerned for democracy when the powers of public representatives are eroded. It is doing away with one of the lifelines and the bloodlines of democracy.
First of all, I would like to thank the Ceann Comhairle, through the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for allowing this question to be raised. I also would like to pay tribute to the civil service. I have dealt with the civil service for a number of years and I have found within that body a willingness to co-operate at all times. But there is a principle involved here today, the right to know as a public representative. I was horrified here this morning when I first learned the position that there was a change in regard to the procedure for dealing with public representatives.
Some three weeks ago I made representations on behalf of an individual in my constituency. At that time I was informed by the civil servant who dealt with the case that if, in three weeks, the cheque for the farm modernisation grant had not been paid, I should contact him again. This morning I made the same approach. Once more a very civil person came on the telephone but regretted that he could not deal with me saying that it was a matter entirely for the Minister's office and I had no choice but to get in touch with the Minister's office. I felt at that stage that there was a ministerial stranglehold on the civil service. But this fear was modified when, during the discussion today, the Minister for Agriculture denied that he had given any instructions to the civil servants. If he did give such instructions, I wonder is it wise because if we are to return back to the office of the Minister we are going to have a duplication of services. I wonder has the Minister thought of getting extra staff. This procedure is slowing down replies; it is delaying the making of payments and it is delaying justice.
The Minister who worked for farmers and is still working for them can imagine some farmer who had borrowed £20,000 two years ago at 17 or 18 per cent approaching him three weeks ago having in his possession four or five letters from bank managers pressing him for repayment. That person may be legally entitled to £12,000 or £15,000 and cannot get it. When that goes on for 12 months one can understand people asking me to query their payments. They will be waiting for me in my constituency tonight. I have to go back and say "Unfortunately, the people who promised me on that occasion are not in a position to speak to me today". I will have to explain that I was told by responsible people in the civil service that they cannot deal with me and that it is now a matter for the Minister's office.
I am worried and feel that my powers as a public representative and advocate of the people are eroded. There is also an aspersion cast on the civil servants. I am not for a moment suggesting that the Minister told a lie today. I do not believe he would do that but if the civil servants are correct in what they told me there is some sinister purpose behind it. What are they hiding? All we are doing is seeking information for our constituents who are owed large sums of money which should have been paid a long time ago.
If the person concerned rang the Department themselves what would they be told? Would they be told: "We cannot deal with your claim in spite of the fact that we hold your money"? I should like the Minister to make a statement on the matter so that if there has been any misunderstanding regarding interpretation of instructions it can be cleared up. I think the Minister will do that.
If there is an erosion of access by public representatives to look after their constituents, the people will suffer. There is nothing more natural for a person in financial trouble or who needs money than to approach his local representative. It has often been said that our powers are being eroded and that administration is being centralised more and more. This is happening in other areas, but I accept the ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that I may not mention other Departments. We find in our constituencies that we have no power.
It might be difficult for the Minister to explain the decision he is alleged to have made regarding payments. People down the country who are waiting for their money will feel frustrated. The Minister should make a statement so that we can tell them that there has been a misunderstanding and that we are not being used as buffers between the Government and the people and that their money is in safe hands. There is a lot of uncertainty as regards payments. There will be no incentive for farmers to develop because the people who borrowed money cannot get the grants they are entitled to. They depend on the public representatives. I appeal to the Minister to make a statement saying that what we were told was a misunderstanding and not a lie. I am not suggesting any one in the civil service would tell a lie or that the Minister told a lie today.
I am glad to have the opportunity to fully clarify this matter. I go along fully with what Deputies Ryan and O'Brien have said about it being a very important matter and principle. I also go along with their tribute to the civil service and the service that is provided by Deputies, Senators and public representatives generally. This is an essential service and I recognise it as such. I agree fully with what the Deputies said.
As regards the issue raised this morning and the specific accusation that was made by the Deputies that I, as Minister for Agriculture, had given an instruction that all queries would be dealt with through the Minister's office, there are two Ministers of State at the Department of Agriculture and that means there are three Ministers but it was specifically I, as Minister for Agriculture, who was mentioned. I knew that what had been said was totally wrong because I had not issued any instruction to any section in the Department about any matter concerning representations by anybody, public representatives, members of the public or whoever. It is generally recognised, even if I say so myself, that since I went to the Department my office is an open door at any time for anybody with any problem concerning agriculture matters.
As the discussion was progressing Deputy Creed said the Minister was present so I felt I should make my position clear. I turned around and saw that the Minister of State, Deputy Allen, was present. I nodded to him to see if he had given any such instruction. He answered "No" and I made the statement that I did categorically denying that I or my Minister of State gave any such direction. To come to the kernel of the matter, the pressure that has been on the farm modernisation section in the Department has been enormous in recent months for many reasons—reasons about uncertainty of grants because of what happened in other areas of grant assistance, tighter credit control and also the fact that many people are completing work much quicker than they did in the past. Due to the pressure on this section and the amount of representations being made, many of them phone calls by Deputies, the Minister of State, Deputy Hussey, who was delegated responsibility for the farm modernisation section, in consultation with the officials in his office and the farm modernisation section, last Thursday, due to the volume of work and to the complaints about delays in getting cheques out to people when they were sanctioned for payment, had an arrangement with—not a direction—the staff in his office and those in that section. Duplication of representations by Deputies and Senators through the Minister's office and again by phone—I am not saying the Deputies involved here did that but there was a lot of that kind of activity which was a duplication of work—did not lend itself to achieving the results all of us want to achieve on behalf of farmers, which is paying them as quickly as possible for work which they have done and which has been passed. To that extent the matter raised, whether it is called an arrangement or direction, did happen.
This question was raised because, the Deputy said, all representations to the Department concerning applications under the farm modernisation scheme must be processed through the private office of the Minister of State. No such direction was issued by the responsible Minister of State, Deputy Hussey. He mentioned that the duplication of applications from public representatives directly to the Minister's office and the section dealing with the farm modernisation scheme was complicating the system and leading to enormous extra activity.
Because of the implications involved in such a process and because it was brought to my notice for the first time this morning, the matter was changed and the position has been restored to what we all expect from our very efficient and effective civil service, that is, co-operation on any matter. That is the position.
I want to make it clear that I categorically deny what was said this morning—that I had issued such a direction. On behalf of one Minister of State present, I said he did not issue the direction. The staff of the Minister of State with responsibility for that scheme made this arrangement because of the duplication of queries. Often public representatives do not have the necessary information to assist the civil servants—reference numbers and so on—and this leads to further delays.
It has always been my ambition that people who are entitled to money under a grant scheme should get it as quickly as possible. Because of increased activity, the quicker completion of jobs and tighter credit position, people expect to be paid grants much more quickly. For example, in the last six months this section paid out £32 million. In the same period last year about £12 or £13 million was paid. From this Deputies can see that there has been increased activity in this area. It was because of this build-up of pressure and the wish of all concerned to send out cheques and have proof of payment and receipt by the farmers, that the discussion took place last Thursday,
Nobody can blame a civil servant for saying it was a ministerial direction when it came from the office of the Minister of State. I do not think it was intended as such but that is the way it was interpreted. In no way and under no circumstances would I, as Minister, direct any section in my Department not to deal with representations from any source—Deputies, Senators or the general public.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that over the last week there was not as much activity as usual in that section because of a decrease in the number of inquiries from public representatives and, as a result, applications are almost up to date and the processing of grants is as we would like it to be. I want to take this opportunity to tell Deputies what the present position is and what I hope it will remain.
I want to thank the Minister for explaining the position. I can see he is concerned about the people we represent.
I second that. The Minister was very candid. I thank him.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 25 April, 1980.