asked the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism the number of meetings that have been held by the task force of Ministers of State set up to make recommendations for the development of the Irish food industry; the date of each meeting; and the details of any recommendations made.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Task Force on Food Industry.
3.
The Minister of State Co-Ordinating Group on the Food Industry have had nine meetings so far. These were held on 11 January 1984; 15 February 1984; 22 February 1984; 29 February 1984; 7 March 1984; 28 March 1984; 17 April 1984; 16 May 1984 and 23 May 1984.
At their first meeting, the group decided to invite submissions from Government Departments, State agencies and private sector organisations concerned with the development of the food industry. Submissions were made by the majority of these but some organisations have only recently responded to the group's invitation. In the meantime, the group have been examining, in depth, some of the submissions received and recommendations will be made in due course.
I compliment the Minister on his task force, which obviously have been a good deal more active than the Cabinet group concerned and from whom we get no information. Is it the Minister's view that the first stumbling block in this area is the widespread statutory authority for the development of the food industry, authority that is spread over many State agencies and Government Departments? Consequently, would the Minister consider recommending to the Government that the whole area be brought under one ministerial heading?
I do not accept the implication in the first part of the Deputy's question. There have been numerous meetings of the Cabinet task force on employment. They have met continuously and have made some important decisions.
How often have they met?
That is not strictly relevant.
I am ruling that question out of order.
I agree fully with what the Deputy has said in the second part of his question though I would not go so far as to suggest that the only solution would be to have one Minister responsible for everything. That situation could create as many new demarcation problems as exist already, because there are some matters relating to food which could not be put under one ministerial heading because of their having a link with some other Department. The committee are working very well. To give more up-to-date information, in the past 24 hours they have made a specific recommendation in regard to one area and that recommendation has been accepted by both Ministers concerned. It will be implemented in the near future. However, I cannot make any public statement now as to what that recommendation is. Indeed, I cannot say if a public statement will be made on it, but I am confident that the sort of concrete recommendation involved represents the sort of thing this committee can do well. They are not a committee established for the purpose of making an academic study. They were set up for the purpose of making decisions and that is why the group includes politicians and not officials. From the evidence of the committee's work so far, I am confident they will work very well.
I am glad to hear that decisions will be taken, because they are needed in this area, but would the Minister agree that we are talking of a sphere in which over a period up to 10,000 jobs could be created in the event of the correct strategy being set?
I agree, but I would add that the matters to which the Deputy refers are not the only ones with which the committee are dealing. They are dealing with departmental problems and with the question of the lack of co-ordination of State services. There is a whole area in which there is a lack of co-ordination between private sector interests in the food industry. I have indicated already what I am doing about the supermarkets, for instance, and the possibility of additional food processing in that respect. I agree that this is area in which we need to make major progress, but this is a matter which will be addressed in detail in the industrial White Paper.
Since Deputy Reynolds seems to be not clear regarding my ruling on his question concerning the Cabinet task force and since he raised the matter in the House twice and again today, I should like to clarify the position briefly.
The practice for many years has been that questions seeking information on matters relating to internal arrangements of the Cabinet are disallowed. These are matters for which the Taoiseach is not responsible to the Dáil. Deputy Reynolds' question on the Cabinet task force was disallowed in accordance with this long-standing practice. Question No. 3 on today's Order Paper does not relate to the Cabinet but to the task force of Ministers of State and accordingly it was allowed.
I accepted your ruling yesterday evening but I was surprised that the Taoiseach did not take the opportunity in Private Members' Time to answer the question. Perhaps you could clarify one matter. I accept that today's question is totally different from the other one, but apart from the situation where subcommittees of the Cabinet are set up by the Taoiseach, in this instance the Taoiseach came into the House——
I shall not have a discussion on this. The Chair is entitled to make a statement qualifying the position. I have done that and that is the end of the discussion.
I would not attempt to put down a question in relation to a security subcommittee, for instance, but the Taoiseach came into the House and announced the setting up of this committee. It was part of the Programme for Government. It is very strange that the Taoiseach is not responsible to the House. To be told that is a step in the wrong direction as far as democracy is concerned. If he kept it within the Cabinet and did not bring it into the Dáil or the public arena I would accept it. He seems to use the techniques when they suit him.
The Taoiseach is not responsible.
It is question of policy. It is part of the Government's policy announced in the House.
I suggest to Deputy Reynolds that if he is not satisfied with Standing Orders or with precedents he should take the matter up with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I still have to have a discussion with you in your office.
The Deputy did not avail of that opportunity yet.
If the Chair had to try to hold on in the House as I have had to and do all that I have to do, the Chair would not have had time either. I may have time in the afternoon.