Deputy Seán Ryan was in possession.
Bord Glas Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I only had a couple of minutes to make a few introductory words on the last occasion. I and the Labour Party welcome this Bill. The horticulture industry has been the poor relation of the agricultural sector. These problems which have been recognised by the people in the industry, particularly in the area of production and marketing, have only recently been attended to. If we are to come to terms with these problems it is imperative that the industry have an identity of its own, and a democratically elected board with proper resources and the necessary statutory powers would be able to resolve these problems much more quickly than has been the case in the past. However, having read the Bill and listened to the Minister I fear that the board proposed will not meet those requirements.
I acknowledge the commitment of the Minister to horticulture in recent years. As a TD for Dublin North I am particularly concerned with the horticulture industry. It is an area of great potential, with some of the most fertile land in this country. Areas such as Lusk, Rush, Loughshinney and Donabate have traditionally been areas for glasshouses and horticulture generally.
Soon after my election to this House I visited the Dublin Fruit Market at around 6 o'clock one morning. At that time there was a glut of tomatoes and many growers in my constituency had to dump their tomatoes, something I did not wholly agree with, but I realised subsequently that because of EC regulations this was something that had to be done. That morning I saw, to my dismay, the distribution of Dutch tomatoes to outlets thoughout this country. I was disappointed with that. While acknowledging that we are in the EC this is something that will have to be attended to.
The present operation of the Dublin Corporation Fruit and Vegetable Wholesale Market must be of grave concern to the Government and the corporation who are responsible for it. It cannot meet the demands of today or the nineties. The whole area is congested; basic facilities such as cold rooms are not available and there must be a question over the whole area of hygiene requirements now and in the future, even though lesser amounts of goods are being distributed from that area. Can we blame the consumer who complains that the fruit they have purchased will not last when brought home due to the lack of proper storage facilities at the market? I do not blame the consumer. However, the real losers are the growers who have lost the confidence of the consumer. Action is required by the Government and the corporation on the running of this market.
I hope this Bill will bring together the people involved in the horticulture industry — the consumers, retailers or producers — so that they can work as a unit. The conflict of interests in recent years has not been in the interests of the industry as a whole. Consumers require a good quality product at a reasonable price and, thankfully, more and more Irish people are prepared to demand the Irish product. Great strides have been made in this area in that producers are now prepared to accept that they must deal with these problems. I must say, however, that consumers did not see a market reduction in the cost of tomatoes and other goods on the shelf during the summer when there was a glut on the market and Dutch tomatoes were imported. Wholesalers and retailers have a major role to play in this area. I have heard people on the ground say that wholesalers and retailers are not really concerned that it makes little difference to them whether their merchanise is imported or home grown, they still get their mark up. I do not accept that argument.
There must be changes if we are to have a viable industry. Wholesalers and retailers will have to take a more patriotic approach and be seen to push the Irish product. There is an obvious problem with the wholesale market. Producers themselves lack information on prices and supplies required on the market and the wholesalers on their part lack information on product supply. If this board, properly in operation, can deal with that area of major concern, in the long term it would be in everybody's interest.
In my constituency in the area of horticulture the growers are the backbone of the industry. They have to take the risk. Many of us here get up, presumably, at about 7.30 a.m. but many of those people are up at 4.30 a.m. preparing the soil, planting and so on and at the end of the day they have to take their chances. I have seen with regret the decline of the industry. In the seventies when there was no problem with loans agencies like the ACC were throwing money at producers to enable them to expand. I have seen in north County Dublin the sorry plight of families going down the tube, having to sell off their farmland to repay outstanding loans. I hope the Bill before us can help those engaged in horticulture to establish and expand this industry, thereby giving them great potential for the future.
People on the ground believe they have been let down badly by various Governments through the years. Why was the potential of this industry not acknowledged years ago and acted upon? Our Dutch, French and English counterparts saw this potential and acted upon it. What will the board as envisaged in the Minister's Bill do for the industry? I believe they will not deal with the fundamental problems. The board will have very limited resources. A figure of £250,000 by way of grant aid has been mentioned. Since that was announced a great selling job has been done on the Bill. Here I acknowledge once again the role and commitment of the Minister but a selling job has been done on this by the Government, a great PR job. It might be satisfactory in certain ways for the Minister and the interim board members but overall it has to prove itself. Rather than getting into a major PR job the limited resources that have been made available should be targeted to areas of activity. If success in these areas could be seen on the ground it would then be possible to build up support and confidence.
The structure of the board as proposed is a chairman plus ten members who will be appointed by the Minister. This board should be democratically elected, obviously with representatives of the Minister on it. However, under the proposed constitution, when the chips are down the people who are to be nominated as provided for will not perhaps rock the boat. I hope I am wrong in that regard but my experience with other such boards nominated in that way is that they tend not to rock the boat. The members of this board should be nominated and elected by the people directly involved in the industry. Ordinary people on the ground who have the day-to-day experience should have a place on the board because they can bring forward their expertise. Consumers, growers and retailers should be represented. Marketing is very important and I hope representatives of the marketing end will be on that board. I believe they will but I hope they will not be over represented at the expense of some of the people on the lower rungs of the ladder.
Now I come to the levy referred to in the Bill. Are we going to have another rod licence experience here? It seems the levy is to be open ended with increases on an annual basis. The growers in particular are bound to be sceptical given the years of inaction by Government — or should I say Governments? Some of my constituents have been involved have been badly hit by the recession out there and have loan repayments and other problems to face. I hope we can bring confidence to them.
We have talked about asking people to make contributions by way of levies etc. People will ask if they are to go on the experience of the past. In 1982 we had 84 horticultural advisers throughout the country giving a free service to people in the agricultural sector. In 1989 the number has been reduced to 24 and now people have to pay for that service.
We must look in the overall at the amount of money required to get this board up and going. That money is not being made available. Have the Government any commitment to the great potential that exists? The details in the Estimate announced yesterday show clearly the lack of concern on the part of Government for a farm advisory and development service. A reduction from £29 million last year to £26.9 million this year will make it virtually impossible to provide a service to the agriculture industry. Given that sort of climate and reduction how can we get in to expand this industry and avail of the potential there when the people who were going to help them out are not available? As one who was a member of Dublin County Committee of Agriculture before they were abolished by the previous Government I have seen at first hand that growers and farmers generally who could not afford to pay did not get the service. The policy which brought about the reduction in staff has had a drastic effect on the industry as a whole but particularly on the horticultural industry. The experienced people we need so much have left. I am not trying to denigrate them but most of them are middle aged employees. We have also lost the opportunity of getting in young people with the required enthusiasm and ability. That is the net effect of a policy which unfortunately has not been to the benefit of agriculture generally or to the horticultural industry in particular. In relation to research, a similar experience pertains. What needs to be done? As an interim measure the Government should acknowledge the potential for the industry. The interim report states that 1,700 full time jobs and a net increase of 1,500 part time jobs will be provided in a five year programme. When I look around the country I realise this projection vastly underestimates the potential of this industry. The IDA should give this Irish industry, with great potential, the same type of support and encouragement they give to foreign companies to come to this country. The money is there and more jobs would be created if the industry were given full assistance.
We have seen foreign companies set up here with less potential and overnight many of them have left us high and dry. This industry has a great export potential. Only a few miles across the sea we have major outlets, such as Liverpool and Manchester. There are great export opportunities in those markets not only for tomatoes but for nursery stock, potatoes, soft fruit, etc. I hope the board will encourage the export of these products and can have the necessary marketing and research carried out. We must improve our marketing if the industry is to attain these goals. However, it is essential that we remove some of the constraints in the industry, such as the absence of tax relief on nursery stock exports and the very high fuel costs to the greenhouse industry.
In my constituency of Dublin North there are new horizons because of the availability of natural gas. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work done by the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Kirk, and the Government in taking the decision to bring natural gas into north County Dublin. The conversion grants which commenced on 1 August are welcome but they do not go far enough. Almost three months later there are still some growers awaiting the approval of their grant applications. There was and still is great enthusiasm from the growers. Teagasc explained the position to the growers and they put forward proposals which were subsequently approved by Teagasc but, unfortunately, they are still awaiting the approval of the Department. Perhaps this matter has been attended to in recent weeks but if it has not I know he will take it on board and try to speed up the process. Growers have now ordered alternative burners and are awaiting payment. By now many growers have had to buy and sow seed. They want to get on with the job and if there is any undue delay I hope it can be sorted out by the Minister.
My apologies to the present speaker but as I am on my way to a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts may I have permission to raise on the Adjournment the future of the Cork-Swansea car ferry in view of the rumours circulating that the Government will not support the funding of the service?
I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning that matter.
When it comes to the cost of natural gas, the gas company should look at the industry as a whole rather than at individual growers. Some of our major industries get cheaper rates, and rightly so, and the growers in the horticulture industry, particularly those in north County Dublin, should be given the same consideration. This would help them to reduce costs and would enable them to become more competitive.
Horticulture is the poor relation of agriculture, and this fact has been acknowledged. Other sectors of agriculture, such as dairy farmers, have credit control systems but there are no comparable arrangements for those involved in horticulture. This matter should be looked at by the board and by the Government. I would like to see the board expanding key commodities with an organised and disciplined approach to marketing. In this regard it may be necessary to operate incentive schemes for producers. It is also important that the board would be able to enforce standards of grading and presentation.
The kernel of the Bill is commitment to get out and do something for the industry and to give it the type of finance which is required. That is vitally important. I do not think it is envisaged by the board that that type of money will be forthcoming. The growers will make a contribution provided they see the commitment by the Government but unfortunately no such commitment has been given. At this stage we require a major injection of finance for this industry. I hope the board will put the horticulture industry on a proper footing that will give them an opportunity to be acknowledged as a sector within agriculture who are prepared to deliver jobs.
The Bill has certain weakness but I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the points made in our deliberations and that the Bill will be greatly strengthened on Committee Stage. There may be greater possibilities for Government funding. Consumers, growers and retailers can make horticulture a vital industry which will provide job opportunities.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this most important Bill. For many years we have been hearing that something should be done about the development of the horticultural industry. In 1987 when the previous Government came into office the Taoiseach saw fit to appoint a Minister with special responsibility for horticulture. The re-appointment of Deputy Kirk emphasises the importance the Government place on horticulture and its role in job creation, import substitution and export expansion. There can be no doubt that to achieve the desired aims, especially in the context of the Single European Market, the foundations of the industry must be extremely strong.
The hallmark of this Government, as of the previous Government, is belief in co-operation, as has been evident in the success of the agreement with the social partners. The Government believe that the development of the horticultural industry can be achieved only if it is in the hands of a body with specific overall responsibility, but at the same time it is emphasised that the board must work with other Government agencies such as Teagasc, CTT, the IDA, SFADCo and Údarás na Gaeltachta. Bord Glas must be a strong controlling body co-operating with these agencies to ensure the achievement of the aims set out.
I compliment the Minister, his staff and the interim board who have been operating since April, 1987, on not panicking and rushing to produce a slapdash plan. They thoroughly investigated the various sectors of the horticultural industry to identify the weaknesses and decide on the best means of improvement. We see the result in the five-year development plan which states what can realistically be achieved and the methods which must be followed. Co-operation between the producers, the marketing sector and the State bodies is essential. Success can lead to the creation of between 1,700 and 2,000 jobs, import substitution to the value of £31 million and increased exports to the value of £45 million. It is imperative that the plan should succeed and it is incumbent on all involved to follow the guidelines laid down by the Minister.
Those of us who live in rural constituencies are aware of the difficulties resulting from milk quotas, beef prices and cereal problems. We recognise the growing need for alternative land use. Unless we are successful in establishing such alternative enterprises the denuding of the countryside will continue and the fabric of the rural community will be destroyed. An increasing number of people have been leaving rural areas. Small farmers are being brought out and ranchers are taking over. This is a development which is not welcomed by the Government or by anybody who is interested in the general well-being of the country. The plan has identified different sectors in the agricultural field which are targeted for growth such as field vegetables, fruit, hardy nursery stores, mushrooms, potatoes, processed vegetables and protected crops.
Education is vital if we are to achieve the desired goals and section 9 ensures that the board will have a say in this area. It is sad that only one regional college, that at Tralee, provides a horticultural course. Some neighbours of mine have attended and it has proved to be an excellent course. Some of them have started growing unusual vegetables and are succeeding in making a living from it. If such courses were available in other colleges it would help many people who may not know about the course in Tralee or may not be able to afford to go there. It is important that education in this area should begin at an early age. The school I attended provided a very interesting course in agricultural science. Although I was born and reared on a farm I do not own one now, but nevertheless the course was of great benefit. Horticulture should be given greater emphasis in the secondary school curriculum.
The problem with growing potatoes is that people tend to produce without taking the market into account. In many cases over production has caused prices to collapse and education in this area — as well as in the technical end — is very important because if people are not educated on the financial end the likelihood is that the business will be a failure.
Many Deputies referred to the fact that we cannot supply our own market. I remember a former Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, the then Deputy Hegarty, trying valiantly in the 1982-87 period to organise the potato industry but his efforts did not succeed on a country-wide scale. However, I am happy that in my area of east Cork results have been quite good and that producers, shopkeepers and supermarkets are co-operating to make the potato industry a success. Another reason for success in the east Cork area is that Imokilly Co-operative have helped to set up a producers' group there. It would be worthwhile for people around the country to look at this area and to follow suit.
One of the main complaints I get from potato growers is the lack of adequate temperature controlled stores. If the storage facility was increased the necessity for imports would not be as great as it is at present, especially in the April-June period when the quality of our own crop deteriorates. In order to increase the storage facilities, a higher level of grant-aid must be made available. The problems that potato growers come up against is that there are great prices one year and that the bottom falls out of the market the next. In that situation, it is very hard for a grower to put himself deep into debt not knowing what will happen the following year. For example, the year 1987-88 was very good and the amount of imported potatoes was down considerably but, this year, because of the weather being too dry early on, the potato market is not as good as it was in the previous two years. In the long run, if the grant aid was provided to have proper storage the market, from the point of view of the suppliers and the purchaser, could be levelled out. I do not think that anybody would disagree with the fact that the quality of Irish potatoes is much superior to those imported from any other part of the world.
We also hear the hardy annual complaint regarding the marketing of potatoes and many other vegetables. If we compare the presentation of foreign vegetables to our own, there is cause for concern. People selling vegetables should realise that it is necessary to grade them properly and to have them cleaned. Good presentation catches the eye and if a product is not properly presented people will move on to another product.
Since the early sixties, east Cork has been the centre of production of vegetables, especially peas. However, they also produce beans, cauliflower, celery, sprouts, parsnips, carrots, swedes and cabbage. This concentration was due in the main to the setting up of East Cork Foods in the early sixties. They set up a plant in Midleton and another in Mallow and it was a profitable operation. I am baffled as to why the Sugar Company decided to off-load it. When East Cork Foods closed in the mid-eighties the factory was taken over by Findus which lasted for about a year. It was then taken over by Fresh Bake and they continued the operation of vegetable growing even though the name of the company changed. Recently Fresh Bake were bought by Campbells — one of the biggest food companies in the world. I know that the company are satisfied with the quality of vegetables grown in east Cork. They are happy to be making a profit and indeed a company like that would not continue operating if they were not in a viable position. Without these factories, east Cork farmers and workers would be much the poorer. At present, 110 people are employed on a full time basis in the factories and over 100 people are employed seasonally. This year, over 4,000 acres of vegetables were grown on contract. Over 3,000 contained peas and there was a smaller acreage devoted to beans, sprouts cauliflower, carrots, etc. I am well aware that the return to the farmers on these products was quite substantial. It has been a great boon to east Cork, without it many farmers would be much poorer.
This year, on account of the very dry conditions in July, some peas ripened too fast and were not harvestable. Normally in such circumstances one would receive compensation for the seed to ensure that people would not lose out. This year an agreement was reached between the company and Imokilty Co-operative who harvested the unusable peas and processed them for feed purposes. This enabled farmers who had suffered as a result of the drought conditions to gain some profit from their produce. That co-operation between the Irish Farmers Association, the co-operative and Campbells is a good example of that necessary to ensure the success of the industry. It is also interesting to note that Campbells plan to invest further in the plants. It is encouraging to see one of the giants in the food processing industry having two plants here.
The hardy nursery stock sector has excellent growth potential. A number of my neighbours have entered this sector over the past couple of years. I know also that the growth of their businesses has been nothing short of phenomenal. Not alone are they trading on the home market but they are also exporting. They tell me they cannot produce sufficient to meet the demand obtaining. I am glad to note that Coras Tráchtála and the IDA are taking the necessary steps to develop a co-ordinated, developing approach to export markets which, bearing in mind our natural resources and climate, constitutes enormous growth potential.
Another sector being taped in east Cork is the fresh flower market. Anybody who buys fresh flowers will be aware that they cost a considerable amount. There is a great demand for fresh flowers. Indeed it is a sector in which more people should be encouraged to engage. Daffodils always have been regarded as pretty flowers but, until recently, very few people regarded them as constituting a potential cash crop. In Conna in east Cork a lady had the idea of exporting them and did so. Also in Cobh a couple of acres of daffodils were grown last year and this year. This venture too, proved successful. This merely illustrates that when one looks around one discovers there are many opportunities for creating jobs and making a good livelihood at the same time.
I have read with interest many previous contributions, among which I found that of Deputy Deasy enormously interesting, demonstrating that he is very much aware of the problems confronting the horticultural industry and that he appreciates the Minister's overall approach. From a reading of his remarks it became evident that he has got to the nub of the problem, having been a Minister formerly. Indeed it might be no harm if some other Deputies who contributed would talk to him about the problems obtaining and the remedial action that should be taken. It was clear from a reading of some contributions that their strategy lagged far behind the Tallaght Strategy. Unfortunately Deputy Sheehan is not in the House; I am sure he will hear me on the monitor. He said that the Midleton factory had closed. I should point out that the Midleton factory was never closed; neither was the Mallow one. Deputy Sheehan would appear to suggest from his many comments that he remained in the dark like the mushrooms of west Cork about which he lamented.
This Bill represents a revival of the horticultural industry. I would urge all those engaged in that industry to co-operate with the Minister in his efforts because, only by doing so, will we be able to advance. I should like to compliment the Minister on the work he has done and wish him success in future years.
I should like to compliment Deputy Michael Ahern on his contribution and to thank him for his generosity to the former Minister of State, Deputy Hegarty — who had responsibility for this sector and for recognising the deep insight and expertise of former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Deasy.
And experience.
The provisions of this Bill seek to establish a body with a particular brief to develop horticulture on a market-led horticultural co-operative basis. I agree that a specific, organised project approach has a better chance of success than a generalised nondescript one. However, it cannot be assumed that this automatically demands the establishment of an independent statutory body for that purpose. The Bill, as presented, depicts the board largely as an independent body. Among its functions there has been no emphasis laid on the necessity to liaise with co-operatives and other bodies in the private sector in pursuance of their objectives. I submit that the main impetus for the production and marketing of horticultural produce must come from the private sector with guidance from the relevant State agencies. The success or otherwise of the board will derive from their capacity to liaise and work with the private sector.
The provisions of the Bill appear to attach too much importance to import substitution on the home market. The potential gain here is marginal. I stand to be corrected but I understand that our import bill in this area last year amounted to something like £31 million. Reliance on the home market will stifle progress on volume, quality, storage, processing facilities and continuity of supply. Also we will be perpetually vulnerable to seasonal imports of commonplace produce, such as tomatoes, carrots, cabbage and so on, resulting in a consequent difficulty in regaining market share when home produce comes on-stream.
I contend that the primary focus be on export markets, scrutinising them in order to ascertain their requirements. If we become a horticultural produce exporting nation there will then be a resultant pick-up on the home market. If we are to compete with the Dutch and others who have vast experience in this area we must improve our native produce which would automatically lead to import substitution. But we cannot first concentrate on import substitution and then hope to export. We must examine the European markets. Only then will we be able to produce the type of quality product, ensuring that, say, onions from Spain and carrots from Cyprus or wherever will be substituted on the home market. We must remember that our consumer will buy the quality, cheaper product.
The Minister is being given enormous powers under the provisions of this Bill, even to the extent of levying producers in order to meet the costs of this new layer of bureaucracy. I would like to commend the interim Bord Glas for the study they made into the Irish agricultural industry. One of the main objectives of the interim board was to assess and improve the marketing of potatoes. Potato production has deteriorated with the result that quality certified seed potatotes are particularly unavailable at present. The board have brought no order into the marketing of potatoes, which was their prime function so far as I am concerned.
We have it in hands.
The Government may have it in hands but it leaves much to be desired at present. For example, why should we aim to increase the output of tomatoes, unless for export, when existing glasshouse growers of tomatoes are on the verge of bankruptcy? They cannot complete with imported tomatoes due to our very high energy, transport and communication costs. Despite changing over to a solid fuel system two tomato growers in my constituency are on the verge of collapse because of competition.
We should be net exporters of seed potatoes to Europe because of the freedom of our soil from root eel worm and foilage blight. No Department or State agency will handle this promotion. What is needed is support for private companies to import foundation seed stock for propagation here so that the resultant seed can be exported.
Mushroom production is a prime example of where private companies and co-ops are coming together to set farmers up with houses or tunnels so that they can export their produce. The export value of mushrooms increased from £2.7 million in 1979 to, I understand, about £18 million in 1988 and this has increased further for 1989. I cannot understand why we need An Bord Glas to promote our thriving mushroom industry. What we need is to identify the market and set up a support system for companies and individuals so that they can produce a quality produce to meet the market needs. Support is needed to help companies go out and find the markets and CTT have a major role in this regard. Are we proposing in this Bill to give An Bord Glas similar functions to those of CTT? This is a duplication of effort and cost. I believe CTT could identify the market niches and promote along with Teagasc the production of produce to meet these market needs. This Bill gives An Bord Glas the total promotional aspects of horticulture, using staff redeployed from other agencies. That is my understanding of the Bill.
CTT's role will continue.
Why not leave the staff in these agencies so that they can carry out this function? CTT have the expertise in this area and we should allow them to embrace the whole horticultural area even if it means the employment of agricultural marketing personnel. Agencies such as SFADCo and the IDA can provide the finance needed by companies setting up facilities and plant to get produce ready for the export market. Why should we include another body?
The experience of Kerry Tree Technology is a prime example of the support given by the State to a company to produce a product for which there was a market in America. A market for fresh flowers was identified in the US and the company set about producing daffodils. They exported the flowers to America and the bulbs to England. The National Development Corporation — vehemently opposed by the Government when they came into being — have joined with this company in a joint venture to produce these flowers to meet the demand in the US market. SFADCo are grant aiding facilities for the cleaning and packaging of these flowers. This is the way horticultural exports can be expanded. This expansion is being achieved without An Bord Glas but with the help of existing State agencies. Why do we need another Stage agency in this area?
Christmas trees, decorative natural foliage and nursery stock have excellent export and employment potential. We should encourage venture capital agencies to engage in joint enterprises with companies and individuals with worthwhile propositions. Teagasc should be given the resources and directives necessary to raise their horticultural activity at research and advisory level to set quality standards and encourage the concept of orderly marketing and the setting up of producer co-ops and groups.
The production of any product has two aspects — production and marketing. The product must be to a standard suitable for export and produced at an economic cost. Marketing is vital to sell these products. The finance which will go into the setting up and funding of An Bord Glas should be invested in marketing and either given to CTT or Teagasc so that they can go out and identify niches in the markets in Europe and fund the marketing of our horticultural produce. They could easily do this without——
CTT will be looking after the external market.
Yes, but why do we need another State agency? It will mean duplication——
Because of the state of disorganisation in the industry.
The Minister can reply to my question later on. I should like to refer to organic farming and its potential contribution to our tourist industry. Organic farming is increasing in popularity because of consumer demand and the efforts of many farmers and scientists who are concerned about the effects of chemicals on the soil. Continued research and development as well as further consumer pressure will eventually make organic produce more widely available. In simple terms, organic farming is the production of crops without the use of synthetic chemical fertilisers, pesticides and fungicides and the raising of stock without artificial growth promoters either as implants or in feed. If the food is to be subsequently processed no synthetic additives or preservatives can be added at any time. Because of the emphasis being placed on a clean environment, wholesome food and so on, Ireland could cash in on its reputation for wholesome food on the world tourist market. We should be emphasising more and more the quality of our air and the wholesomeness of our food. We should try to market this on the world tourist market in order to encourage people to come here. Ireland has great potential in this area.
It is a function of our educational system to educate young farmers, through Macra, ACOT, Teagasc and our higher education institutes, about the value of producing food which is organically grown and the dangers of destroying our food industry, be it the horticulture or meat industry, by the use of chemicals. We should look very closely at this area. There should also be a public education programme on the value of vegetarian diets. I was fortunate to come across the report of the First International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition which was held in Washington on 16 March 1987. Nearly 400 registrants heard evidence from around the world of the potential health benefits of a well planned vegetarian diet. They emphasised the benefits of a vegetarian diet in endurance performance. They found there was a positive link between a vegetarian diet and the control of cancer, blood pressure and heart disease. The statistics for heart disease in this country, as far as I know, show that one out of every two deaths is from a cardiac related disease. If people were encouraged to concentrate on a vegetarian diet, I am sure we could bring down our death rate, especially deaths as a result of cardiac related illnesses.
We demand a programme of public education on this subject. The Department of Health should focus on this. The health education programme in both our primary and second level schools should focus on it also. It would be of major benefit to preventive medicine. Last night we had a discussion on the Health Supplementary Estimate and it was suggested that more money should go into preventive rather than curative health care. This is an area we could concentrate on.
While I am not in favour of this Bill, I do not think there is any need for it, it will go on the Statute Book as the Government have a majority in the House. I congratulate the Minister on his hard work since coming to office, in promoting the horticultural industry. I mean that sincerely. However, I suggest that the Minister takes the Bill back to the drawing board and looks at its place and mode of operation in developing horticulture. We have a "Green" image, which we should work on and horticulture must be made one of our prime economic growth areas. However, I fail to see how this can be achieved by the present Bill.
I ask the Minister to re-examine this Bill and perhaps through discussions with the Opposition spokespersons he could come up with a different formula. There is a vast potential in horticulture but I am not convinced that setting up Bord Glas is the solution for the future.
I welcome the opportunity of speaking on the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward a Bill to establish Bord Glas as an independent statutory body. The Bill is needed. However, I am a bit disappointed by some of the negative criticisms we have heard from the far side of the House. I make an exception of Deputy Deenihan's remarks, because he was certainly constructive in what he had to say. I agree with what he had to say on exports, because as an agricultural country we should be a leading exporter of all agricultural produce. It is regrettable and disgraceful that there is so much criticism at a time when we are discussing the Bill. The Minister's predictions have been criticised. I think the Minister has given the facts and figures as to where he sees job creation possibilities and where he sees opportunities for output of agricultural produce, particularly in fruit and vegetables.
I will now refer to an article in today's Irish Press which has the headline “Hothouse reception for Bord Glas Bill”. Referring to the Minister, it states:
He predicted export expansion of £58 million and the creation of 1,750 full-time and 1,500 part-time jobs in the industry.
As one reads on one finds that the Minister is attacked by all the people interviewed. It further states: "Members of the horticulture industry now predict that the dispute will escalate to the same level as the rod licence protest" and towards the end of the article a person is quoted as saying that "This is going to be like the rod-licence dispute, only bigger." This is negative and exaggerated comment on what will happen as a result of the Bill when in fact we are discussing the setting up of Bord Glas as an independent statutory body. One of the people interviewed was most concerned about the levy. However, for the record I would like to read from the section dealing with the levy. Section 12 (2) states:
Where a levy is payable it shall be paid by the seller of the horticultural produce concerned.
(3) Levy shall be paid to the Board at such time or times and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(4) The rate of levy in each year shall be such rate as may be prescribed with the consent of the Minister for Finance; and different rates may be prescribed under this subsection in respect of different classes of persons liable to pay levy.
(5) the Minister may make regulations ...
(a) for excepting from the obligation to pay levy any specified class or classes of person, defined in such manner and by reference to such matters as the Minister considers appropriate.
These are very important points but many speakers did not refer to them when they were attacking the concept of a levy. However I must say in fairness that I heard some speakers say they had no objection to people in the industry contributing to the horticultural industry. However there was a great deal of exaggerated comment on the levy.
In the same newspaper article one of those interviewed said "I am very concerned about political appointments". There is nothing unusual about political appointments to any board. The Minister will appoint ten members to Bord Glas. This is covered in the Schedule to the Bill. Section 7 states:
(a) 5 one of whom shall be an officer of the Minister shall be persons engaged in, or having knowledge or experience .... of, or in relation to, horticulture and
(b) 5 shall be persons chosen by the Minister after consultation with such persons as he considers appropriate who are engaged in, or are representative of those engaged in, horticulture or the promotion or development of the horticultural industry.
There has been exaggerated negative comment on the setting up of the board. The Minister is accused of being optimistic on the future of the horticulture industry. I urge the Minister, if he has not already considered it, to reply to this article in the Irish Press, to give his point of view and the views of those who are in favour of developing the horticultural industry through Bord Glas.
The monitoring committee on food imports in the Department compiled a report six years ago in which they referred to the problems in the fresh fruit and vegetable market. They found that it was difficult to assess this area because of the fact that some fruit and vegetables produced for the fresh market are imported but may subsequently be processed and that the question of importing, processing and indeed in many cases further processing — for example where fruit pulp is made into jam — causes difficulty in showing the actual production and trade for each fruit and vegetable. The climatic factors also have to be considered. In that regard it is welcome that we have some facts and figures of various imports and also the potential for exports. In that regard the IDA have carried out some investigation as to where they could be of assistance. In the IDA report of 1984 they identified their concern about the value of imports. They gave a figure of £80 million in 1982, and that figure was increasing dramatically. They identified the main products involved as potatoes, onions, carrots, cauliflower and tomatoes.
In the fresh fruit area there are certain tropical fruits which we cannot do much about, such as bananas and citrus fruits, but of the fruits grown in Ireland, the IDA identified very clearly that apple imports were increasing at a very serious rate. Their report showed that in 1978 29,500 tonnes of apples were imported while in 1982 the figure had increased to 42,500 tonnes. As a result, the IDA tried to identify the way they could help and, after consultation with the Department of Agriculture and Food, ACOT and AFT, as they were called at the time, they decided on grant assistance for companies engaged in the grading, storage and packing fresh fruit and vegetables on a selective basis. As the IDA will admit, that was not a success. That and other reasons gave rise to the need for a board such as An Bord Glas and that is why we should be looking at this matter in a positive way.
In 1984 the IDA helped to establish pilot centres in Dublin, Waterford, Cork and Galway to take vegetables from Irish producers. Quite frankly, that was not a success and in most cases the companies were taken over, some were amalgamated and some were sold. There was a need for the IDA to consider another way to help and they are now working with other bodies and will work with An Bord Glas when this Bill is passed — to help individual producer groups or people dealing with the added value of our fruit and vegetables. I hope, when the Minister replies, he will give some indication what is available in the line of FEOGA grants and other EC assistance for such producer groups. The IDA have told me that one of the problems of these groups is that, for example, when they produce carrots alone, supermarkets are not interested. They are more interested in suppliers who produce a variety of primary vegetables. However, I am sure all these areas will be considered by the Minister.
In the Minister's opening remarks he talked like the Minister for Health. He said he is not an expert on diet but he talked about the link between eating fruit and vegetables and the role they play in reducing cholesterol and coronary disease. It is important that he mentioned that because fruit and vegetables, and indeed potatoes, have always had a good health image. Their beneficial effects have always been pointed out in scientific and trade journals and in the press. In the past we have heard a lot about vitamins, especially vitamin C, and minerals, but more recently attention has been focused on the possible beneficial effects of fruit, vegetables and potato consumption in relation to coronary and heart disease, certain cancers, diabetes and other so-called diseases of affluence. This is an area that, I am sure, An Bord Glas will be promoting. The consumer is always looking for fresh food, and fruit and vegetables fulfil this image.
I have been told that the National Food Centre are carrying out research into the dietary fibre content and vitamin retention of food during storage. All the experts seem to be saying that there should be increased consumption of these foods in the Irish diet, and indeed in the North European diet, with special emphasis on uncooked items such as shredded carrots, coleslaw and so on. A great effort has always been made to encourage children to eat more fruit and vegetables. The Minister was quite right to refer to those areas in his opening remarks.
I referred earlier to the role of the supermarkets. We are told that the supermarket groups sell 60 per cent of all fruit and vegetables sold. They have a role to play in their dealing with Irish producer groups and in promoting Irish goods in their stores. I was very interested in a survey carried out by the Quinnsworth group and published three years ago. They succeeded in reducing — from 29 per cent to 24 per cent admittedly a small reduction of 5 per cent — the purchase of imported primary vegetables. While there was a significant reduction in the amount of imported goods purchased, such as tomatoes and cauliflower and, to a lesser extent, potatoes, there was very little reduction in the sale of carrots and onions. The Minister has referred to those two areas in his speech and they need much more attention.
One sector that was looked at by the Quinnsworth group was cooking apples. There was no improvement in that area except that a lot of the imports come from Northern Ireland. The supermarkets should play a greater role in promoting Irish goods. I welcome the Minister's comments on the glasshouse industry, for which he made capital grants available under the farm improvement scheme last July. Grants are needed for this industry which, as many Deputies have said, uses natural gas as a source of energy.
One of the most profitable industries for farmers in the west to get involved in is the mushroom industry. There are a few comments I would like to make on this industry. Problems have been encountered with planning permission, and different local authorities seem to be divided on the question whether mushroom tunnels are temporary or permanent structures. Planning fees can vary accordingly. Once that matter has been clarified, smallholders show a great interest in this industry. Of course they need money to be able to get involved in the industry but the amount of land required is small. We used to say that "small is beautiful"; big is also beautiful, but certainly the growing of mushrooms can be done quite efficiently by smallholders, even though it does require a lot of time and energy. I also wish to pay tribute to the producer groups who have organised themselves and who supply compost and provide a collection service.
In relation to the export of mushrooms, transport is needed and I ask the Minister to examine the role which regional airports could play in this regard. Recently the Minister visited Claremorris to see what is described as a mushroom village. Last year he opened a mushroom store in Strokestown, County Roscommon. Many smallholders in my own constituency of Galway are supplying both of those undertakings.
Hardy nursery stock has come in for particular attention, with reference being made to what can be done along the sides of roadways, parks, and buildings. Woodland Investments in Tuam are beginning to expand and we hope they will create further jobs. Let me digress for a moment and speak about the town of Tuam. We had hoped that this would be a food centre for the west. I still have hopes that it will be. It was always regarded as a food centre when it had a sugar beet factory. Unfortunately, that factory closed with the loss of 800 jobs. If replacement jobs are secured for the large number of unemployed there, I hope they will be in the food sector. Already we have the Galway Bay Cheese Company and Woodland Investments, and I hope that very shortly another food giant, namely, the Goodman Group, will decide to locate in Tuam. If they are not going to locate in Tuam I hope they will say so. The Sugar Company have always had a good involvement there and I know they would be willing to invest in Tuam if the Goodman Group decide not to come to the town.
Many Deputies have spoken about alternative farming. I wonder however if they have thought out what alternative farming is all about. To my mind, horticulture falls within that category. It may not be as exotic as some of the other industries mentioned, but when it comes to a smallholder making a living for himself and his family the idea of getting involved in horticulture merits attention.
The daffodil and flower industry has also been referred to. We are all used now to daffodil days and rose weeks organised as fund raising events for very deserving causes while we also have witnessed the setting up of new businesses and the opening of shops selling flowers. I have no doubt that An Bord Glas will pay particular attention to the development of this industry.
In conclusion, let me wish the Minister well. I hope he will not be too disappointed by some of the very negative criticisms made. I hope when he comes to appointing the board, which is a source of much controversy, he will be able to get people with a knowledge of agriculture and who will be committed to the development of the horticultural industry. I wish him and the Government well when it comes to the setting up of An Bord Glas.
I am glad to have this opportunity to make a contribution on this Bill. I would also like to congratulate the Minister of State on his reappointment. He is one of the few men on that side of the House I have some regard for. I consider him to be hard working and dedicated to the portfolio he holds. However on this occasion I feel he is wasting his own and our time in setting up this board. I would much prefer to see a man of his ability promoting the products we are developing here in the world market. He should be the front runner and not be involved in the setting up of a board. I am not clear what the role of this board will be and what the cost will be at the end of the day.
The record of boards and semi-State bodies since the foundation of the State is not great to say the least. Many of them have outlived their usefulness while others should have been wound up many years ago. It was understandable in the early days of this State that boards be set up to enable people with expertise to seek out markets for us. Twenty-five to 30 years ago the world was a big place but now it is a small place. People setting up businesses today have no difficulty now in travelling to the Continent or Britain to seek out markets. Many young men and women now do this constantly and do not seek State help. These people should be given a free hand and not stifled through the setting up of a board which obviously will take over the work that they are now prepared to do.
What is the purpose behind the setting up of the board? Is it intended that they will be involved in marketing? Let me cite one example of a very successful board, which is now begining to creak and that is An Bord Bainne. Tony O'Reilly, Joe McGough and Brian Joyce were outstanding chief executives of that board. They certainly did excellent work in the dairy industry, but many committed members of that board are beginning to feel that they should be out doing the work that this board is supposed to be doing, and quite a number have left. We should take a lesson from that, one of the successful ones. Against that we have all the dismal failures, for example CIE which has been a millstone around the neck of the taxpayer. If we were depending on CIE to get our young people back home to rural Ireland to pick the mushrooms they would seldom get home with the costs CIE charge if it were not for the fact that private enterprise took over the work they were supposed to be doing.
I see that there are compulsory levies. Why are they compulsory if this is going to be such a great board? If it is going to be such a success people will be queuing up to get involved. The Minister should give them a free hand.
Other boards have levies.
Of course they have, because it is the only way they can be financed. The point I am making is that if somebody is successful people will be queuing up to get involved and it should not be necessary to have compulsion. After all we had a sad episode in the last two years because of compulsion in relation to rod licences in the fishing industry which caused a lot of upheaval. That is for another Minister, and I hope he will have some success in that area.
The level of the levy is not stated. The Minister knows as well as I do, coming from Louth, that when one got one's milk statement at the end of the month the statement was grand with gallons of milk at £1 per gallon but when one looked at the debit side and added up Bord Bainne levies, Government levies, disease eradication levies, there was nothing left at the end of the day for the small farmer, after all his hard work.
Is this what is going to happen here in the industries that are growing and are so successful at present? Are we going to stifle them with this board? Who will the members be? Will they have expertise or will they be just some friends of the Minister, the Taoiseach or the Government? This is not good enough. I have regard for the Minister but I think he is making a bad decision here this week, particularly in the light of what has happened here in relation to boards and semi-State bodies.
Teagasc has a role in the development of horticulture here; but with a 7 per cent cut in funding for Teagasc how are the people in Teagasc to get out to the people who are so anxious to get involved in setting up what is now called, to use the in phrase, alternative farming enterprise. In my day, which is not that long ago, we always called it a sideline. A good farmer always had a sideline. In my county and constituency dairying would be the backbone of the industry, but people did not depend on milk and cows, they had poultry, turkeys for Christmas, pigs. They were industrious and grew their own potatoes. In this way useful income was made. The idea is there whether one calls it a sideline or an alternative farming enterprise. It is fine if people want to be with it and use modern phrases, but we called it a sideline.
The big sideline now in my county is mushroom growing, and it is a major success. I was delighted last Monday week to be present at a sod turning ceremony in Foxfield Mushrooms. I have not heard any mention here of Foxfield Mushrooms in County Cavan. I have heard of Monaghan Mushrooms and I congratulate them on their marvellous success. Foxfield Mushrooms are an even bigger success. Five young brothers from a small farming background, the eldest not more than 35 years of age, some playing football for Cavan yet, have set up a multi-million pound enterprise in the growing of mushrooms. These young men tell me that the market is developing rapidly. I said to them on Monday week that with the rate of expansion in that county alone it was possible that the market would be flooded. They told me that with the type of product they can produce in Cavan and the surrounding counties there is an unlimited market. I asked them about the farmers in England and Holland who could surely compete; but they have a different approach to the growing of mushrooms. They have gone in for the big commercial enterprise of growing 100 tunnels at a time. A bus comes in the morning with pickers. On Monday morning after the weekend hangover they will not have all their pickers in. A tunnel will not be picked that day, and suddenly the quality disimproves and that moves right down the road to all of the other tunnels. The small three to five tunnel enterprise being set up in the north east, in the Cavan, Leitrim, Louth and Monaghan areas is the ideal concept of mushroom growing, with personal family interest in getting a quality product. Whether it is Friday, Saturday, Sunday or even Christmas Day in some cases, if the mushrooms have to be picked they will be picked, and one has a quality product. I wish to publicly congratulate Foxfield Mushrooms on their initiative and on the hope they have given to many small farmers in the region who now have the possibility of getting a meaningful income from their small holdings since the milk quotas has deprived them of milk production. Milk production was the last line of hope for small farmers and it was felt that if that went there was nothing left, since poultry and turkey production and the growing of vegetables had disappeared and had been taken over by the larger growers. The mushroom industry is the lifeline we needed, the last hope for people in this area. There are alternatives that I am sure they can get involved in; but they are doing a superb job with a family enterprise to ensure a quality product is coming on the market.
What is necessary is ongoing advice. When people have the initiative to take off their coats, roll up their sleeves and make an investment of nothing less than £35,000 to set up a three tunnel enterprise — and this is a large sum of money for a small farmer with a young family — surely the least the State could do is provide them with the advice. I am subject to correction, but I believe there is not a single horticultural instructor in Cavan or Monaghan at present. When I was a member of Cavan County Committee of Agriculture 15 years ago, a young fellow starting out in farming, we had a horticultural instructor in Cavan and that man was extremely busy advising people around the county on potato production and the growing of various crops such as oats and barley to feed to their cattle. The county committees of agriculture were abolished. Then we had ACOT and we still managed to provide a horticultural instructor. ACOT is gone and now we have this grand board Teagasc; and it is being slowly stifled. It will be dead in 12 months at the rate of cutback we see. It is impossible for instructors to get out.
Apart altogether from horticulture which we are discussing here today, unless a farmer is prepared to pay there is no agricultural instructor available to him. In a county that is so intent on surviving and on ensuring that the people stay on the small farms the least we are owed is a horticultural instructor, and I make no apology for demanding that this instructor be fully paid for by the Government. Apart from the mushroom growing which is so successful there is vegetable growing, strawberries and raspberries etc. In the neighbouring county of Leitrim there is a very successful jam factory that could expand and develop, and we would be only too glad to provide the fruits and vegetables if we had the advice that is necessary to instruct young farmers and others in the growing of these crops.
In relation to private enterprises, Monaghan Poultry Products is an outstanding example of a private enterprise. The poultry industry in Counties Cavan and Monaghan has expanded enormously over a number of years, despite the recent setback by the scare in England which did not effect us too seriously. I believe we have overcome that now. To give an indication of the extent of the development there now, farmers are erecting turkey houses which hold 20,000 turkeys at a time. That is a major development. Obviously there is a market there, otherwise people would not be encouraged to go into this. In one instance I am talking about a commitment from the farmer of not less than £30,000 cash down. That sort of enterprise must be recognised, appreciated and supported. I presume poultry production is within the ambit of this Minister here.
The poultry and horticultural instructors should be part of the development of that region. Whatever happens in the rest of the country, the people in the north-east and in the south are well able to look after themselves. They have a different climate and a great deal going for them. I make no apologies for stating that since I became a Member of this House I have been campaigning for the appointment of a horticulture instructor and a poultry instructor. If the Minister does this it will show he has the interests of those people at heart. They are trying hard to survive in very difficult conditions.
The old county committees of agriculture were much maligned and described as nothing more than a talking shop. Nothing is further from the truth. The people on those committees knew the problems facing the farmers and brought them to their chief agricultural officer who in turn could deal with them or send them immediately to the Minister in the hope of getting some action. In some cases he did but in others, unfortunately, he did not.
Let me refer to the transport of this quality product from the farms to the processing units set up by Kiernan Brothers in Foxfield, Monaghan Mushrooms or Monaghan Poultry Products. The product is of high quality leaving the tunnels but because of the friction while being transported over the by-roads of County Cavan to the processing plants it is damaged when it arrives and is downgraded. That is not good enough.
The Estimate provides more money for roads.
Only 11 per cent so that we will develop: last year Cavan County Council had £60 per mile for county roads and 11 per cent of £60 is £6.50. It will not buy an extra shovel and that is the Government's solution to the problem. If this were not so serious it would be laughable. Unfortunately, I will have to deal with this when I go home.
The fact is the produce is being damaged in transport from the unit to the processor. That is not good enough for people who are working long and late to get a quality product out. They are willing to suffer a cut because of competitiveness in getting a quality product on the market. That means a grading system.
There is no goldmine in mushrooms or vegetables. The only way we can compete is with family labour input. If the unions were to become involved and legislation for a minimum wage introduced, I wonder how competitive we might be. We are walking a very thin line. There is a livelihood to be made here and there is an opportunity to be availed of, but I do not want anybody to get carried away about setting up three mushroom tunnels and then retiring and living like a gentleman farmer. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a profit to be made, but you have to work for it. However, that is nothing new to me or to the Minister. We know that in any area of agriculture — dairying, beef production or whatever — unless you work you will not succeed. There is no such thing as putting a few cattle in a field and waiting until the end of the year and then you have a profit. They have to be looked after, and there is the danger of disease.
That is my contribution in a nutshell. I hope the Minister does not take offence about what I said. I ask him to reconsider setting up this board. There are other agencies which were referred to by my colleague, Deputy Deenihan. Coras Tráchtála, a marketing agency, should be asked to play a role. Are they aware of this development in the north-east which is making such rapid progress?
Very well aware.
I am glad to hear it but the Minister should play a leading role looking for markets abroad and encouraging the people involved to take a line of action which can be successful, and which will have his blessing.
I thank you, Sir, for allowing me time to speak. I congratulate the Minister and wish him the very best of luck in his endeavours.
It looks as if the horticultural industry is due for a big expansion. Is it not ironic that when that industry is on the verge of a breakthrough the body which always provided them with information on the most scientific and technological kind has been decimated in numbers in the last few years? I am referring to the horticultural advisory service. Was that due to lack of planning on the part of various Governments, not just this one but the last few, or, their lack of commitment to the horticultural industry? Without commitment we might as well throw our hats at it.
The Bill provides that the board have the authority and power to recruit staff. It is reckoned that as many staff as possible will be redeployed as distinct from employing extra staff. Will any of that staff be used to advise growers? If so, will any of the horticultural advisers who became redundant and are expert in their field, be employed? The Bill provides that in due course the levy will contribute to the funding of the board. Does that mean complete funding? If it does not, does it mean that in the first few years no levy will be collected?
The Minister has broad shoulders but he will need them. Look at the figures over the past few years. In 1983 our horticultural import excess over exports was £114 million. In 1987 the import excess over exports was £150 million. That trend must be reversed. Exports in the same period were up by £14 million, which sounds good. Unfortunately, at the same time imports rose by £50 million. In regard to domestic production expressed as a percentage of the total market, in 1983 we supplied 51 per cent of the total market and in 1987 the figure was down to 46 per cent. We are losing on the home market and so on the export-import markets.
The Government's stated policy is to preserve as many family farms as possible. Those are noble sentiments and we hope that policy will succeed. There are a few ways in which that can be done, first, by providing alternative employment, second by providing subsidies and direct handouts and, third, by getting farmers to diversify in their farming practices. We must bear in mind that 46 per cent of farmers have an income of less than £3,500 per year. Something drastic must be done immediately if we are serious about preserving family farms. One way in which to continue the family farm is by engaging in alternative enterprises, for example, horticultural projects, mushroom production and any other type of production that one considers would come under horticulture where one acre of land can be worth 60 or 70 acres of land operated in the traditional farming manner.
The members of the board will be selected by the Minister and needless to say, the success of the board will depend on its composition. We must rely on the good judgment and integrity of the Minister in selecting that board. In that regard, we should have no particular fears. The success or otherwise of the board will depend on its composition and the success or otherwise of the horticultural industry will depend to a large degree on the board. In addition, it will depend on the advice, the leadership and the guidance which the producers will get. After all they are the backbone of the industry. Without them there would be no horticultural industry, there would be no board and we would not be here today debating the future of the horticultural industry in Ireland. As the farmers are the backbone of the horticultural industry they will play the role that the farming community played over the decades in our national economy when they were the backbone of the economy.
At this time, I would also like to make a contribution towards this debate and to support the Minister and his assistants in the manner in which they have approached this Bill. It is vitally important that a board of this kind be set up so that a natural resource like horticultural production can be used to its full potential.
Unlike cereal growth and cattle rearing the successful development of horticultural enterprise does not depend on the possession of extensive acreage on the part of any one operator. Coming, as I do, from Donegal a county largely composed of small farms it is appropriate that my opening remarks to the House should concern some aspects of this Bill.
I am heartened by the programme which has been proposed by the interim board and by the substance of the Minister's opening speech. I am aware, of course, that this is a five-year national plan which has a two-fold purpose, the provision of extra employment and the need to greatly reduce the huge adverse gap between horticultural exports and imports. However, I sincerely hope that, in the interests of fair play towards the less developed regions, every effort will be made to encourage this type of enterprise in my county and in the western area generally if necessary by positive discrimination. I feel that well motivated smallholders should be aided in every way possible and that their geographical location should not be a deterrent.
Many years ago we had a special glasshouse scheme for the growth of tomatoes in Gaeltacht areas. It was a well intentioned scheme but it eventually petered out because it was not economically viable at the time to heat the glasshouses. Consequently production was confined to periods when imported tomatoes were also arriving on the market. The Minister has referred to the much improved technology now available within the European Community. It would appear, however, that the new glasshouse scheme will, of necessity, be confined to areas close to the natural gas grid. The pipeline, of course, runs mainly along a route which is already rich in agricultural land and agricultural enterprise generally. Once again we in the west and north-west are seen as the poor relations.
I hope that the board will examine the feasibility of providing a reasonable alternative to natural gas elsewhere, even if this means tax concessions or direct fuel subsidies. In this respect I hope that the improved Exchequer position will mean a somewhat greater availability of resources than that envisaged when the programme was being prepared. I would strongly agree with the suggestion that assistance for development should be confined to those producers who have acceptable marketing arrangements. Indeed the ideal scenario might involve contracts between proven producers and supermarket outlets etc. so as to minimise the problems of any seasonal gluts.
The Minister has laid considerable stress on potato production and rightly so. For a country in which the potato has played such an important — and sometimes tragic — part for centuries, it is scarcely believable that we are still plagued with the problem of how to cope with competition from the imported article. There has been a long tradition of potato growing in my own county. Indeed for many years Donegal was the source of major exports of seed potatoes to Mediterranean countries especially. Not long ago we were producing 10,000 acres of seed in the county. This has now declined by 90 per cent. It is an unfortunate fact that the task of producers has been made no easier by the cost of production and the difficulty in maintaining the sometimes unreasonable standards demanded by certain importing countries. I look forward to the board's forthcoming report on this matter. However, there is no earthly reason our production and presentation of ware potatoes for both home and export markets should not be drastically improved. As recently as a few days ago in one of our more well-known supermarket chains I bought potatoes which were so badly blighted that most had to be discarded. The House is well aware that at certain times of the year these supermarkets can display imported potatoes which are clean and well graded. It is not surprising, therefore, that the average shopper will automatically put these in their shopping basket, even — as I suspect — if the Irish product is a good deal better in taste. By comparison, our own potatoes are badly presented. Too often they are dirty and there is not enough evidence of grading. One does not have to be a top-class chef to know how infuriating it can be to boil a pot of potatoes where some are four or five times larger than others. The packs I have seen were described as having been graded from 45mm to 80mm. This is much too wide a range in the first place but even that is not adhered to. I trust that the board will urgently address the problems of grading and presentation and that they are afforded the power and personnel to ensure that the labelling of produce means exactly what it says.
I welcome the emphasis the Minister has placed on hardy nursery stock and amenity horticulture. This is an area in which there is enormous potential in both home and export markets. The home market can be stimulated to a very great degree if our local authorities can be convinced of the importance of landscaping to tourism development and to the aesthetic wellbeing of our own people. This is something in which we are sadly lacking in comparison with many other countries. I would refer particularly to the planting of trees along roadways, especially new roadways. Every road design should automatically provide for the planting of trees arranged in a suitably artistic manner. I would especially refer to the approach roads to many of our towns and cities. As a general rule these roads are lined with an unsightly array of industrial buildings, warehouses, garages, etc. The planting of trees at appropriate intervals on both sides of such roads would distract one from these eye-sores and would present an altogether more pleasing picture.
In my own county we have seen the completion in recent weeks of a magnificent dual carriageway outside Letterkenny. This is the route along which most tourists travel on their way to the Donegal highlands and it includes a mile of precisely the same type of ugly approach road which I have described. I sincerely hope that Donegal County Council will set a good example by planting rows of semi-mature trees along this road.
The Minister has mentioned the great importance of fresh fruit and vegetables from a health point of view. As a medical practitioner I would of course heartily concur with this view.
There was a marvellous conference in London recently on the role of vitamins in disease prevention. Representatives from 30 countries attended. Doctor Gladys Block, an epidemiologist at the American National Cancer Institute stated, and I quote "as doctors we have never conveyed to the public adequately that increasing the intake of fruit and vegetables is associated with reduced risk of cancer. I think the effect of fruit and vegetables in cancer prevention is overwhelming."
Other speakers from various parts of the world showed how studies — I will not give a medical lecture — into the vitamins, E. C. and B, carotene in particular, played a vital role in the prevention of oral cancers. Moreover C and B carotene played a particular role in the prevention of cervical cancer and low levels of the vitamin E were found in people with stomach and pancreatic tumours. These vitamins and substances known as anti-oxidants are found in yellow-green fruit and vegetables. The Minister mentioned our high incidence of coronary artery disease in comparison with France. In fact, we in Ireland are at the top of the list. France is not even in the top ten. The general public are not adequately aware of this, or of the protective effects of vitamins and fruit and vegetables in medical matters. We are constantly reminded to wash fruit and vegetables before use to get rid of the residue of pesticides and artificial fertilisers which are so commonly used nowadays.
This brings me to a point to which there is only a passing reference in the board's report, namely what is generally referred to as organic farming. I believe about 100 producers qualify under this label and utilise only some 2,000 acres. The estimated revenue from organic farming is in the region of £700,000. I am well aware of the higher costs and extra labour involved, but I am also aware that producers who are engaged in this type of enterprise can readily sell their produce at a premium. Large food stores in London and elsewhere have departments which specialise in organically-produced food and their experience has been that customers are quite willing to pay the higher prices. I would earnestly suggest that the board should positively encourage this area of production. If a workable system of licensing and labelling of organically-produced fruit and vegetables could be put in place, I have no doubt that the producers concerned would be well rewarded for their efforts in markets at home and abroad.
I warmly welcome this Bill. I have merely touched upon some of the activities which will be covered by the board but I am most impressed by the wide variety of enterprises which have been researched. In this, my first contribution in the House, I trust I shall be excused if I urge the board to give special attention to Donegal. My county was all but severed from the rest of this State by Partition and is the only area of the western seaboard not served by a railway. Our isolated position and lack of a rail link has added to our difficulties in economic development. In the early eighties the Fianna Fáil Government gave approval for the building of an airport near Letterkenny and an excellent site was accordingly purchased by Donegal County Council. Unfortunately, that project was cancelled in summary fashion by the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition immediately on assuming office. I would encourage the Government to give an early go-ahead to this vital part of our development so that, among other things, we can fly out some of the produce we hope will be generated by the Bord Glas programme. I may have deviated at times from the matter before us and I appreciate the leniency you have shown me.
I thank the various Deputies who have contributed. The frank and full exchange of the views reflected the general interest in the future development of the horticulture industry. The considerable research input in the contributions made also reflects recognition of the potential of that industry. Quite a few new Deputies have taken the opportunity to make their maiden speeches and some of them were very fine and worthwhile contributions.
I have been sadly disappointed by the approach Fine Gael have adopted towards the Bill. Obviously they have decided to oppose it. Deputy Farrelly, their spokesman, led off for Fine Gael and his approach was disappointingly negative. He spoke at length in criticising the Bill but I did not see any semblance of an alternative proposal. What is the attitude of Fine Gael towards the development of our natural resources and the improvement of employment? The sentiments the Deputy expressed are very disappointing.
Deputy Owen made a very bold attempt to denigrate the Bill. Bearing in mind that she represents north County Dublin in which the horticultural industry is very important, I must ask if the views she was expressing are in the long-term interest of those involved in horticulture in that constituency.
I welcome the comments of the Labour Party and The Workers' Party which were quite supportive and reflected a recognition of the necessity for a worthwhile initiative in relation to this industry. There is a need for State intervention. I am not suggesting that it should be excessive but we must consider the needs of the industry in the context of its disorganised state and serious decline over many years. My predecessor made worthwhile efforts to lay a firm foundation for the industry and he had a body whose role was chiefly advisory. Unfortunately this did not halt the decline which has been going on for many years. The industry has been disorganised, disjointed and subject to much critical comment. Those in the political arena and those involved directly in the industry have had to bear considerable criticism, primarily from consumers who have dissatisfied with the quality of produce available through the wholesalers and ultimately the retailers. The industry is, in short, very much under-developed.
Most speakers referred to the momentum of growth which the mushroom industry has generated within a few years. The significant point is that the growth in that industry has built up a momentum on the basis of very tight discipline and well organised marketing approach. We are exporting about 80 per cent of our total mushroom production and marketing it successfully in Great Britain, a market which is competitive and is growing by about 6 per cent per annum. We set out projections in our five-year development proramme published at the end of 1988 and those projections will certainly be realised in a much shorter period than originally envisaged. Deputies referred to several firms who are the leaders of the industry, such as Foxfield Mushrooms, Monaghan Mushrooms, Walsh Mushrooms and Carbury Mushrooms. These are the people who are setting an example for other sectors of the industry.
Bord Glas have a necessary role in coordinating, motivating and acting as a catalyst for the future development of the whole industry. When this legislation was being framed we had the valuable and worthwhile experience of having had the interim board in place since March 1987. I paid tribute to that interim board who, over a short time, set about their task and achieved quite significant results.
An initial analysis was made of the needs of the industry, which was badly needed to see where the opportunities were and to make them part of the programme of the industry. The report of the commodity teams formed the basis of our five year programme which I mentioned earlier and which was published at the end of last year.
The quality of life and the standard of living is improving all the time and people are more conscious of what they eat and what are regarded as healthy foods. All the indications are that people will eat increased quantities of fruit and vegetables in the years ahead. That is what happened in equally developed economies and there is no reason to doubt that the same trend will apply here. The industry and the people working in it must ensure that we are in a position to supply as much of the market requirement resulting from that increased consumption as we possibly can. Given the soil and the climatic constraints it will not be possible for us to supply the total market requirement. We should bear in mind that the industry by its very nature is labour intensive. We need to create jobs as quickly as possible and we should have a development strategy for the horticultural industry. An Bord Glas must be seen as the dynamo for the creation of jobs and the production of the increased output needed to supply the home market. I hope, too, that it will result in our having a bigger share of the export market.
An Bord Glas have their origins in a policy document which Fianna Fáil put together when in Opposition. While not having access to up-to-date information — which is a problem for parties in Opposition — the possibilities and the potential recognised at that time and clearly set down in the policy document have been borne out by the passage of time. They now form the basis for this legislation.
I was very surprised to hear Deputy Farrelly say that political parties should bring policy documents forward when in Opposition and that when they get into Government they should effectively forget about them. That kind of attitude gives politicians a bad name and reduces public confidence in the political system. I am very disappointed that Fine Gael have adopted that approach. Surely they should have a more constructive and pragmatic approach towards the whole economic development and the creation of employment generally?
The Minister should answer all the questions I asked.
Why do we need An Bord Glas? As I said earlier, it is because the horticultural industry was seriously disorganised. If one looks at the total output and range of produce within the industry one finds that it is a very diverse industry which, perhaps, leads to fragmentation within it. We need market co-ordination and the producers——
Paying for everything that has to be done.
Producers must have their system of marketing organised. There is a producer group grant scheme in operation and the thrust of the efforts of all the people involved will be towards getting as many people as possible involved with producer groups.
I agree.
Approximately 20 per cent of producers are involved at present and another 10 per cent probably have their own satisfactory arrangements with wholesalers and suppliers. We do not object to that because there is an organised discipline in their approach. However, I emphasise yet again that we must get our producers to organise themselves into marketing groups. There are three producer groups at present, Green Ace, Dublin-Meath and Fingal. I should like to think that more producer groups will be formed around the country.
The review of the industry and development programme by the interim board to which I referred earlier clearly identified marketing as the Achilles' heel of the industry. People could grow successfully but there was a deficiency in the presentation and the perception of the product on the shelves. The consumer needed to be convinced that the Irish produce was of good quality and I am glad to say that there has been a steady improvement in that regard. However, we want to see an acceleration of that improvement.
It is regrettable that over the years the horticultural industry have not gathered momentum to organise themselves. It is also regrettable that the agricultural organisations did not show a great interest in organising the industry. It is quite understandable that main income products such as livestock, milk, cereals and beet should have all the attention they deserve but special attention should be given to the horticultural sector. If it is going in the wrong direction there is a need for a board to set it on the right path towards development. That is why we propose in this Bill that the State will have an involvement through the establishment of An Bord Glas which will be a catalyst for development and a co-ordinating body bringing everybody and every activity connected with the industry together. The interim board have laid the foundations of contact with the different strands within the industry and it really will be a matter of the new statutory board exchanging the baton and continuing the whole development process.
The new board will act as a co-ordinator between the producers and Teagasc and between the horticultural industry and boards of the IDA and CTT. Many Deputies asked if there would be duplication between the role of CTT and An Bord Glas. CTT will continue to have responsibility for the export marketing of products. We are glad that the working arrangement with them is very satisfactory and there is no reason to doubt that such an arrangement will continue to be satisfactory when the new board are in operation.
There is provision in the Bill that we will have a consultative role in investment decisions within the industry and on which the IDA and other bodies will be making decisions. That is as it should be. I do not see any danger of overlap——
They should have done that through the board.
As I said I do not see any danger of overlap or duplication in that sort of arrangement. We will also have a close involvement with the retail trade. Obviously, as part of promotional work, we will have to be involved in publicity with regard to the importance of fruit and vegetables in the national diet. It is a question of convincing more people that they should eat more fruit and vegetables and, as a result, remain healthy.
Of course the new board will need staff as it would not be possible to operate adequately without them. However, there will not be a plethora of people involved in the secretariat. We will have the number required to effect the changes and to co-ordinate the industry. The remuneration and conditions of employment will be set in the same way as those for any other similar State body.
In the same way as Teagasc has been looked after?
I might also say to Deputy Farrelly that our arrangement with Teagasc will be satisfactory.
There is practically nobody left in Teagasc.
We will have an annual consultative role in the formulation of the horticultural end of the Teagasc programme. Teagasc will retain responsibility for research, advice and education. Their programme will have to be drawn up in consultation with An Bord Glas before being put into effect in any given year.
Who will be in Teagasc with a reduction of 7 per cent in their budget? We are codding ourselves.
There is no sign of any overlap or duplication in that type of arrangement. I said earlier that the industry was in urgent need of development.
On Second Stage I set out clearly what were the possibilities for import substitution, increased output and increased job creation. We said we would create 1,750 full-time and 1,500 part-time jobs. It may well transpire that those figures are conservative; indeed the indications already are that they will be conservative. I shall be glad to admit in, say, 12 or 18 months time that the numbers employed within the industry have increased at a much faster pace then had been originally anticipated primarily because of the rate of expansion in the mushroom sector. Of its nature it is labour-intensive. What we want to see are the jobs coming on stream.
In the course of the debate the levy received undue focus and political attention. The legislative provision incorporated in this Bill for the introduction of the levy is no different from that provided for in other legislation in respect of other State bodies for the introduction of a levy. We have clearly stipulated that initially An Bord Glas will be funded from the Exchequer——
How much?
At this point in time we do not know when the levy will be introduced; certainly it will be somewhat down the road. We shall have to have regard to the ability of the industry and its different segments to pay.
And if they do not pay the Minister will take them to court.
Obviously the levy will be collected at the sales end. Common sense would so dictate.
What about importers?
We will be obliged to collect the levy from them just as we will from home producers in the normal way.
In so doing will the Minister be conforming to EC regulations?
We will cross that hurdle when we reach it. Before introducing the levies we will have to introduce the necessary regulations in these Houses. Indeed they will have to be discussed by the Members of both Houses before being agreed.
On the levies or——
Would the Deputy please allow the Minister to continue.
We want to tease out the problems.
Acting Chairman
That can be done on Committee Stage.
If the collective wisdom of these Houses, when we come to introduce these levies, is to the effect that they should not be introduced, that will be the order of the day. The reality is that the regulations will have to be introduced in both Houses and the Members will have to take a decision in regard to them at that point.
On the domestic or the imported ones?
Both domestic and imported.
But the Minister has said he does not know whether, in so doing, we will be conforming to EC regulations.
We are talking about the introduction of a levy at home, a national provision. The Deputy asked me whether they would apply to imports. I replied that they would and also, of course, to domestic produce in the normal way.
I regret very much that at least one Member of the House drew a parallel between the introduction of levies and the rod licence dispute. There is no comparison good, bad or indifferent between the two. It is unfortunate that this red herring is being raised because it gives a completely false impression.
I said that initially the funding of An Bord Glas will be by the Exchequer. With the passage of time, hopefully there will be a levy introduced from which portion of the board's funding will derive. Those are the circumstances in which other State boards operate at present and have done for a very long time. I do not see why it should be contended that the circumstances surrounding An Bord Glas should be any different from those pertaining to any other State board.
The industry is asking the questions the Minister is not answering.
I am replying to these. For instance, last year an amending Bill with regard to CBF was introduced in this House. Levies were imposed on pigs for which CBF were then assuming responsibility.
Not one penny was spent on the pig industry.
Acting Chairman
Would Deputy Farrelly please allow the Minister to reply.
There were increases on existing levies for cattle and sheep also implemented. I might remind Deputy Farrelly that, at that time, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, the then Fine Gael spokesman on agriculture, accepted the levies, accepted the principle, that they were a fact of life. Indeed the principle of a levy was strongly supported by Deputy Deasy, a former Minister for Agriculture, who has had considerable experience in the matter of introduction of levies and the operation of State boards generally. At a later point I will come to Deputy Deasy's observations on the appointment of members to those boards.
The Minister should remember that the Tallaght strategy is over.
The people on the Fine Gael side of the House, now objecting to the introduction of a levy in respect of an industry badly in need of development, should think again. I would appeal to Deputy Farrelly to go back to the Fine Gael front bench and request them to reconsider their stance on, and approach to, this Bill.
In the course of his remarks in this House on 2 November Deputy Farrelly said there had been no contact established with the horticulture industry when this Bill was being prepared. If I remember correctly, Deputy Owen also referred to that fact. Deputy Farrelly read out a letter from the chairman of the IFA horticulture committee. In such circumstances I would not normally quote from correspondence with individuals but, as Deputy Farrelly chose to do so — for the sake of balance, if nothing else — I believe the reply issued by my private secretary to that letter should now be put on record and reads as follows:
"Dear Aidan,
Mr. Séamus Kirk TD, Minister for Horticulture has asked me to reply to your letter of 31 October, 1989, about the Bill now before the Dáil to establish An Bord Glas as a statutory body.
The Minister has already agreed to meet your organisation on 10 November — my letter of 23 October in reply to the letter of 10 October from Mr. Michael Mahon refers. The Minister understands that you were aware of this meeting at the time you wrote your letter of 31 October.
It might be helpful to put the Bill in perspective and put a few points on record. The interim Bord Glas as you know comprises a very wide selection of people from all sides of the industry. As far back as July 1987 the Minister understands that you were authorised to make progress reports on matters coming before the Bord to your National Council and Horticultural Committee. As you are also aware the question of the format and functions of the proposed statutory Bord have been discussed by the interim Bord on numerous occasions and the Bord has been regularly briefed on progress. Indeed the Minister further understands that you were in fact a member of a sub-committee set up to go into the whole question of the structure of the statutory Bord.
The announcement of the publication of the Bill was made at a Press Conference on 11 September. At that Press Conference the Minister indicated that he expected the Bill to be passed "early in the coming session". In addition yourself and various people in your organisation were supplied with copies of the Bill at that time.
In these circumstances the Minister is at a complete loss to understand how you can complain about lack of consultation or knowledge of progress in regard to the legislation or that your organisation had not ample time since 11 September to present its views.
That letter speaks for itself in response to what was said in this House.
There were references to removal of functions and staff from Teagasc and the Department and alleged overlapping of functions, for example, with Córas Tráchtála Teoranta. In regard to the later, CTT will, as already indicated, still be responsible for export promotion, although obviously Bord Glas will work in close harmony and collaboration with them. Indeed, the interim board have already been doing that. As regards Teagasc and the Department, there will be no extraction of staff. Teagasc will continue to be responsible for research, training and advice although Bord Glas will have a role in relation to the horticultural elements as provided for in section 8 of the Bill.
The functions of Bord Glas are set out in sections 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 of the Bill. These are functions which the Department would not and do not normally perform. The Department will continue to perform their normal functions in relation to policy formation, advice to the Minister, regulatory work and so on. There is a very clear distinction here and Deputies will note that Bord Glas have important consultative roles in the spheres of investment policy and higher education as well as an input into the horticultural element of the annual programme of activities of Teagasc.
I believe strongly that the method of appointment of board members provided for in the Bill is the best one. The Oireachtas should have the right to question the Minister's nominations. Giving the right to non-elected bodies to nominate is not the best way to proceed. Such nominations may produce good results but there is an equal if not a greater possibility that board members so appointed are not going to be the best ones for the job.
The people I like to see on State boards are those who, in their individual capacities, have not only a good knowledge of the business of the board but who have the drive and imagination needed to enable that board to have the policies that will make them an effective and successful board.
The trouble with giving the right to organisations to nominate members is that the quality of the board member and his suitability for the particular work of the board may not be always the criterion by which the organisation will consider his selection for nomination. Very often within organisations rewards are given for work already done, for certain allegiances or for any other reason imaginable within organisations as to why some particular person needs to be rewarded. That is not a good way in which to select a board.
There is also the risk that somebody nominated by an organisation will look upon himself at board meetings as being more representative of the organisation than somebody who is prepared to be his own man in debates. We all know, of course, that people will be affected by their membership of organisations or their particular activities. Of course all of us can be so affected but we need people on boards who can, in the first instance, act as individuals.
There is also the risk that the board nominees of a particular organisation will look on themselves as needing to report back constantly to their organisations so that at board meetings you are dealing not with an individual who will stand up and say things for himself but rather with somebody who is constantly looking over his shoulder at those who sent him to the board seat which he occupies.
I was greatly heartened when Deputy Austin Deasy spoke, in the midst of a very helpful intervention, on the subject of nominations to the board. I know this is not the first time Deputy Deasy has expressed these sentiments but that does not in any way weaken the strength of the reasoning behind those sentiments. I fully agree with them. I would like to assure the House that, as the Bill provides, there will be full consultation with as many people and interests as we consider necessary before nominations are made to the board of An Bord Glas but there will not be a simple acceptance of people being imposed from outside.
I want to deal briefly with the transfer of land and charges for services. The provision in section 6(1)(b) is simply a contingency provision and no such transfer is envisaged at the moment. On the question of charges for services, this is a similar provision to that contained in the Teagasc Act. There is no question of anyone being required to pay for a service not availed of. The type of situation envisaged here is that Bord Glas will be enabled to charge for a specific service provided for the industry and nothing more.
On the question of funding, Deputies will be aware that a sum of £250,000 was provided in 1989. This is a significant sum and it enabled the board effectivley to discharge their functions. The Estimates for 1990 contain a provision of £500,000, an increase of 100 per cent.
Questions were also asked about EC aid. Such aid is available under a number of headings. For example, there is aid available for producer groups for fruit and vegetables and recently such aid was extended to potato producers. Aid is also available under the farm improvement programme. There is also aid for marketing and processing and, of course, IDA and SFADCo provide aid for industrial horticultural projects.
Reference was made to organic farming. I would like to tell the House that Bord Glas have set up a widely representative and expert group to examine this sector in detail and the board hope to have a report from the group shortly.
Deputy Owen referred to natural gas. A number of horticultural producers in north Dublin applied to An Bord Gáis for connection to the gas supply under very favourable terms offered by the board. The interim Bord Glas were very much involved in the negotiations which resulted in these favourable terms. I think that anybody who joined to the gas supply system at that time is quite happy.
Deputy Owen has, however, complained about producers who did not make use of that facility. I am sorry if there are producers who were not prepared to take up the special offer made by Bord Gáis at that time. However, Bord Gáis are a commercial organisation and I cannot tell them at what price they should sell gas, although naturally I would like it to be given at as favourable a rate as possible to horticultural producers.
Deputy Owen said that the glasshouse grant scheme was only for people in big business. I am afraid she is wrong. The applications to date range from people of modest extent to glasshouses which are reasonably large in size. I agree with Deputy Owen that practically all of the glasshouses in this country are badly in need of being replaced and, of course, this is what the new grant scheme is all about.
The only way forward is through the modern glasshouse and I am very glad to be able to tell the House that some weeks ago I had the pleasure of accompanying a full busload of north County Dublin glasshouse owners to County Wexford to see the most up-to-date and modern glasshouse in Ireland. It is not a huge glasshouse but it is owned and managed very successfully by the kind of horticultural producer who is a model on how to do the job. This man knows what is he about and does his job very well. He is producing top quality produce and is getting the best yields.
Deputy Connaughton raised the question of plant health. As of now, exports of hardy nursery stock must be free of all serious organisms. In terms of the Single Market which is to be reached on 1 January 1993, there will be in the plant health area, a further liberalisation of trade between member states by cutting down on the number of inspections and formalities in the movement of plants. Details of this proposal have yet to be worked out in Brussels but the essence of the new arrangements is that the emphasis will be mainly directed at the point of dispatch, with reduced controls along the way or at the point of destination. The onus will be on the producer selling his produce to guarantee disease freedom. I and my Department have co-operated, and will continue to co-operate, with the industry in reaching this goal. I want to restate and emphasise that our aim at the continuing discussions in Brussels will be to retain the well-founded reputation Ireland has of being free from so many harmful organisms.
Deputy Martin referred to education and suggested that An Bord Glas should have a role in second level as well as in higher education. I should like to assure the Deputy that An Bord Glas will have an involvement here in that they will be concerned with the formulation of the horticultural content of the annual programme of the activities of Teagasc which, of course, includes non-degree horticultural education. The board will have to ensure that such education is in accordance with the needs of the industry.
I ask the House to support this Bill and to allow its free passage through the Dáil.
Normally at the end of Second Stage a Deputy can ask one specific question of the Minister. Does Deputy Farrelly have a specific question?
I am surprised that the Minister did not refer to the point I made in regard to the appointment of the chief executive to the board. I asked that he be a full member of the board and that he be appointed on a contract basis rather than being appointed under Grade 3 of the Civil Service pay award scheme.
I would point out that the Bill as presently laid out does not preclude anything in regard to staff and these matters will be considered.
Will the Minister accept an amendment in that regard?
That is a matter for Committee Stage.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 32.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John. (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keefee, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan.
Question declared carried.
When is it intended to take Committee Stage?
On Tuesday next, subject to agreement between the Whips.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 21 November 1989.