Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are out of order. Amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy Sherlock. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are alternatives and it is suggested that we discuss together amendments Nos. 4, 7 and 8, by agreement.
Bord Glas Bill, 1989: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Acting Chairman
I move amendment No. 4.
In page 5, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following paragraph:
"(i) promote the formation and effective functioning of horticultural co-operatives or associations in the areas of production, processing and marketing.".
I am disappointed that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 have been ruled out of order. The more efficient use of our agricultural land and the proper development of our food processing industry is in the interest of farmers and industrial workers, and should be a priority for Government. When we joined the EC it was expected that many jobs in the industrial sector would not last, but it was anticipated that there would be a tremendous development in the agricultural area and that the downstream industries which would be created would compensate for losses in other areas. This has not happened in relation to traditional agricultural production and certainly not in relation to horticulture.
Against this background, the Bill is inadequate. The kernel of the Bill is section 5 which replicates the functions of other similar State promotion agencies and also replicates their weaknesses. The basic function of the board will be to provide information for horticultural procedures and hope they will respond. This type of approach has been shown in the past to be inadequate and a poor use of taxpayers' money. We would prefer an interventionist approach by Bord Glas and a system where by horticultural producers would take more responsibility for their own success. These two approaches are not necessarily contradictory. We must capitalise on Ireland's natural environment for food production and this requires that a large proportion of our food should be sold on the export markets.
We should like to see section 5 expanded to allow for the employment or sponsoring, via Teagasc, of a team of field officers to promote expanded horticultural production, processing and marketing and improved techniques for the achievement of these objectives. In the late fifties and sixties when the Sugar Company set up Erin Foods and East Cork Foods it is well known that they did not achieve their objective entirely by reason of the fact that there was no strategy for marketing. The company were restricted to 10 per cent of the home market. There was no proper approach to the marketing of the product, such as appointing people who were qualified in that field to promote and sell the products of Erin Foods.
Amendment No. 3 relates to the provision of financial assistance in the form of loans and grants to achieve these objectives. Such assistance would be made available only in relation to the gradual achievement of development plans agreed with officers of the board. Impetus would be given to the work of the board by having a system whereby loans and grants would be made available subject, as I have pointed out, to plans being produced. There should be promotion of the formation and effective functioning of horticultural co-operatives or associations in the areas of production, processing and marketing. Financial assistance should be provided in the form of loans and subsidies towards these objectives, again in the context of an agreed development plan. Unless we give the board these sorts of powers, the Bill will have no significant impact on horticulture and we will be back again in five or ten years time lamenting our continued failure in this area.
Our objective is to a large extent to allow the work to be done on contract by the board. Certainly it would be our policy in Fine Gael to continue to support the private sector in everything it does. I would like to refer to the position in regard to amendment No. 1. I am sorry I was not here but the discussion on the Bill had just started before I got to the House.
Acting Chairman
That amendment involves a potential charge on the Revenue and is therefore out of order. Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are out of order.
I would just like to make a comment on that. I had hoped that this work could be done within the existing allocation of finance, without imposing any extra charge on the Revenue. We have to accept that the board will provide finance for this type of work. I had hoped that out of the existing money that will be provided initially by the State, this work could be carried out without setting up another tier of bureaucracy. The money could be spent in employing the existing agencies to do the work. I do not believe the amendment should have been ruled out of order on that basis. I am not asking for any extra expenditure within the context of the Bill. I think the Minister will agree that we are talking about a certain amount of money being made available for this promotional work. This is outlined in section 1 of the Bill.
Is Deputy Farrelly arguing that amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 should be taken——
Amendment No. 1.
——bearing in mind that they have been ruled out of order?
I was not here at the start of the debate and I wanted to make my comment now rather than later.
These are amendments to section 5.
Yes, I know that. Can I ask you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if amendment No. 1 will be taken?
The amendment has been ruled out of order.
I was not here when that happened; I was on the way down from my office.
The amendment has been ruled out of order for the reason with which the Deputy is familiar, that it would involve a potential charge on Revenue but that does not prevent the Deputy from making a comment on it.
Is it all right if I do that now?
The amendment cannot be moved but that does not prevent the Deputy from making a comment or two on it.
What I was trying to ensure was that, within the existing finances being made available, the work could be done on a contract basis by existing agencies so that we would not be adding another layer of bureaucracy with the setting up of this board. This was one of my objections to the Bill originally. I would like to see more contract work being done rather than setting up a whole layer of bureaucracy that is not needed and I would ask the Minister to comment on that.
The Minister is not obligated to comment but if he feels he should, that is fine.
Are we dealing with amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together?
For the information of the House, I will again indicate the position. Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were ruled out of order. Amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy Sherlock is in order and has been moved. For discussion purposes we are taking with it amendments Nos. 7 and 8. Deputy Stagg's amendment No. 5 has not been reached yet.
I see that the amendments are closely linked. Basically what we are seeking to do with the amendments is to strengthen the Bill and we hope the Minister will accept that. I am sure he will agree that assistance and encouragement should be given to co-operatives in the horticultural area. Likewise, with regard to education and training and the advisory services in the horticultural area, we would envisage An Bord Glas being involved directly, in co-operation with the other bodies. I would certainly see An Bord Glas as having a very definite role and we hope the Minister can accept the amendments on that basis.
It was decided that amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 would be ruled out of order but Deputy Farrelly is perfectly within his rights in making a short comment on them. It seems that the thrust of this amendment is to take away key functions from the board, as set out in the legislation. I would refer the Deputies to section 7 of the Bill under which the board is empowered, if it thinks fit, to arrange for the performance of some of its activities by the Minister or by another person. The person in this case would of course cover commissions, as mentioned in the Deputy's amendment, companies or other agencies.
To reply briefly to Deputies Sherlock and Stagg, since I was given responsibility for horticulture two and a half years ago, a fairly constant theme has been to actively encourage producers to involve themselves with an organised marketing structure. On the basis of what has been said already, the Deputies on the other side of the House agree with that. We have available to us at present the producer group grant scheme for fruit and vegetables and quite generous aid is available for the establishment of these producer groups. In recent times the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Michael O'Kennedy, has succeeded in negotiating producer groups status for the potato sector. Under that heading quite generous start-off aid will be given for the initial five years. I refer Deputies to the aid available under those headings.
I want to refer to the producer group grant scheme for fruit and vegetables. At present there are three such groups in operation, the Green Ace producer group, the Fingal group and the Dublin-Meath group. We estimate that approximately 20 per cent of producers are directly involved with these groups and approximately ten per cent supply wholesalers and other outlets on a contractual basis. We regard this as quite a satisfactory marketing arrangement. As Deputies will note from those figures, there is still a large percentage of growers and producers whom we would like to see getting involved with producer groups and organising themselves into a producer group system. We would be very grateful for any assistance from the Deputies on the other side of the House in actively encouraging growers to do this.
I refer to the producer group status for potatoes. We have got the scheme together and we hope to be in a position to issue a leaflet on it. We have been granted producer group status for potato growers and the details of the scheme, so that growers will be able to participate in it, are well in hand and will be announced very shortly. We have agreed with the IFA to appoint a market co-ordinator for the potato sector. If this can be combined with the producer group scheme we will be going a long way, from a governmental and State agency point of view, in coming to terms with the disorganisation which unfortunately reigns out there in the industry. We are also actively pursuing the question of increased storage aid for the potato sector. I am sure Deputies will agree that all those initiatives represent a significant move forward for the potato sector. In view of what I have just said perhaps Deputies will consider withdrawing their amendments because I believe these functions are adequately catered for in the Bill as it stands.
I am very disappointed at the Minister's response. This is very important legislation in regard to the promotion of horticulture. My amendment proposes that the formation and effective functioning of horticultural co-operatives or associations in the areas of production, processing and marketing be added to section 5, which deals with the functions of the board. The functions of the board as outlined in section 5 are very general. The section states that the functions of the board shall be to survey, investigate and develop markets and potential markets for horticultural produce; collect and disseminate market intelligence; conduct reviews, etc. These provisions are not specific enough to give one confidence that the Bill will make any changes in the development and promotion of horticulture.
Recently I had talks with some producers who are very concerned that a monopoly might develop in the industry. I raised this question with the Minister in this House. I should mention that Food Importers Ltd. are involved in this sector. The real fear in the minds of producers is that there is no protection for them and that they may not have a future. They are the people who are contributing to the economy of this country by producing horticultural products. This is the type of development we want.
Inasmuch as we have criticised the co-operatives, it has to be said that without them there would be virtually no food processing industry at all. The co-operatives have been very much to the fore in my constituency, for example, in the Mitchelstown area, Ballyclough, the Golden Vale and the food division of the Sugar Company. The co-operatives need to change and adapt if the full potential of our food industry is to be realised. Nevertheless, the principle of the co-op must at all times be to the fore and that is what my amendment to section 5 proposes.
As I have said, I am disappointed at the Minister's response. The development of producer groups, such as those the Minister referred to, is very important in the enactment of legislation of this kind. Horticulture is one of our greatest resources and we must remember that what we produce is virtually important for the creation of jobs and to the economy of the country. The other benefits which come in will be the icing on the cake. The control and marketing of what we produce is vitally important for the future of this industry. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment to section 5.
As I said during the debate on Second Stage, I agree with the main thrust of the Bill. I want to go further and compliment the Minister on the work he has been doing. What we are seeking to do is strengthen the hand of the Minister in the job he has to do and the amendments we are discussing seek to do that. They do not seek to take away from the effectiveness of the Minister's job.
The Minister admitted that only 20 per cent of producers are organised through co-operatives for the sale and marketing of their produce. The EC is not providing aid for the formation of such groups. If the Minister had the flexibility our amendments propose to give him he could, if not in the immediate future then in the longer term, more readily assist the producers and facilitate them by being in a position, from a legislative basis rather than on an ad hoc basis, to put the required infrastructures in place. If he accepted our amendments his hand would be greatly strengthened in that regard. I ask the Minister to discuss these proposals with his advisers and experts and to look at them again. From the point of view of the State, the producer and the consumer, our proposals would enhance the Minister's role, not take away from it.
I am disappointed that the Minister thought I did not think these functions would be carried out. I am not disputing the fact that the board will carry out their functions. Amendment No. 4 proposes the setting up of another organisation to do a job which at least 16 organisations are currently doing in promoting the sale of our goods and products. I do not believe we should add to that list and have extra people attending different fairs throughout Europe and everywhere else. As I mentioned on Second Stage, a substantial number of the people from Ireland who attend these fairs promote their own lines and I believe this promotion should be more positively co-ordinated. I agree with the Minister's assessment but I am anxious to ensure that we do not set up another layer of bureaucracy. Had my first amendment been accepted we would not have to deal with this problem.
The Minister told us that the potato growers will appoint a co-ordinator and I would like to know if that person will be working on behalf of the growers with existing State agencies or with the new board. I am aware that certain criteria will be laid down about storage. Is there any way that the number who must be involved for a co-operative to qualify for storage aid can be reduced from ten to five? There are many potato growers in my constituency but I do not think it will be easy to get ten people to join to provide storage facilities. If the number was reduced to five the suggestion would be more acceptable. The Minister was present in my constituency for the launching of a book, a function I was not invited to, and he had an opportunity to discuss this issue with those involved in the industry.
I should like to tell Deputy Sherlock that section 4 sets out the functions of the board. That section states:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the general functions of the Board shall be to develop, promote, facilitate, encourage, co-ordinate and assist the production, marketing and consumption of horticultural produce.
I do not think that description can be misinterpreted. As I said on many occasions, I see the board as a catalyst for the horticulture industry. It will co-ordinate all efforts, will work with Teagasc, the IDA, CTT and other State bodies who have a role to play. An Bord Glas will have the primary co-ordinating role. Any misgivings the Deputy may have about the board are answered in section 4.
I should like to tell Deputy Stagg that there is no inadequacy in the producer group grant scheme in terms of assistance being available from the Community to encourage people to get involved. However, we want a commitment from the growers. The new board, and its executive, will have to convince growers that their long-term interests will be served by being members of producer groups. One producer group that I am aware of has been in operation for a long time and is doing an excellent job for its members. I accept that it deals with the cream of the country's producers but I am satisfied that there is a general lifting of standards in the industry. In time producers will realise how important it is that they should participate in such groups. When the board is established the role of the co-ordinating officer will be more clearly defined. The experience gained by the market co-ordinator for the potato sector will be invaluable to the board.
In response to Deputy Farrelly I should like to quote from the joint advertisement produced by the Irish Farmers' Association and An Bord Glas. That advertisement sought a national potato market development officer to organise and promote greater efficiency in the marketing of Irish potatoes with a view to harmonising supply and demand. The advertisement stated:
This appointment will be for an initial three year period subject to yearly progress assessments. The person appointed will encourage participation by potato growers in production groups, in accordance with the EEC scheme for producer organisations, liaise with producers, trade marketing outlets, wholesale and retail, consumer organisations as well as with appropriate State Bodies (Department of Agriculture & Food, Teagasc, An Bord Glas).
Salary by negotiation.
State employees with experience in this sector and who could secure release from present employment will be considered eligible to apply.
I am sure that job description answers Deputy Farrelly's query.
The Minister told us that the new board will consult with other State agencies and I should like to know if it is intended to establish another marketing group within An Bord Glas. According to section 5 the board will survey, investigate and develop markets, will collect and disseminate market intelligence, conduct reviews, provide publicity, advertising and promotional campaigns and publish and distribute magazines. It will cost a lot of money to carry out those functions and I should like to know from what source the new board will receive the necessary finance. I accept that initially the Government will provide finance but it is intended that the board will be financed from other sources within a few years. Are we talking about establishing another layer of bureaucracy?
I am not sure what the Deputy has in mind but I should like to tell him that it is not intended to have a huge bureaucratic structure. I am sure the secretariat of the new board will have a role to play in the compiling of market information which I am sure the Deputy will agree is an important function. We have a major problem in regard to the dissemination of up-to-date market information. Teagasc use Agri-Line and I regard that as a useful vehicle for the dissemination of up-to-date information to producers around the country. It will be important for the new board to encourage producers to link into Agri-Line and to use it as the source of information. The compilation of market information and its dissemination will be an essential role for An Bord Glas.
Will the Minister accept that the carrying out of surveys, collection and dissemination of market intelligence, the carrying out of publicity, advertising and promotional campaigns, and the publication and distribution of magazines will involve a substantial number of people? Those of us who know anything about the collection of information will be aware of how expensive that can be. Is it not possible to engage other agencies to collect this information on a contract basis so as to avoid employing additional officials?
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.