asked the Minister for Agriculture the percentage of unprocessed animal hides exported at present; and the export subsidy paid on unprocessed animal hides.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Animal Hide Exports.
22.
Mr. Leonard
Exports of unprocessed bovine hides in 1982 represented 96 per cent of total production. No export subsidy is payable.
Mr. Leonard
Would the Minister agree that 96 per cent of the hides are exported?
I must say that the figure has startled me somewhat. I find it difficult to believe. I have raised all sorts of queries in my Department who tell me that in their opinion the question would be better related to the Department of Industry and Energy who have some information on this. That figure is very peculiar. I understand that part of the reason is that we import a sizeable number of hides and seemingly South American hides are considerably cheaper to import than our own are on the European market.
Mr. Leonard
Is the Minister aware that almost ten years ago when a tannery in my constituency closed and we pursued the question at that time, the problem was that we were unable to compete due to the high export subsidy paid on hides? If an export subsidy is not paid now and we are not in a position to process those hides here, it is time there was a closer examination of the situation carried out to try to find what is wrong with our manufacturing process.
I am most concerned about the situation and I realise there was a tannery in Ballybay, the Deputy's constituency. The remaining tanneries are located in my constituency in County Waterford and they are experiencing considerable difficulty. I will look into the point further. Apparently, the market price in Europe for hides is extremely high and most countries can import them considerably cheaper from South America.
The Minister indicated that the question would be more relevant to the Department of Industry and Energy but will he accept that in his reply today he painted a picture of the Department of Agriculture being production-orientated only? Will the Minister accept that he should be organising with the Department of Industry and Energy a proper processing and marketing arrangement for our hides? If there is such a price available in Europe it means that European processors are making money. Why should we not be processing our own raw material rather than exporting it? It is amazing that the Minister, a representative from Waterford, did not know until the question was tabled that 96 per cent of our hides are being exported.
I doubt if any Members from Waterford were aware of that. The hide trade is not well publicised and we do not have much information about it. The Deputy referred to the marketing and development aspects of the Department and I should like to point out to him that in consultation with the Minister for Industry and Energy I have arranged for a senior official from my Department to be appointed to the board of the IDA to further the marketing end of the industry.
What about the processing side? Surely there is an initiative the Minister can take on that side? If the European processors are prepared to pay such high prices, surely it makes good economic and national sense at a time of high unemployment to have the processing of our own raw materials carried out here rather than export them.
Of course it does but it is a normal industrial commercial undertaking and it is up to individual firms to do that.
Surely the Minister, and the Government, have an important role to play in giving incentives to the private sector in this area?
That is purely a matter for the IDA and the Department of Industry and Energy.
The Minister is adopting a lay-back attitude to this matter although we have more than 200,000 people unemployed. It is typical. We have agricultural production and the Minister does not give a damn about marketing or processing.
We will give every technical assistance possible.