Jim O'Keeffe
Question:12 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the total amount and value of intervention stocks held in the country; and the plans, if any, he has to dispose of these.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Intervention Stocks.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:25 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the total quantity and value of beef and dairy products held in intervention on the latest date for which figures are available; the total cost of storage of these products for 1991; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 25 together.
The total quantity and value of Irish stocks in intervention at the end of April 1993 was as follows:
|
Quantity |
Value |
|
|
Tonnes |
£ millions |
|
|
Bone-in-Beef |
12,730 |
9.639 |
|
Boneless Beef |
250,918 |
289.450 |
|
Butter |
54,891 |
41.469 |
|
Skimmed Milk Powder |
20,629 |
11.757 |
|
Barley |
148,969 |
8.244 |
|
Wheat |
925 |
0.062 |
The gross cost to the Exchequer in 1991 in relation to the operation of the intervention system for all products (beef, butter, skimmed milk powder and cereals) was IR£55.0 million. This includes storage, handling, freezing and transport. Receipts from Brussels amounted to IR£39 million, leaving a net cost of IR£16 million to the Exchequer.
Intervention stocks of dairy products decreased significantly during 1992 due to a combination of factors, notably reduced production of butter, a buoyant market for skimmed milk powder, and increased disposal opportunities by way of the implementation of sales measures by the EC. The market outlook for skimmed milk powder remains positive despite some short term weakness. Although the decline in butter production and consumption continues to affect the market, there are indications that the position is beginning to stabilise.
Beef intervention stocks remain high reflecting the heavy reliance of the beef sector on intervention as a market support. This is a consequence of the difficult situation on international markets. Every effort is being made to remove obstacles to Irish beef exports and generate sales outlets, with some considerable success.
While there have been some export sales of intervention barley over the last year, intake has risen in recent months reflecting a certain dependence of the sector on intervention.
In addition, intake of wheat into intervention has recommenced for the first time since 1986. Despite the EC Commission's export policy to give priority to sales from the free market in order to reduce this dependence, cereal stocks have continued to rise throughout the Community.
On intervention stocks overall, it is a matter for the EC Commission to determine sales disposal programmes for these products.
It is clear from the Minister's reply that we have in intervention stocks to the value of one third of a billion pounds. In the light of that I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, does he agree that it is an indictment of western society to have mountains of surplus meat and other stocks in intervention while millions starve in Africa and elsewhere? Would the Minister consider that it was sensible for his Government to make substantial reductions in the moneys available for promotion and marketing of agricultural goods abroad in the light of the present huge intervention stocks?
Before answering the Deputy's first question, it is important to state what intervention means to agriculture here. It is an income support mechanism which has been used extensively by farmers as another avenue of getting rid of stocks. It has provided an important source of income for our farmers and in that context, it should not be degraded. However, in regard to whether it is moral or ethical that vast stocks of food should be in storage in the community while people starve in other parts of the world, obviously, there is only one answer to that question. At the same time, it should be stated that, where practical, this Government has always supported measures to supply food to areas of distress and continues to press that policy. The obvious answer to the Deputy's question is that it is not moral or ethical in a global sense that food reserves remain in storage while people starve, but the Government's record in endeavouring to divert such stocks, where it is practical to do so, should be recognised.
In regard to the promotion of Irish produce overseas, this is an ongoing process and a great deal of important and useful work is being done at present, with considerable success. The expert group report on the food industry has given special attention to synchronising our efforts to promote our food. I have dealt already with the difficulties that exist in the marketplace, but the bodies promoting Irish food are doing excellent work and should have our support in doing so.
I am glad the Minister agreed that it is neither moral nor ethical that intervention stocks continue while people starve, but surely he cannot feel comfortable when over one third of a billion pounds of food is being hoarded on this island while millions of people starve. Does the Minister or his Government intend raising this awful situation with the European Community? In regard to the question of disposal, will the Minister agree that it is highly unwise for his Government to reduce the amount of money available for marketing and promotion of our food abroad in the light, in particular, of the significant increases in the quantity of food now hoarded in intervention on this island?
I reiterate that in an ideal world the Deputy's point would be valid and I support him in that context. In relation to the Government's plans in this regard, as I have said already, we have always pressed that food supplies be sent to areas of distress where practical, but we should sound a note of realism here. Sending food to countries in which people are starving is not always an effective mechanism because in some of those countries there will be transport problems in terms of food distribution. For example, in countries where armed conflicts are taking place it may be difficult to move food from one area to another but, in general, efforts continue to be made in that regard.
In regard to the promotion of Irish food, I have been involved in that area for the past four months. Successful work is being carried out in that regard. It is important for all of us to "talk up" Irish food and to project the quality green image because as the Common Agricultural Policy reforms begin to bite more in terms of the mechanism about which we are talking — intervention — we must rapidly develop the value added sector of our processing industry and produce a much wider product range. In general, I compliment the promotion agencies. They are carrying out effective work and I support them in that regard. I do not agree that the work is not being carried out effectively at present.
In view of the Minister's final statement, will he comment on the recent statements from representatives of IBEC who pointed out that existing meat processing companies cannot get suitable meat—even though vast quantities are being put into intervention—because the price is so high? At present, that is affecting job creation opportunities. Does he intend to deal with this problem now? It is an extraordinary anomaly to have——
The Deputy appears to be introducing an additional subject matter to this question.
It deals with the question of intervention and I have tabled a question in that regard. We have talked already about transferring meat abroad, but I am bringing it back home and this matter has not been covered by the Minister. Intervention is creating a shortage for our food producers. Does the Minister intend doing anything about that? It certainly got enough publicity.
As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle stated, in my view the matter raised by the Deputy does not relate to this question.
I am sure it does not.
Whether it is my view or not, that is the case. I will examine the matter raised by the Deputy and communicate with her again.
Arising from the earlier part of the Minister's lengthy reply, will the Government consider taking an initiative to plan a further winding up or beefing up — if I may use that metaphor — of the Community's food aid programme? For example, will the Minister agree that we now know that all of east Africa will require massive inputs of food from the rest of the world for at least the next five to seven years? Will he not agree that even if peace were restored there tomorrow it would take at least that long for a commercial agricultural sector to emerge in that country? Has the Government any intention of getting the European Community to embark on a properly planned programme over a period of at least five years so that some reasonable use is made of surplus stocks in the Community?
The Deputy has referred to two issues. First, under Common Agricultural Policy reform, the quantity of food going into intervention will diminish but I take the Deputy's point that in areas such as east Africa a planned approach is important. In essence, the provision of food is a fire brigade action initially and there must be planning to sustain it. Obviously, the building up of the capabilities of such nations to supply their own food is the main objective. The Government has taken a positive attitude in regard to such issues and the matters raised by the Deputy will be taken into consideration as the matter progresses in the European Community.
I do not have much hope in that regard.
The Minister stated that we must "talk up" the importance of Irish food in terms of its export potential. That is probably all we are doing, we talk it up here and at every seminar around the country. Would the Minister not agree that the resources in respect of promoting Irish food products in international markets are not being provided? When one compares intervention stocks valued at £360 million approximately to the figure being spent promoting Irish food on the world market the figure is minuscule. The imbalance is enormous between the two and it is time to put the resources behind this "talking up" effort.
In regard to the fire brigade action in dealing with famine in Africa, would the Minister not agree that since we know what the requirements will be in the coming years we must plan in respect of dispersing and using stocks for the benefit of those people? It is not fire brigade action but advance planning we need now.
Regarding Deputy Cullen's first question, the stocks in intervention tend to be of the commodity variety rather than the value-added type. In my first reply I dealt with the problems on the market. The Irish food industry needs to develop its research and development programme to obtain a much wider range of product, including pre-cooked foods, vac-packed products, food ingredients etc. During my period in office I have had the opportunity to examine what is happening in the industry. The Irish industry is excellent, as are the people working in it. We must take a major step forward in respect of technology and identification of product. That will be achieved by research and development and it can be introduced into certain areas by technology transfer and so on.
The Minister is changing his attitude from that which he adopted in respect of Greencore.
It would be a mistake to consider that commodities in intervention are easily saleable. It is the value added, the upmarket type product on which we must place emphasis. CBF are doing great work in the sale and promotion of Irish beef, lamb and bacon. This promotion is ongoing and it is making good progress.
The Deputy's second question related to a planned Community approach to tackling the problems of famine and deprivation in Third World areas. I agree that an approach must be adopted by the Community.