(Limerick West): I should like to express my thanks to the Deputies who contributed to this debate, to the Minister for Agriculture who spoke last evening and to the Minister of State, Deputy Hegarty, who spoke this evening.
I am disappointed at the response of the Minister, and that is putting it mildly. In my contribution last evening I said the Minister would have an opportunity of highlighting the Government's commitment, programme and policy with regard to the development of the food processing industry. As Deputy Michael Ahern rightly pointed out, the contributions of the Ministers were just padding and waffle. They have given no hope to this major industry which employs so many people and which has had a considerable impact on the social life of the areas concerned.
The amendment in the name of the Minister for Agriculture reads as follows:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute:
"supports the efforts of the Government to increase the production of raw material for the food processing industry and to promote the development of the industry along the most efficient lines."
Deputy De Rossa has an amendment in his name and he has asked us to support it. As I said last night, actions speaks louder than words. The Minister for Agriculture has stated he was only 18 days in office in 1982 but he has now been in office for the past five months. However, there is no indication of any action by the Government. There was no indication of a commitment by the Minister in his contribution last night or by the Minister of State, Deputy Hegarty, the person responsible for the promotion of the food industry. They have not given any hope for the future and that is why we cannot support the amendment in the name of the Minister. We consider it is just an excuse for inaction, that it is a delaying tactic so far as our motion is concerned.
Last night the Minister when referring to the EEC price negotiations said:
"It is regrettable that in spite of all my endeavours, the price negotiations in Brussels have not yet been finalised but I am confident that the eventual package will be a worthwhile one and will show a considerable improvement over the level of the increase that had been anticipated earlier this year".
The Minister used the words "all my endeavours" but I am at a loss to know what this meant. The breakdown of the price negotiations, the annual agricultural review on the morning of 28 April last, is responsible for further losses to Irish farmers. These losses are increasing by £500,000 per day because of the failure of the Council of Ministers to come to a decision. The loss is hitting all farmers but it is affecting to a great extent the dairy farmers who are responsible for a major part of our food processing industry.
This and previous Governments have encouraged early calving and most of our progressive farmers have pushed early calving back to January in response to the national demand. They are now being unfairly penalised by the delay in the negotiations and have been badly let down by our Minister for Agriculture. The farmers who are suffering are responsible for a major input into the food processing industry. The most amazing feature of the situation is that the British Minister, Mr Walker, has greatly outwitted our Minister. He can now block even the most reasonable decision in favour of Ireland. Our Minister has let himself become isolated in regard to many aspects of these price negotiations, particularly in regard to the British variable premium. This is a financial advantage enjoyed by British exporters which is not only unfair to our interests but also contrary to the very principles of the Community.
The Minister should now call the British bluff by taking the initiative to bring the talks to an end, even to the extent of using the ultimate weapon. He might take a leaf out of his predecessor Mark Clinton's book, a colleague of his own party, who took the necessary action during the price negotiations in the mid-seventies by walking out of talks. This is the tough approach which the Minister should adopt with regard to these negotiations. Every day of indecision is costing our farmers dearly. I hope that this necessary action will be taken because the negotiating table at Brussels is no place for amateurs. We have an old saying—there is little point in sending a boy in a man's place and that is the situation with regard to the present Minister for Agriculture.
The Minister stated that the Government's second aim for our agricultural sector is to encourage increased efficiency at all levels, not least on the farm itself. An abundant supply of raw materials efficiently produced is essential to the welfare of any processing industry. This is certainly the case with our own food processing sector, which constitutes a major part of the Irish manufacturing industry as a whole. Contrast those laudable words with the absence of action. Action speaks louder than words, but action is lacking. The reverse is happening in so far as agriculture is concerned. It is downgraded by this Government, who have destroyed any prospect of economic recovery.
Government mismanagement of the whole economy, not alone in the agricultural sector, has undermined the farmers' confidence and prolonged the dreaded farm recession. That is the reality of what is happening. There is little point in the Minister expressing laudable sentiments that there should be greater production and greater efficiency but not giving the farmers the backing of the Government. Perhaps the Minister has the goodwill of our farmers at heart and is not getting support from his Government. Time will tell and we shall see what happens in the future.
I agree with the Minister that agriculture is Ireland's most important industry, contributing at least 50 per cent of our total net exports and employing half of the working population, directly or indirectly. The agricultural sector have demonstrated their ability to contribute to the economic growth in the past and I have no doubt, provided the commitment is there, that it can do so in the future. We in Government have created and will again the economic environment conducive to revitalising the farming industry, which will generate increased output and improve income. This, in turn, will hasten our economic recovery. Above all, it will recreate job opportunities, not alone for people employed in agriculture, but in all other sectors.
I give the example of our four-year plan for agricultural development. This was being put into operation when we left office in December of last year. That plan contained the ingredients for the restoration of confidence in farming. It was long-term planning which is so vitally needed in the development of agriculture at present and in the development of the food processing industry based on agriculture. Lack of interest by the Government has been highlighted by the action of the delegates of the farm organisations representing their associations in the previous Government's working party. Their recent resignations are further evidence of this Government's complete abandoning of the farming sector.
The budget recently introduced by the Minister for Finance, who should be aware of the problems affecting agriculture, is costing farmers in the region of £3 million a week because of the level of taxation. It is inhibiting farming enterprises. In addition, lack of decision by the Council of Ministers with regard to the settlement of agricultural prices is costing our farmers in the region of £½ million per day. Then the Minister came into the House last evening and outlined the importance of more efficient and increased production. This can be effected only by incentives, by the Government giving the necessary assistance and wherewithal to achieve that efficiency. What can we expect when the Government have reneged totally on their commitment to the development of agriculture?
The Minister said in the course of his remarks last evening also that he wanted to emphasise that the setting up of a committee was not the solution to the problem. The Minister of State made reference to this matter again this evening when he said that I was somewhat dismissive of the work of the committee. What I said was that there was little point in setting up a committee to examine a problem about which we all know. I said it was necessary to take action now rather than set up committees or commissions to examine the problem, that what is required now is action.
In regard to the production of raw materials at farm level the inflation factor is crucial. In this respect it is interesting to note the Minister's latest estimate of the rate of inflation for 1983 which he put at approximately 12 per cent. Of course this inflation is caused by the budgetary strategy of the Minister for Finance. I hope agriculture will be fully compensated by increased prices from Brussels. However, I doubt that such increased prices will be forthcoming at present.
I must emphasise again greater output and efficiency at farm level, as outlined by the Minister last evening. Government action is not consistent with those laudable words, more particularly their action in the recent budget showing no support at all for agricultural development. There have been also the suspension of the farm modernisation grants, the farm retirement scheme and many of the other aids to agriculture introduced by this party when in Government. Yet the Minister can come into this House and say we must be more efficient and produce more while the Minister for Finance and the Government remove the aids to do that vital work. Surely that is not consistent with good Government policy in regard to agricultural development? I would appeal to the Minister of State — whom I know has a commitment to the development of agriculture — to bring that message to his Minister.
Much has been said in this debate with regard to the Sugar Company. What was said by the Minister last evening and the Minister of State this evening gives no indication of positive action in this regard. Indeed their words were very inept, indicating no positive action for the development of this vital sector of our economy. The Minister's remarks gave no great hope. Something should be done immediately to save and secure present jobs. I was glad to note that the Minister of State this evening accepted the facts I put forward with regard to the whole of the food processing industry. However, the Government have not given the Minister the necessary support. It should be remembered that the whole of our agricultural industry can provide the wherewithal for the recovery of our economy.
The Minister last evening referred to a deputation he had received from Limerick with regard to Mattersons and said I had stated that he was very discourteous to that deputation. Those are not my words alone. In this respect I want to quote from the Limerick Echo of April 2, from an article entitled “Minister Goofs Jobs Appeal”, which said:
A deputation from Limerick was "shocked" to discover that the Minister for Agriculture didn't know enough about Mattersons. And now local union chiefs have asked whether a deal was done to save a factory elsewhere by closing our historic cannery. It was revealed today that Mr. Austin Deasy, Minister for Agriculture, had believed Mattersons to be privately owned. It is, in fact, part of the State-owned Sugar Company.
Even the Minister for Agriculture did not know that Mattersons was State-owned. The article continued:
The union leaders have now stated that they were treated with "scant courtesy" by the Minister when he met the Limerick deputation.
Those are the facts. Indeed I have news for the Minister of State present — when the Minister was contacted by the same paper the following week, speaking at his Waterford home, he is reported as saying that there had never been a question of a deal to keep East Cork Foods open while closing Mattersons. He said both were to close and the idea of a deal was nonsense. That is in sharp contrast with what the Minister of State said this evening when referring to East Cork Foods.
It is sad to note the Government's lack of commitment to the agricultural sector and the food processing industry. I ask the House to support this motion bearing in mind the continuation of the food processing industry in East Cork and, most important of all, the provision of the wherewithal to ensure that the Tuam sugar factory remains open. This party have given that commitment because we feel there is a social aspect involved in these processing industries.