Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Nov 1989

Vol. 392 No. 5

Bord Glas Bill 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Farrelly

Before Question Time I went through a number of sections and asked a number of questions about the Bill but there is another point I want clarified. It relates to the question mark over the legality in EC terms of a statutorily imposed levy in order to encourage and assist in the production and marketing of horticultural products. I wonder about the overall position with regard to EC law. It is another aspect of the proposal that has not been thought out and which was not dealt with in the Minister's address to the House.

The Minister envisages the transfer of property to the board. What property has he in mind? Is it intended that the agricultural colleges owned by the Department of Agriculture and Food will be transferred to the board, or are other properties involved? The House is entitled to know the proposals on this.

I had grave reservations about the setting up of ACOT. The ratepayers provided fine offices for the staff of ACOT and Teagasc and within a short space of time, with the introduction of a Bill here, all of those offices were taken over free gratis and for nothing by the new board.

I have referred already to my fear that the functions of this new board will overlap those of existing agencies such as CTT and Teagasc. The functions of the new board are covered in some detail in sections 5 and 6 of the Bill. Bearing in mind that we are talking about a party and Government who over the past two and a half years have been impressing on us the importance of rationalisation, thereby effecting savings, and the enormous amounts of money involved in redundancy and early retirement payments to public servants, I find it hard to believe that they are now setting up another puppet, another agency, whose functions will overlap or duplicate those already in existence.

I should like to know from the Minister whether the provisions of section 8 (2) remove all responsibility from Teagasc for the horticultural industry. In the course of talks and negotiations at one point the Minister inferred that Teagasc would be foremost in organising and developing the horticultural industry. Yet a decision was taken at Government level — whether by the Taoiseach or somebody else — to establish this new Bord Glas so that Teagasc will no longer be actively involved in this area. I should like the Minister to state what is the exact position in that regard.

The provisions of section 9 provide that the board may consult other persons but, of course, there is no obligation on such persons to pay any attention to the wishes of the board. What other people has the Minister in mind with a view to such consultations? What consultation will take place? If there is no such consultation will the board go ahead and do their own thing since it would appear that is what will happen anyway? I should like to ascertain the exact position in this regard also. For example, will Bord Glas have any role to play in the disbursement of EC moneys? Furthermore, is it intended that the board will be responsible for the interests of growers they represent with regard to their aspirations to develop and/or seek grants? I predict that will lead to somebody in the Department of Agriculture and Food telephoning a counterpart in the EC daily—as happens now — with somebody else in Bord Glas performing the same task. I have already referred to the soft sell. Certainly Bord Glas personnel who have been operating in the field over the past year or so have been contending that there are extra grants, of 66.5 per cent or whatever, available to get growers' proposals up and running. They have been contending that they will be in touch with growers in an endeavour to help them to the maximum extent. It would appear that this is a soft sell to a small percentage of growers with whom Bord Glas have been in contact. I have no doubt but that there will be abundant overlapping here. I do hope the Minister will answer my queries when replying.

With regard to section 11 would the Minister say what are the services for which charges are to be imposed, what will be the rates of such charges and on whom is it envisaged they will be levied? There was no reference in the course of the Minister's introductory remarks to the amounts of such charges. Indeed he contended that it would be wrong to speculate on their amount. Surely the industry should be informed of what charges will be imposed on them henceforth. We are all aware of many producers having gone out of business on account of having made little profits or whatever over the years. I hope the House will be given some additional information in this respect.

Neither is it clear from a reading of the provisions of section 7 whether it is proposed to give the new board power to impose charges for services on people who do not use those services. If one relates this to another area in which there are charges for services rendered recently we find there was a court case when somebody in the Minister's own constituency brought a local authority to court. The particular appellant had not used the relevant service. The court ruled that he did not have to pay for the service even though he had been compelled to do so for the same service over several years. Is it maintained, with regard to the provisions of this section, that somebody who does not use the services, such as, say, a producer, will have to pay? This is such a grey area these matters will have to be thrashed out thoroughly. The Minister has not given the House any idea of what will happen in such circumstances.

With regard to section 12 (1) who will be empowered to collect the levies to be imposed? Will those levies be compulsory on all sections of the industry, including those people who sell produce in, say, Moore Street, to whom I referred earlier? Is the Minister satisfied that the provisions of this and other sections are in accordance with the Treaty of Rome? Are we within our rights in that regard? Will there be similar levies imposed on imported goods? Can anybody tell us? Will the importer have to pay? Will there be a levy imposed on Irish goods for export? If that were to be the case it would render us less competitive vis-à-vis our produce on foreign markets. There is an enormous number of questions needing to be answered. Therefore, we must ask if Members of this House, other than the relevant spokespersons, are aware of the seriousness of the proposals involved here.

In regard to the provisions of section 12 (2) one may well ask whether producers, importers and wholesalers will be liable equally for such levies. Indeed will retailers be liable for levies? Also will street or roadside traders or hawkers be liable for such payments? Will levies be imposed at the point of entry? If we are to have a coherent policy with regard to such levies, are we talking about every pound of every vegetable sold in this State being liable to the same type of levy? Or indeed is it proposed that there will be levies imposed at the point of production? For example, how does the Minister envisage that a second or subsequent seller will not be responsible for the type of levies incurred by the first seller? Does the Minister agree that ultimately it is the consumer who bears the brunt of such levies? At the end of the day we must remember that, no matter which area one talks about, whenever a levy is imposed on any produce or commodity, it leads to an increased price to be paid by the consumer. It can have no other outcome than lead to increased inflation. If we are realistic about the imposition of levies on products equally we realise that is the inevitable result.

In regard to section 12 (4), we have not been informed of the rates involved. Will all the people I have mentioned who are involved in the horticultural industry be charged different rates? If a particular levy is imposed will it refer only to Irish products or will it refer to all products? The large supermarket chains and shops selling a majority of imported products can increase their prices to the same level as those of the Irish products thereby making extra money out of this proposal. There are many grey areas in these proposals and I am sorry to say that none of them has been dealt with in the Minister's address today. Will any person be exempt from the obligation of paying levies? At present no one knows but within three, five or six months after the setting up of this board, we will all know. There will probably be a 2 per cent increase in the rate of inflation because of these proposals.

I would like to refer to the authorised officers. What powers will they have? Will they be akin to the sheriff or the customs and excise personnel? That is another very important aspect of the proposal that I believe Members should be aware of before we vote on this Bill. The Minister did not refer in his speech to the actual position and I regret having to say that what we are proposing here will result in new types of criminals — horticultural criminals.

Section 15 relates to the employment of a chief executive officer. If this proposal is accepted I would like to think the chief executive officer would be employed on a contract basis outside the scope of public service pay regulations. If we are in earnest about developing a board to run, improve and develop the horticultural industry, is the Minister seriously suggesting that someone on a salary of £24,000 per annum should run such an important enterprise as the Government have proposed? In the last two and a half years some of our best civil servants have been paid twice that amount to leave the system. Are we in earnest when we propose somebody of this grade for such a worthwhile job, somebody who should be dynamic and should lead the field?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does Deputy Farrelly not think this is a matter that might be more appropriate for discussion under the particular section?

Mr. Farrelly

It is important that these points are made on Second Stage because I hope the Minister will take time to discuss the matters with the industry before this Bill becomes law. I want to make that point but I do not want to labour it. I believe that the chief executive officer should be an ex officio, nonvoting member of the board. The right person should be employed under contract for a specific period. That is the only way we will be able to get rid of that person if he is not doing a good job. Under the proposal in the Bill, if the person employed does not carry out the job properly there will be a problem in getting rid of him as chief executive officer.

In regard to section 16, would the Minister agree that the Bill is designed to remove personnel from the payroll of the Department of Agriculture and Food and other Departments and to transfer them to the jurisdiction of An Bord Glas where they will be paid by the horticultural industry? The Minister did not mention the cost of running An Bord Glas. All of us in this House should be informed of that on a year to year basis. Every section that is added to that board will cost more money. It is stated in the Bill that the board will be funded for the first year until they get up and running, impose charges and so on, but after that they are on their own. The industry pays the piper following the first year's work. We should be informed of the level of costs envisaged by the Minister to run the board.

Section 21 requires that the accounts of the board are submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit. I wonder if this work could be given to an accountancy firm. From my experience, I believe the Comptroller and Auditor General has so much work to do that there is a substantial backlog. It is important that the annual accounts be made available within three months of the end of the accounting period in order that those who fund the activities of this board will know what exactly is happening within the board. We are all aware of the consequences of a delay in publishing accounts and the problems which could accrue as a result and which may not be addressed until it is too late.

In relation to the Schedule, which contains a provision which would allow the Minister to appoint his five appointees, can the Minister tell us why it is also necessary for him to decide on the five appointees from the horticultural industry? Why is it not possible for the Minister to appoint five people nominated by the industry, the members of which will pay the levy? Why does the Minister want to retain sole responsibility for appointing the ten members of this board? I do not believe that the present proposal is acceptable to the organisations involved. The people who will pay the levies and charges to be introduced, will have no say in how that money is spent in the development of the horticultural industry in the years ahead.

In relation to the proposal to change the board after three years does the Minister envisage there being continuity? I am sure it would be the view of previous Ministers that it is important that there be continuity. I hope amendments will be accepted on Committee Stage to meet some of the points which I have made on the Bill.

There are a number of points which the Minister made to which I would like to refer. In his speech the Minister stated:

In addition to those bodies there are, moreover, the producers who are a most important element in the development process and the wholesale and retail merchants who have a very important part to play....

There would be no industry without the producer. I honestly believe, on the basis of what the Minister has said here, that the producer is not getting fair play. All that is happening here is that the producer — those who have survived — is being patted on the back for being the top man in his job but at the same time we are not prepared to give him any say in the running of this board as proposed. The Minister also referred to producer groups a few of which have been set up. I am delighted about this. My predecessor in this portfolio was the man who went about setting up such producer groups. We may not have as many as we would like but in relation to the potato producer groups to which the Minister referred I would hope that only small numbers will be involved. The Minister spoke about a minimum number of ten but I believe that in rural areas it may not always be possible to have such a number. If this number could be reduced to five I would see a far greater number of producers getting involved in producer groups. I would like the Minister to refer to this matter when replying and to indicate if it is EC policy and if he would be willing to go back to try to get this number reduced.

In his speech the Minister also referred to the hardy nursery stock sector. He stated and I quote:

The hardy nursery stock sector is making progress here and has, for some time now, been endeavouring to establish itself in a strong position on the British market where there is great scope for this business.

I find it hard to believe we are talking about this sector in the context of exports. On the home market, this sector has enormous potential, if there is proper planning of the sale of hardy nursery stock. I ask the Minister to contact his counterpart or the Minister for the Environment who has responsibility for the road building programme. The domestic market has reached saturation point. The main local authority in the country have been given the responsibility of providing hardy nursery stock to public authorities for planting along new roads. We now have discovered, lo and behold, that this local authority are buying most of the material abroad. If we are serious about tackling the problems in all of these areas why did we not ask the question "why are they buying most of this product abroad?" The answer is simple, they are not being told in time. It is a difficult product to produce and contracts are put to tender in favour of the importer. Not alone are the decisions made for local authorities on where roads are to be constructed but when approval is sanctioned local authorities find that the decision was in the pipeline for between two and three years. Without having to introduce a Bord Glas Bill or another layer of bureaucracy this is one area where we can do something for the industry by giving those involved in the production of hardy nursery stock large orders, thus replacing imported stock, for the next five years when massive road development will take place. I ask the Minister to get together with the Minister for the Environment, speak to the officials of the Dublin local authority and make immediate decisions to reverse the present position.

It is very sad that discussions did not take place with the people involved in the industry on the provisions contained in the Bill, on the levies and charges and the proposed development of the industry once the new board take up office. I would like to see at the conclusion of this debate that immediate contact be made with the industry in connection with amending the proposals in this Bill. We can put down amendments to do anything we want if the Minister and his Government are in agreement. The irony is that if this Bill had come before the House three or four months ago everyone would have been in agreement to ensure its passage through the House.

The industry are not very pleased with the proposals in this Bill. The letter which the Minister received from the chairman of the horticultural committee on 1 November 1989 outlines exactly what I am saying. There is goodwill to improve the industry and to make it what it should be but the proposals in the Bill do not go any way to deal with the actual problems in the industry over a long number of years. If we are in earnest about tackling the problems of imports or if we are to tackle the problem of improving the Irish products that come on the market, I would like to think that we would at least have the goodwill of those involved in the industry. In fairness, the majority of those involved in the industry would not be inclined to accept the proposed levy, but be it a levy or a contribution surely the least we might look for is that some of those people would be represented on this new board and they could have a say and could look after their investment to ensure that it is spent wisely. We are talking about developing methods of production and marketing the produce. We have one of the best climates to produce some of the produce we have been speaking about for the past few hours. Taking into consideration the details in the Bill and the letters the Minister has received from the industry, I do not think enough thought has gone into ensuring that this board when it is up and running will be successful.

Mr. Leonard

It will be as successful as the producers are in the marketplace.

Mr. Farrelly

The powers the Minister is proposing to give to the board are such that we will have a situation — which I regret because of my sensitivity and consultation with the industry——

Mr. Kirk

There has been ongoing consultation on a regular basis from the time the interim board was established.

Mr. Farrelly

——of "us" and "them", us being the producers, and them being the board.

May I reply to the Minister's remark that there have been ongoing discussions by quoting a letter from the IFA? The letter states:

I understand that the first reading of the Bord Glas Bill is scheduled for Thursday next. It is a matter of grave concern that this Bill is being introduced without any consultation with the horticultural industry with regard to its detail or its implementation.

I.F.A. cannot take a position on this Bill until certain matters are clarified with the Minister. I would urge that there should be immediate contact between the Minister, his Department and the various sections of our industry so that the opinions of those directly involved can be taken on board and incorporated into this Bill. Failure to do this could have very serious consequences for the implementation of any future policy and for the effectiveness of any future board.

The letter was signed by Aidan Arnold.

Mr. Kirk

Who is a member of the interim board.

Mr. Farrelly

Mr. Arnold has signed this letter and sent it out on behalf of the industry. Although he is a member of the interim board, the facts are here in black and white in a letter which the Minister has received.

The industry requires a substantial amount of work to develop the important strategy on the replacement of foreign imports. The Minister is not giving the industry an opportunity to ensure that this task will be successful because we are going to have the situation of "us", the producer and "them", the board.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Farrelly

If the Deputy reads the Bill and goes through it with a fine comb, as I have, he need not have any worries. I am outlining what will happen on the ground if the proposals as they stand are implemented. I ask that the Minister would consider very seriously the proposals I have made and that the goodwill of the industry be harnessed to do something positive because the proposals in the Bill are not the way forward for the further development of the industry.

Mr. Leonard

The Deputy has not made one suggestion.

Mr. Farrelly

I made over five pages of suggestions but you were not here to listen so do not start shouting from the backbenches.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Farrelly is not obliged to hear or to respond to any interruptions. Before calling on Deputy Emmet Stagg, may I presume to advise the House that on Second Stage the requirement of Standing Orders is that we deal with the principle of the Bill. We are at liberty to refer to what is in it and also to suggest what might be in it but we are not expected to roam in any great detail through every section.

Mr. Stagg

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I intended to preface my remarks by stating that I intended to deal with the broad principles of the Bill rather than the technical details, which I intend to deal with on Committee Stage. I would ask, Sir, that you bear with me a little while. I presume what we have just heard over a long period of time is a short glimpse of the new look Fine Gael, which seems to be opposition for opposition's sake, without any material differences between what the Minister is saying and what the so-called principal Opposition party are saying.

Mr. Farrelly

You should mind yourself, Deputy.

Mr. Stagg

I am well able to look after myself, I assure the Deputy.

Mr. Farrelly

You mind your own seat.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Farrelly should feel indebted to the House for the patience shown while he made his contribution and, I am sure, conscious of that, he will reciprocate in a like manner towards other Deputies. Deputy Stagg, without interruption.

Mr. Stagg

The Deputy's contribution was not worth interrupting and that is why there were no interruptions.

I never cease to be amazed at how we organise our agricultural industry. We have the crazy, scandalous situation where we produce mountains of beef and milk which nobody wants. We store them at high cost at the taxpayers' expense — making what they consume more expensive — until they are no longer useful and then recycle them to make more beef and milk, thus continuing the huge drain on the taxpayers' and consumers' pocket. At the same time as we have this gross overproduction in one area we are importing into an agricultural country £1,000 million worth of vegetables which we could produce. I believe those figures are produced by the Department of Agriculture and Food. It is a scandal that an agricultural country should import vegetables worth £1,000 million while we are, effectively, dumping beef and milk products.

The previous speaker spoke about the production of vegetables since the Stone Age. It appears to me that Stone Age methods are being used so far as the production of horticultural produce is concerned. Indeed, the previous speaker would seem to advocate that we remain in that position as well. Imported cauliflowers cost 90 pence and turnips 40 pence. I have done a calculation about the number of turnips of average size at 40 pence each which would fit into a square metre of a field. I grew and snagged turnips when I was young. The value of a ten acre field of turnips, at 40 pence each, is £250,000. A ten-acre field would produce £250,000 worth of produce. At the price housewives are paying for turnips in Dublin city at present that is the value of a ten-acre field of turnips. I think that illustrates the craziness of a horticultural/agricultural country importing vast amounts of vegetables.

The horticultural sector has been one of the more under-developed sectors of Irish agriculture losing out on jobs and home market share, not to mention the export potential of the sector. Imports now account for over one-third of the value of all fresh vegetables we could produce ourselves. I think the Minister might even have given a higher figure than that. Fifty per cent of all tomatoes, 82 per cent of onions and 86 per cent of apples are imported at present. We import parsley, and we imported the Colorado beetle in parsley a few years ago. If one threw parsley seed on the floor of this House it would grow, it is that easy to grow; yet we are importing parsley. What is wrong with this crazy system where we are actually importing fresh herbs like parsley which are so easy to grow?

It should be stressed that this situation has come about under the unhindered guidance and stewardship of the private sector. The State effectively has not been involved in any meaningful way. The private sector have run agriculture since the Stone Age and, as has been said by the previous speaker, are still effectively in the Stone Age in their operations, giving us the results we now have. If a measure was ever needed to correct this situation one is needed now, and in this area.

Exports amount to less than 25 per cent of the value of total imports whereas in the entire agricultural and food sector exports amount to more than two and half times the value of imports. Not only is there a considerable balance of trade deficit in this sector but it is also clear there are considerable job losses from the failure to expand this sector. The interim Bord Glas proposed a job target of 1,750 full time jobs with an additional 1,500 part time jobs. The IDA's strategy for the future of the food industry proposes, in the mushroom sector alone, 300 jobs in processing with an additional 1,200 jobs in growing and picking. I would submit that these job targets constitute only a medium to short term programme and do not in any way realise the full potential of jobs in the horticultural sector. I believe the number of jobs can be much greater than the projections put forward.

While the Government's Bill proposes the establishment of a statutory board to develop all aspects of horticulture with a view to increasing output, recovering domestic market share, creating jobs and maximising export potential, it is clear that the mere establishment of such a board will not necessarily realise these goals. This is where I have a difficulty with the proposal. It is imperative that the Government provide the organisational flexibility and financial resources to carry out a major programme of renovation and reorganisation in this sector.

First, to assess whether Board Glas are likely to meet with success we must examine the problems this sector faces. It is widely recognised that the sector struggles under poor growing and harvesting techniques and from a lack of varieties. The competitiveness of the European market puts a premium on skills and crop variety. In the first instance, we need to break into the top quality produce market and lengthen the season of growing. This can only be done through a concentrated programme of education and advice given the relatively low level of skills in large sections of the sector.

Secondly, there is a lack of marketing strategy among growers. The lack of producer groups in Ireland means that marketing discipline and co-operation will continue to inhibit levels of output and realisation of their value on home and export markets. It is not clear that a passive strategy of encouragement, as opposed to a more interventionist role by the State in marketing, will ensure that growers participate in producer groups.

Thirdly, there is the weakness of the processing sector. This is an historical development arising from the financial and legislative castration of Erin Foods and the Sugar Company and the failure of the State to increase public enterprise in this sector. For example, nearly 7,000 acres for growing peas, French beans, carrots, celery, cabbage and parsnips were utilised by Erin Foods in 1976. Ten years later this acreage was reduced to barely over 1,000 acres. Examples of bad producer/processor relationships in our processing sector and in horticultural produce are numerous. In one instance a foreign juice producing firm offered to locate in Ireland if they could be guaranteed at least 10,000 tonnes of apples per year. However, this was far beyond the capacity of the processing apple output. This failure to maximise output and establish proper contractual relations between growers and processors meant a loss of jobs, agricultural income and value added to the economy.

Fourthly, the high capital cost of glasshouses and the high cost of energy limits our ability to produce all the year round. A concerted strategy of extending the glasshouse industry would yield enormous benefits to the economy in terms of export balance, increased jobs, increased output and full season supply for the processing industry. However, there is little private capital available from growers for the scale of investments necessary. In addition there is little co-ordination of energy supplies to help lower the cost of glasshouses and minimise our reliance on imported energy. Co-ordination of natural gas supplies, surplus heat from the ESB, design of glasshouses and research into solar heating which can complement energy intake is necessary.

Fifthly, there is a considerable lack of the necessary technology to facilitate growth in this sector, primarily in the areas of on-farm and distributor's storage and drying and composting facilities for such produce as onions, cabbages, strawberries and mushrooms. Again, this will require considerable investment to ensure increased output and a more co-ordinated distribution. There are other issues confronting this sector: the need for a major research programme in a number of areas; centralisation of distribution in Dublin leading to extra handling and transport costs; the lack of advice in investment into organic produce which is gaining an increasing market in European countries; concern over food quality among consumers; and the manipulation of dietary patterns by multi-national food processors which undermine the consumption of fresh agricultural products. The major issue we face here is whether the creation of a statutory horticultural board will enable us to confront these problems. Of course, it would be a necessary component of any strategy to reorganise and modernise this sector to establish such a board, but this is not sufficient.

I would like to ask the Minister therefore, what is the level of financial resources available to the board from direct State investment not only in the area of glasshouses but of on-farm and distribution technology? Will the board become directly involved in the development of such items with the possibility of leasing or selling to producer groups and distributors? What level of finance will be available for research programmes to be undertaken by the board? Will extra resources be made available to Teagasc, or is it suggested that such a programme will be financed out of the present inadequate resources? Will there be any role for them in the processing sector, and if so, will that role be extended to create public enterprises or joint ventures with private firms in key, export areas? What will be the relationship between the Sugar Company, Erin Foods and the new board?

In the absence of any land policy or regulatory agency over land use, how will the board ensure the most effective use of tillage land to expand the production of horticultural products? Will the board be content to encourage producer groups and co-operatives, or will they be allowed to establish marketing boards in co-operation with growers, ensuring that not only are the structures established but that they meet with the best criteria possible for modern, international marketing needs? What is the proposed level of capital grants for glasshouse construction and maintenance? What is the relationship with the ESB and other energy companies to maximise energy savings to this sector? What level of research in the construction of glasshouses and the utilisation of solar energy is proposed?

What is necessary is a concerted programme of State intervention, in co-operation with growers, processors and workers to maximise the potential in this area, and the private sector have traditionally been in control of the area, and have failed. The legislation clearly covers a number of points that I have raised but I am not satisfied that there is either the legislative licence, financial resources or the political will on the part of the Government to advance a radical restructuring of this sector.

In regard to most of the functions in the Bill before us, the terms "consultative" and "indicative" are frequently used. Section 9, for example, provides that the board shall have a consultative role in education. Does this mean the board will be directly able to advise growers on the farm? Does it mean that the board will be able not only to set criteria in horticultural education — but actually provide the education services in this area? Both the IDA and the interim Bord Glas reports highlight the lack of training and skills in growing and harvesting techniques. Will the board be empowered through legislation to take an active, interventionist approach in this sector? I see nothing in the legislation to allow the board to play an interventionist role in processing. Will the board be confined to an advisory role for existing industry and be reliant on the strategies of other State agencies, such as the IDA and SFADCo which confine industrial options to the private sector only?

The final issue I will deal with is the financing of the board and the necessary functions they must carry out if we are to modernise this sector. The interim board report presumes that the necessary additional State and industry funding will be provided. It goes on to state that there will be no substantial changes in the other State resources at present available for the development of horticulture. In the summary of the interim report, the £250,000 grant in the 1989 Estimates is referred to; this is intended to cover the promotional, developmental and marketing activities of the board. It states that the board hope to raise funds from the industry and that further funds will be required for increased grant rates for the glasshouse sector. It goes on to state that the remainder of the board's programme will be met from existing resources.

Let us examine what these few phrases are really saying. First, we should not expect any substantial level of funds to be devoted to the board, certainly nothing like the amount necessary to become directly involved in the modernising of this sector. Second, I support the proposal that extra funds will be raised from the industry but it is a joke to suggest that the industry is at present capable of providing a high level of funds. One of the main contentions of the report is that the industry is woefully under developed and under financed. Third, there is a statement in the report that there will be no additional funding in other additional State resources for the development of the industry; there will be no increases in educational and advisory services in Teagasc, agricultural education, State agencies catering for the processing sector and food research in Eolas, in other words, what we get from the board is all we will get. Fourth, there is a statement in the report that recruitment will hopefully be done through redeployment. That means that there will be no overall increase in the intellectual capital in this sector. What the board get will detract from the work of other agencies in this scheme.

The failure of the interim report to cost the programme they have produced is a massive insult to the industry and to this House. It has produced analyses, recommendations, targets and objectives for a number of sectors. It has proposed over 250 recommendations and yet it does not state how much this will cost. Of course, this is done so as not to embarrass the Government in the event that the Government cannot, or will not, adequately fund the proposals. In other words, the costing of their programme has been deleted for party political considerations.

Proposals brought forward by the Government in their budgets and Estimates are always costed. Every private and public sector company always insists on the costing of programmes and recommendations. The failure to cost this programme is uncommercial, unprofessional and sloppy. It is the very thing that the report says is inhibiting the development of this sector. I hope the Minister when replying will state the cost of all these recommendations and not just the amount the Government intend to allocate.

This Bill takes on the shape of a cosmetic exercise. Without the funding, the resources and the statutory powers, the board will be a glorified consultative shop, reduced to producing appropriate recommendations but without any real power to ensure their implementation. Maybe the Government will prove my fears unfounded, but I have found that this Government always live down to my expectations rather than otherwise. I intend to pursue these issues on Committee Stage and the position the Labour Party will take on Second Stage will depend on the Minister's reply.

However, I would provide this hope. Fianna Fáil have in the past adopted interventionist measures in particular sectors. Of course, now that they are in Coalition with what I would regard as a viciously right wing party, their room for manoeuvre is considerably reduced. However, if Fianna Fáil wish to break from the narrow-minded, selfish and antiexpansionist policies they have concocted with their Coalition partner, other options might be available. The demands for investment, co-ordination and planning in the economy in potentially valuable sectors, such as horticulture, are too important to be subjected to arbitrary opposition and even more mindless policies of the type that this Government have opted to pursue in Coalition.

Labour have no principled objection to the proposal. It is the lack of content in the proposal that we have difficulty with. We will not accept that this very prime sector, horticulture, should be dealt with by simple window dressing. I look forward to the Minister's reply to the points I and others have raised.

Mr. Kenneally

At the outset I would like to wholeheartedly welcome this Bill which will give statutory effect to previous Government decisions to develop the horticultural industry here and put it on a proper and professional footing which has been lacking for far too long.

We are all well aware of the changes that will come about in 1992 because of the Single European Market. Industry in general is well prepared to meet that challenge. Our industry and service sector is far better managed than it used to be and there is a far greater degree of co-operation between management and the work force which helps to bolster that situation. At that stage, it will be the survival of the fittest; those who do not have their act together will not survive and they will not be able to blame anybody but themselves.

I use the horticultural industry as an example because they will not be facing any new challenge in 1992 as they have been subjected to open market forces for quite some time now. They have had to contend with more competition since the early seventies. At that time many growers in the different areas of horticulture were unable to stand the test.

Debate adjourned.