andMr. P. Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the meeting he, and the Ministers for Finance and Agriculture, had with members of the farmers' organisations on Tuesday, 27 February 1979.

Following confirmation by the farming organisations of their agreement to the arrangements worked out at the meeting on 27 February, I have had the statement issued after that meeting laid before both Houses by my Department.

Is the Taoiseach not going to have a discussion on the matter in this House? Does not the Taoiseach think that discussing the budget in view of what happened last week is a fairly pointless exercise on the part of the House?

The arrangements made but which are not finalised yet and which are subject to ultimate acceptance by the farming organisations are now the property of the House and, therefore, they are open for debate in the continuing budget debate.

Did the Taoiseach say, "final to the acceptance by the farming organisations"? Are they the words he used just now?

Has the Deputy finished his question?

Yes. I wanted to find out if that was correct?

I have not answered it yet.

I wanted to check that the Taoiseach used those words. Does not the Taoiseach think it at least undesirable that any section of the community should be allowed discussion on a budgetary matter which this House has not had the opportunity of discussing?

Budgetary matters are discussed in advance with various organisations. Consultations on tax and budgetary matters are normal and I can quote several organisations—the Confederation of Irish Industry, the Federated Union of Employers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions among others—who have made submissions on public expenditure, on income, welfare and taxation and, in turn, they have been consulted about their views. On this occasion we have agreed to have consultations with the farmers and then devise a taxation system to which they must publicly subscribe. Otherwise the levy will be put on as from 1 May, as proposed.

Does not the Taoiseach agree that the other organisations he named, and probably including the farmers' organisations, made submissions in advance of the budget? These discussions are taking place subsequent to the budget being introduced in this House. Does the Taoiseach consider that the Government are giving this House the status it deserves by coming to an arrangement outside the House and which is not subject to this House?

We are having a debate on this question.

This is an argument. I suppose the Deputy is entitled to make the argument at another time but it is valid enough in the context of the question. However, I do not want to interfere with the ruling of the Chair. In January last I called for discussion and consultation of this nature between the so-called social partners, between all the interests involved including trade unions, manufacturers, employer organisations and including the farmers. I think that kind of consultation is necessary. I said that such consultations should refer to tax, social welfare, price increases and matters of that nature.

Were not these discussions with a view to getting an agreement on wages in the current year and not on the budget, after the budget had been brought before the House and while it was under discussion? That is the difference.

That is not the difference because that is not true. I invited these consultations and negotiations with a view to getting an understanding on all the matters to which I have referred, namely, on price increases, wage increases, taxation, and social welfare payments. The Deputy may remember I said that if we could come to an agreement over the next year or the next three or five years it would be a desirable way of getting the forward move in the economy for which we were hoping.

In view of the privileged status given to the farming organisations to draft their own ideas on taxation and how it should affect them, does the Taoiseach envisage granting a like privilege to the PAYE sector?

That is a separate question. All of this is appropriate to the budget debate that is continuing.

It is only fair that I should get an opportunity of replying to what the Deputy has wrongly alleged.

The farmers have not got the privilege of drafting their own tax proposals. The farmers have been given the opportunity of consulting with us and with the Revenue Commissioners and the Government will devise a taxation system——

Decision-making has passed from here to Portlaoise or wherever the farming organisations choose to meet.

When the truth is told the Deputies do not want to listen. I said when that system is devised the farmers will have publicly to subscribe to it. Otherwise the arrangements made in connection with the levy will proceed and that is a fact.

Does not the Taoiseach consider it wrong that when a budget is introduced in this House, the Parliament of the country, that one section of the community can disagree with part of it and make the entire discussion of the budget, as well as the budget itself quite meaningless?

This is an argument. We cannot have a debate on this, particularly since it is appropriate to the budget debate which is continuing at the moment. There have been enough questions on this.

The budget——

The Chair will not permit further discussion.

The budget in its entirety is not before the House because one element of it is being discussed outside the House.

Does not the Taoiseach agree that the refusal of the Government to allow discussion inside this House not only on a change in a budgetary matter but on the question of the removal of food subsidies and other matters——

That question is not appropriate at this stage.

Does not the Taoiseach agree that this is diminishing the power of this House and is encouraging street politics?

I am calling Question No. 2.