Deputy Nolan proposes to share his time with Deputy Tom Foxe. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Private Members' Business. - Beef Industry: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Cowen on Tuesday, 20 February 1996:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government's neglect of the cattle and beef industry and calls on the Minister for Agriculture to restore both competitiveness in the food industry and cattle farmers' incomes by securing the restoration in full of export refunds and calls on the Minister to fulfill his long standing commitment to institute a package of measures to sustain the sector in the face of unrelenting pressure resulting from the strength of the punt against sterling.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after Dáil Éireann and substitute the following——
"endorses the measures which have already been taken by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to address the difficulties being experienced by beef producers, commends efforts by the Minister to secure a full restoration of export refunds and welcomes the measures contained in the Structural Fund Food Sub-Programme and in the recent budget to improve the competitiveness of the beef industry.".
—(Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.)
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. As the whole agricultural sector knows, the beef crisis which has been festering for some time has reached the point where farmers, particularly beef farmers, are very angry at the lack of action by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the Government. Fianna Fáil has consistently outlined the crisis in the beef industry to this Government and the Minister.
The Minister has reneged on his responsibilities to the farmers and has now resorted to the ploy of blaming the European Commission and bureaucrats for problems which were well signposted as far back as August and September. Since last September export refuds have been cut by over 30 per cent. This is causing severe hardship for farmers, particularly those in the beef sector. On Friday, 2 February, the Minister showed a complete lack of concern for beef farmers by accepting an entirely unsatisfactory solution to the problem.
Last June the Minister promised to implement a special package to help the processing sector survive the pressure of the sterling crisis but we are still awaiting that package. Sterling has fluctuated in value over the past number of weeks, averaging between £1.03 and £1.04 to the Irish punt. This is creating severe problems for those involved in the beef processing sector and all other Irish food manufacturers who export to the UK and further afield. Sterling has recently stabilised and rallied a little but commentators suggest that this is only a temporary reprieve as far as Irish food manufacturers are concerned.
The reduction in export refunds for cattle has had devastating results, particularly for farmers who bought during last September and October at prices of £1.05 and £1.06 per pound and now, four months later, have to sell at 98p per pound. Independent analysis suggests that farmers who have been caught in this situation will lose between £70 and £100 per beast. Teagasc figures show that a price of £1.05 or £1.06 is required by beef producers to break even. A loss at £70 per head on 460,000 steers over the spring period will show a loss of £32 million to Irish beef producers.
Farmers are furious at the apparent lack of concern by this Minister and Government. The indifference shown by the Minister to the escalating problem is staggering. Some 40,000 beef farmers were left out of the CAP reforms three years ago and now have to survive on incomes of less than £4,000 per year. The Minister has failed miserably to convince the beef management committee in Brussels of the plight of Irish beef producers. Winter finishers are facing a nightmare scenario. The Minister failed to deliver on his June promise to implement a special package to help the processing sector survive the pressure of the sterling crisis. Farmers who were hoping that matters would improve have been holding back on stock, awaiting an improvement. Now with the lower export refunds in operation and no competition from the live trade there is a realistic fear that prices will fall even further.
What started some time ago as a problem has now become a disaster for beef producers. We on this side of the House have outlined over a number of weeks the concerns of the beef farm sector. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the problem lies with bureaucrats in Brussels. The recent unseemly public row with the Commissioner for Agriculture did nothing to enhance the standing of Irish agriculture or that of the Minister within the Council of Ministers. If this is the best that the Minister can do, the Taoiseach should look seriously at what is happening in the agriculture sector.
The motion calls on the Government to restore confidence in the cattle trade and the income of cattle farmers by restoring in full the export refunds. In mid November 1995 the export refunds were reduced by a staggering 25 per cent. By the beginning of December 14 per cent was restored and a further 5 per cent was restored at the beginning of this month. However, it is still 6 or 7 per cent short of the 100 per cent refund which we had in November 1995.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding in relation to farmers' incomes. The simple fact is that 50 per cent of Irish farmers have an annual income of less than £5,000, which is less than £100 per week. People on social welfare who do not have any land get more than that. We must bear in mind the size of farmers' incomes. Farmers are also criticised for paying less income tax than the PAYE sector. They would be delighted to pay income tax if their incomes warranted it but they cannot pay very much tax on incomes of £100 per week. There are very few farmers with 100 cattle or 500 acres of tillage.
In Ireland 15.4 per cent of the workforce is engaged in agriculture compared with 6.8 per cent in the rest of Europe and 2.2 per cent in the United Kingdom. Cuts in refunds and subsidies mean little to the English farmer but they mean a great deal to our farmers. Some 41 per cent of the income of the average farmer comes from subsidies — 72 per cent of the income of cattle farmers and 92 per cent of the income of sheep farmers comes from subsidies. That emphasises the importance of achieving the maximum subsidies and export refunds. In today's newspaper farmers are criticised for using illegal drugs in the production of beef. It is stated that the use of illegal drugs is at a ridiculously high level. However, that has been refuted by scientists who say that of 60,590 samples taken last year, a very small percentage was found to contain drugs. Admittedly, we should not be satisfied until their use is eliminated.
Comparing the performance of our farmers with that of farmers in other European countries, we are the second on the scale of those not using illegal drugs — Denmark has a clean sheet in that respect. With the continuing vigilance of the Department we too should achieve that goal in the near future. Will the Minister say what has happened to farmers who were found guilty of using illegal drugs, particularly angel dust? We produce excellent beef and lamb and it is important that a quality product be produced without the aid of illegal drugs.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Connaughton and Deputies from Democratic Left and the Labour Party.
I am sure that is satisfactory.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate. The difficulties experienced by beef producers are of serious concern to all of us. I looked forward to this debate in the hope that the Opposition, the proposers of the motion, would put forward new ideas and realistic proposals to solve the problem.
A new Minister would be a very good idea.
Deputy Byrne is not interested in solutions.
The Deputy wants us to do her job.
The Deputy should be heard without interruption.
Having read and listened to the contributions of the Opposition it seems its sole motive in proposing this motion is to place the blame on the Minister's shoulders. That is of no benefit to beef farmers who experience serious difficulties. We approached this debate in a much more positive light. In a crisis such as this, it is imperative that parties from all sides of the House co-operate in finding solutions.
The Deputy is changing her tune.
The Minister is not the cause of the problem and any attempt to place the blame on him is indicative of a lack of understanding of the beef industry and, worse still, a lack of determination and ability to solve the problem.
One would think from listerning to contributions such as that of Deputy Nolan that in the beef industry we are our own masters. It took everybody involved in agriculture a long time to realise that we can no longer have complete control over the direction of the industry. We are influenced by decisions in Brussels, as we learned many years ago, and that should not be news to the Opposition. Sadly, in a debate such as this, it is very easy for the Opposition to play politics on the backs of beef farmers. This motion will be worthwhile only if positive and realistic proposals are put forward.
The Minister has worked tirelessly on behalf of beef farmers, as he did successfully on behalf of other sectors that experienced difficulty during the past year. He is as concerned as all of us with the enormous reduction in price for beef. He has not yet succeeded in finding a solution to the difficulties faced by producers and nobody is satisfied with the degree of progress made, but it deserves acknowledgment. The Minister is determined not to cease his work on behalf of beef farmers until he has succeeded in getting a realistic and sustainable price for beef. He gave a commitment that he will press extremely hard the case for the restoration of refunds to a level that will render Irish beef competitive on the international market, thereby providing producers with an acceptable return on their investment and effort.
Cattle producers are an essential part of the agricultural industry. Their livelihoods must be protected. Looking back on 1995, irrespective of which side of the House we sit on, we must accept it was a good year for agriculture in general. It was good for dairying and tillage, and it is sad that on this occasion it is the beef producer who is suffering.
I am pleased with the efforts of the Minister on behalf of beef farmers. He intends to visit Paris in the next few days to seek support for our case. It is essential if we are to win the case for beef producers that we have the support of other beef producing states. People with experience and knowledge of the agricultural industry are aware that we cannot fight a lone case in Brussels, particularly on this issue given that the Commission believes the price for beef in the vast majority of countries is relatively high. We are more or less alone in our difficulties in this regard. It is very prudent of the Minister therefore to try to get the support of other member states who are sympathetic to our cause. As Deputy Foxe said, it is important that farmers' incomes be considered realistically. I hope we do not hear criticism in this debate of the level of income tax paid by farmers. Farmers who have a taxable income are happy to pay income tax. Beef farmers who have made major financial investments in the industry cannot be expected to continue to sustain enormous losses. I hope the Minister will be as successful in arguing their case as he was in the case of sheep farmers and other sectors in the agricultural industry.
It is not possible to deal with all the problems in the beef sector in the four or five minutes at my disposal because of the way business is organised. I hope I do not skip some important points due to the time constraints.
There are some undeniable facts about the beef crisis which have been raised in the House on three of four occasions during recent months. Those with winter fatteners are experiencing a dreadful time. They have sheds full of expensive cattle which were bought when cattle prices were at their highest. To make matters worse meal prices have begun to escalate and, furthermore, factories have decided to reduce their prices. Taken together, that means that many farmers, particularly those with winter fatteners, have major problems.
It is agonising that in other European Union countries most farmers with winter fatteners fare well and across the Community the price of steers is high. That weakens our case immeasurably. It means that ours is the only country suffering as a result of this price decline. We are on our own. The Minister's counterparts in Europe have not encountered the same problems and they will not support our case. Our only hope lies with the French who are also experiencing some problems. I am glad the Minister will be meeting his French counterpart in Paris next week. That is a welcome move because we do not have enough friends where we need them. It is useful to set the problem in that context.
Another major problem that confronted us at the wrong time related to our shipment of live cattle. Our share of the Egyptian market has been eroded. We have been caught out by the Australians and others. Last November members of the European beef management committee must have known that a dramatic cut in export refunds would cause major problems for a country like Ireland. I do not know the principles to which members of that committee adhere, but we, like other member states of the European Union, must abide by European laws and rules. It is not fair to pick out 13,000 or 14,000 Irish farmers for rough treatment. That matter must be addressed at a higher level.
We are net exporters of meat and live cattle. It was never intended that any country would be forced to lose its beef market share through developments that took place last November. As if we did not have enough problems, the meat factories behaved like they behaved through the years. Since 1 January 1996 all meat factories owe farmers with whom they did business an additional 2p per pound of beef. Had a proper level of competition prevailed in the market-place, farmers would not have any trouble in getting an extra 2p per pound for beef. I do not know what strictures can be placed on meat factories, but through the years it appears that as soon as the demand for live cattle fell at marts invariably the factories reduced their prices.
In the short-term only one avenue of redress is open to farmers. The Minister is exploring this avenue and many others are helping him in that regard. Whatever hope we have of convincing the beef management committee, the Council of Ministers and the Commission that a grave wrong has been done to our live cattle trade, in the short-term we must press hard for increased export refunds for live cattle. That would mean that on the day of a sale there would be competition among factory buyers. That is the only hope those with winter fatteners have of securing price stability or a price increase for the remainder of this year.
I have always been told, and accepted, that strategic planning is necessary and very important. It is a type of an eleventh commandant issued from Brussels on occasions such as this. The Commission and the beef management committee have broken that. How could they expect orderly marketing if they allowed Irish farmers to buy the most expensive store cattle last August and September and a month later when those farmers' sheds were full they decided to change the ground rules overnight? Given that background to this crisis, our 13,000 or 14,000 winter beef fatteners should feel very aggrieved. I hope when the Minister meets his French and other counterparts next week he will be able to set up a machanism to create more competition. That will be difficult to achieve, but the creation of more competition in the marketplace is the only hope of redress for our farmers in the short-term. If the factories want cattle, they will pay for them. That has been the bottom line down the years. It is difficult to predict the level of beef prices in the long-term. At present we are caught in a catch 22 situation. There should be equality among EU countries, but our EU partners decided to change the ground rules. They will have an opportunity in the next week or two to address that inequality to some degree through the creation of more competition in the marketplace.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this motion. Coming from County Westmeath and as a former agricultural consultant, I cannot but be aware of the acute problems being experienced by beef producers. Coming from one of the largest beef producing counties, I am aware that farmers have sheds full of cattle which were bought when cattle prices were high in the autumn and now prices have gone in the wrong direction for producers at the wrong time. Westmeath has a significant number of farmers with winter fatteners. This segment of beef producers has felt the effects of various reductions in export refunds during recent months, particularly since September 1995. Those who have a shred of knowledge about the beef sector would be acutely aware of the role played by that group of producers in the overall beef trade. They would be particularly aware of the important contribution played by beef farmers in ensuring an orderly flow of cattle in the beef sector, particularly in dealing with the peak and valley ratios which were important in 1979 when I undertook a study of them. Those with winter fatteners have played a significant role in ensuring a steady supply of cattle for factories at a particular crucial juncture. They also played an important role in employment creation at that time.
The impact of cuts in export refunds on beef and live cattle exports to third country markets has meant losses in this sector of between £65 and £70 per head. It is well recognised that winter fatteners incur significant feeding and housing costs. In normal circumstances cattle prices would increase at this time of the year and farmers should be compensated for those additional and variable costs. Some decisions taken at European Union level undoubtedly relate to difficulties encountered in the implementation of the GATT and restrictions on export licences issued rather than to actual physical exports, which apparently led the Commission to take a number of restrictive steps. These included cuts in export refunds and a substantial increase in the rate of security for export licences, followed by an unbelievable cut of 25 per cent in export refunds in November last, although there was a subsequent partial reveral of those cuts. I know the Minister made strong representations to Commissioners Fischler, requesting an immediate increase in export refunds and that he raised the matter with the beef management committee and elsewhere.
While increases of up to 7.5 per cent in refunds were announced on 2 February, they were inadequate to compensate our producers — the bottom line — because of the destabilisation of the market and the impact on cattle prices, both of which can be traced back to the magnitude of the initial cuts in export refunds.
Some of our European counterparts do not appear to adequately understand our very heavy dependence on the beef industry; we export over 70 per cent of our steer beef to world markets, making us much more vulnerable to cuts in export refunds than any other member state. For example, approximately 4 per cent only of German beef is exported, another clear illustration of how any cut in export refunds has a much greater effect on us.
We must insist on the immediate restoration of export refunds to levels which will underpin an acceptable price level for our producers, one that will provide them with a reasonable return on their investments and efforts. In this endeavour I urge the Minister to secure the support of one or two other beef-producing member states, particularly France, and welcome the fact that he appears to be taking that route because any attempt to fight such a case in isolation will be particularly difficult.
Since we shall hold the Presidency of the European Union in the latter half of this year, our case must be argued strongly, clearly understood and result in positive action. At a recent Irish Farmers' Association information seminar a very strong, convincing argument was advanced on the qualification limit used in calculating figures to trigger eligibility for the winter slaughter premia. The 40 per cent rate set for September to November to trigger eligibility for this premium must be reduced to 35 per cent which, based on figures for the same period in 1995, will ensure that Ireland will qualify for a £60 per head premium in 1997, worth approximately £60 million per annum to our farmers.
While fully appreciating that the premium system has made a significant contribution to the income of our beef farmers, the reality for winter fatteners is that premia will already have been claimed for many of the cattle they had purchased to fatten, which means those farmers will not derive full benefit from these special beef premia.
While appreciating that the Minister has firmly and properly outlined the obstacles and background, at technical and political levels, to his efforts to secure progress to overcome the problems being encountered by farmers engaged in winter fattening at this time, I urge him to continue to press our case that export refunds be increased to a more effective, realistic level to give some hope, especially to winter fatteners, in overcoming the very severe problems they have encountered over the past six months or so.
I have every sympathy with the plight of the Fianna Fáil party because it must be tiresome to find oneself relegated to the Opposition benches without anything to oppose. Its plight became abundantly clear during the recent budget debate when the Soldiers of Destiny searched desperately for a single measure they could credibly criticise and, instead, resorted to incoherent and, in the case of Deputy Joe Walsh, innumerable bleeps about ministerial advisers. However, I say it very deliberately because I am sure Fianna Fáil will be very interested in some of the figures advanced this evening.
This is an agricultural debate.
May I draw Members' attention to the fact that the time available to the Deputy in possession is very limited and she ought to be allowed to utilise it without interruption of any kind?
Judging by the motion before us, obviously Fianna Fáil has decided to abandon the struggle and return to its roots but what about the farmers? Notwithstanding the difficulties faced by some producers — which I fully acknowledge — large farmers have never had it so good. As an urban Deputy, representing PAYE workers and those without work, I am constantly bemused by the extent to which the farming sector can benefit from a variety of grants, perks, tax breaks and the like.
A short two weeks ago, in reply to a parliamentary question, the House was informed that in 1995 the average income tax take from a PAYE worker was £4,087 while that from a farmer was £1,031, clearly demonstrating that PAYE workers pay through the nose in terms of taxes and higher food prices to support an agricultural system long out of control.
What about the average farm income?
I doubt that Fianna Fáil will table a Private Members' Motion questioning the flawed premise of that system. Instead Fianna Fáil chose to attack this Government's record in defending the agricultural sector, on which they are on very shaky ground.
In just over a year the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has shown himself to be an able, effective champion of the farming sector and has ensured that our agricultural industry derives maximum benefit from the system.
Is that meant as a compliment or criticism of the Minister?
My quarrel is not with the Minister's handling of the system, which has been outstanding, but with the system itself. While thousands of small farmers are barely able to eke out a living from their land and are forced to engage in part-time work to make ends meet, the country's large farmers are feather-bedded by the last bastion of centralised intervention within the European Union, the Common Agricultural Policy.
The motion refers in general to the beef industry and, more particularly, to the export refund system. If I was advising Fianna Fáil I would steer clear of any motion on the beef industry——
The Deputy need not worry, she will not be advising us.
Is the Deputy not lucky to be advising Fianna Gael?
——given the star role played by that party and certain other Members is the mismanagement of the beef industry in 1990 and 1991.
I notice that Deputy Joe Walsh's name does not figure among the sponsors of this motion.
He is now our party spokesman on Social Welfare.
It was the invidious role played by Deputy Joe Walsh and his Fianna Fáil cohorts which plunged us into the beef saga, no doubt he did not wish Members to be reminded of his singularly inept custody of our beef industry during his tenure as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when he was selected by former Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey, to kick-start the infamous beef development plan, the exclusive responsibility of the then Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Joe Walsh. The Hamilton report demonstrated conclusively that the largest industrial development plan in the history of this State — the £260 million beef development plan, of which £100 million was comprised of taxpayers' money — was no more than a mirage.
Money was not paid over.
While Deputy Joe Walsh was misleading this House in regard to the beef plan, resorting to high profile press conferences to con taxpayers into believing that the plan would become a reality, the other wing of the same Government, led by Deputies Albert Reynolds and former Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey were arranging export credit insurance for the export to Iraq of raw material, the lifeblood of the plan.
Deputy Joe Walsh, who recently feigned concern about ministerial advisers admitted on 8 February 1994 that the cost of his political advisers was £259,000 per annum, just over £0.25 million.
Were they all members of Fianna Fáil?
Is that in the Deputy's script?
Deputy Hugh Byrne will have a chance of intervening later when he can express his views.
Deputy Joe Walsh's political advisers, as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry cost £259,000 per annum. I suggest the taxpayers got very bad value for their money, as Deputy Joe Walsh appears to have been very badly advised, since the net effect of his Government's decision has been to leave the Irish taxpayer threatened with the imposition of fines in excess of another £100 million from Brussels.
Proinsias strikes back.
That is the legacy of Deputy Joe Walsh's lamentable performance as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
That is Deputy Lynch's version. What does she know about it? Nothing.
The information gleaned from the answer to a parliamentary question is that this State and its taxpayers continue to pick up the tab for Fianna Fáil's unprecedented mismanagement of our beef industry in the form of fines to be imposed by Brussels. This is the shabby reality of Fianna Fáil's involvement with the beef industry.
The Fine Gael farmers will be delighted to listen to this.
Past bungling should not obscure the real problem inherent in the EU agricultural policy. I am pleased to have the opportunity to address some of the problems particularly those surrounding the export refund scheme. It is a scheme which demands close scrutiny. Export refunds are essentially a subsidy paid to farmers to compensate for fluctuations in the market price for their product. The export refund system is surely the ultimate in intervention, designed to cushion farmers against the demolition of trade barriers in the wake of GATT. The more one examines it, the more bizarre the system appears. In recent years the level of export refunds of compensation bore little or no relation to the market price level. The result is that some large farmers have been able to pocket compensation for purely imaginary losses.
The current issue is the minimal effect on farmers of a reduction in export refunds imposed by the European Commission. I understand the reduction in export refunds is not yet impacting on farmers because licences in use were taken out at a higher rate of refunds. The licences held by Irish processors should cover their requirements until the end of this month. This is panic in advance.
The Deputy is misinformed.
Deputy Cowen will have an opportunity to reply to the debate at 8.15 p.m. He ought to restrain himself in the meantime.
It is very difficult to listen to this nonsense.
If the Deputy cannot listen to the Deputy in possession he has a remedy. There are many exits from this Chamber. He might consider taking one.
I tabled the motion, I intend staying.
Fine. In the meantime——
I appreciate your protection. The row between Irish farmers and the European Commission centres on the proposals to increase refunds before the present licence expires. The European Commission points out that refunds were increased by 14 per cent in December 1995, there were further increases in beef and live animal refunds at the beef management committee meeting on 2 February 1996 and cattle prices in the EU are already relatively high.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Moffatt and Killeen.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
I admire the foresight of Deputy Theresa Ahearn in appealing to speakers not to attack the Minister. Obviously she had Deputy Lynch and the six members of the Democratic Left parliamentary party in mind. We had facile incorrect statements, dated ideological nonsense in relation to the agricultural community and some outrageous comments about the decent farming community.
This shows the Government's commitment to farmers.
I welcome the opportunity to make——
Was that statement attributed to me?
Let us hear Deputy Smith.
Six Members and 19 advisers.
Let us hear the Deputy in possession.
Let the farmers' party stand up.
That is what happens when 19 people write the one script.
This is a very important debate and it ought to be conducted in an orderly manner. Deputy Smith to continue without interruption from either side of the House.
For the benefit of Deputy Ahearn, I said she had great foresight in asking speakers not to attack the Minister. Obviously she had Deputy Lynch and the Democratic Left Party in mind from whom we had the facile incorrect statements about the agricultural industry and the decent hardworking farming community. Farmers who have lost considerable income, are not impressed with this nonsense from a party in Government. If Fine Gael has the interest of the farming community at heart it will disown those comments tonight.
Farmers, particularly those in the beef sector, have for some time highlighted the urgent need for the Minister to take a strong political initiative with the Commission and with his colleagues in the Council of Agriculture Ministers and have export refunds restored to their proper level. An issue such as this, which is of vital importance to our agricultural industry and to the economy, should not be left to officials alone for decision. It should be decided by the most senior agriculture decision making body in the EU Commission, namely the Council of Agriculture Ministers.
The protection of our livestock products and the level of livestock is crucially dependent on increased export refunds. The Minister's recent reference to the need for greater efficiency, presumably meaning in part the need for extra production, could not be contemplated without the restoration of a more favourable export refunds regime. In seeking improvements for the beef sector, we are conscious of the valuable contribution the processing sector makes and we are aware of the severe difficulties facing many factories throughout the country.
The value of the cattle industry in 1995 is reckoned to have been worth £1.36 billion to the economy. Deputy Cowen last night graphically illustrated the need to have export refunds restored to pre-November 1995 levels. The purchase price of cattle last September, their selling price now, the cost of winter feeding and housing combined, created a crisis for many farmers.
A series of decisions taken at the European Union beef management committee have not been counteracted by the Minister. That political ineptitude is causing many farmers substantial losses and an income drop they cannot afford.
The second part of the motion before the House is of particular importance and concern to my constituency. In counties Cavan and Monaghan we have an intensive agricultural industry with dairying, poultry and mushrooms as key components. Those excellent industries have been built up, due to the foresight of a small number of individuals and the diligence, hard work and commitment of many. New markets were sought out, new products were developed and markets were honoured.
In my constituency 30 mushroom producers ceased production in the past 12 months, due to the punt-sterling currency differential and the inadequate prices being paid by the UK multiples. People in that industry state there is a real possibility of other growers ceasing production. For some time the growers association has sought action from the Government but this has not been forthcoming. The problems and the pressure in the industry have been building up for some time and the price fixing measures for the industry, which were introduced in 1990 and which are based on the 1989 exchange rate, present them with particular difficulties concerning the current exchange rate. I understand the pricing structure was based on an exchange rate which valued the punt at 89p against the pound sterling and now the punt is valued at 103p against the pound sterling. Furthermore, the association is losing 5p on every pound weight of mushrooms which are produced and this means a substantial cut in their profit margins.
The poultry industry faces similar problems. This Government's promise to introduce a special package to assist the food industry, which faces serious problems due to the currency differential, has not been honoured. Thousands of jobs depend on the Minister and the Government taking appropriate action.
In the recent budget, the Government had the opportunity to make meaningful reductions in PRSI levels but did not take it. In 1992 the Government was willing to assist industry affected by currency differentials and special support mechanisms were introduced. The major processors in the mushroom industry estimate that their price returns have fallen by about 15 per cent in the last 12 months. I appeal to the Government and the Minister to take the necessary action to ensure that those industries do not decline further and that the very valuable on farm and off farm employment created by the poultry and mushroom industries is protected.
I thank my colleagues for sharing time with me. My colleague, Deputy Brian Cowen, the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on agriculture made a damning indictment of the performance of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, especially in relation to the beef trade and competitiveness in the food industry. Nobody needs to be reminded of the importance of our greatest indigenous industry based primarily on the family farm. It costs at least £12,500 to £15,000 to create a new job in industry. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we assist agriculture to keep our people on the land and that we do not increase the dole queues. To do that we must create a stable environment for agriculture.
Farmers do not work a 39 hour week. They have many variable situations to contend with such as the growth of grass and cereals, problems relating to disease, the price of cattle, sheep and food products in addition to the differential between the punt and sterling. As if matters were not bad enough, the Minister gets bogged down in Europe in regard to export refunds and premia payments. It takes skill and diplomacy, not confrontation, to deal with the bureaucrats in Brussels. Photocalls in Brussels, farmers' charters or empty promises do not impress farmers. A ministerial diary in The Western People is of little use to farmers either. Farmers want resolutions to the problems they currently face and in that regard the Minister is not delivering the goods.
Farmers do not only have difficulties at EU level but also at home in relation to the TB problem which is proving to be more divisive by the day because the ordinary farmer has not been consulted on the matter. Whatever agreements have been made may suit the owners of large farms but small farm owners will have to pay on the double, particularly in regard to export certificates.
We have a Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry — or should I say a Minister for Photocalls — who blames farmers for poor productivity. The EU is unresponsive to his plight and we cannot excuse him because it is unlikely that BSE, or jungle juice, is a causative factor in his poor performance to date in regard to the farming community.
I commend my colleagues for putting this motion before the House which highlights the real crisis in agriculture, particularly in the cattle and beef industry. Only a short time has passed since we last addressed the problems besetting the sheep sector. I hope this debate will prompt the Minister to take even the limited action he took on that occasion.
An ongoing element of the current situation which is likely to become more severe in the medium term is the pressure resulting from the strength of the punt against sterling. Traders and economic experts have been pointing to political and other factors which are likely to push the punt to £1.04 or £1.05 sterling. This could be sustained for a period of months and would have disastrous consequences for trade with the United Kingdom.
The Minister must get together with his colleague, the Minister for Tourism and Trade, and others involved in that area and institute a package of measures to sustain Irish trade and exports generally but particularly beef and other food industry products.
It is a source of considerable anger and frustration for Irish exporters that this Government has consistently shirked its responsibilities in this area. The days when EU and other international constraints were quoted are long gone. This country has a special case to make and the Government must come up with initiatives to address what is clearly an untenable situation.
It is the responsibility of the Minister to initiate and advance the debate on the direction of agriculture at the stage where premium payments are discontinued or restructured. We all understand the difficulties the Minister has with some of his colleagues in Government, and anyone who has been present in the Chamber in the past 15 minutes has an acute understanding of the severity of those difficulties. Some of the Minister's colleagues are clearly hell bent on undermining EU payments to farmers and are interested only in cheap political point-scoring. The Minister's own trite comment about cheques in the post has done little to advance the debate.
It is quite extraordinary that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, or any of the other State bodies involved, have not put forward a worthwhile policy document on how the various elements of agriculture, and the food industries dependent on it, can be best supported at EU level and in the GATT framework. Almost all of the worthwhile analysis has come from the farming organisations and, too often, their warnings have been ignored or passed off as alarmist, but the fact is that one crisis follows another in quick succession.
Ireland's unique position is not being adequately catered for or even recognised. We export more than 70 per cent of our steer beef to world markets and, as a result, Irish prices are much more dependent on export refunds than any of our EU partners. In general, the price paid to Irish farmers is a mix of third country prices and export refunds. In Ireland's case, the export refunds do not apply only to a small spare capacity, as is the case with producers on the continent. They account for a huge proportion of Irish beef and are the key factor in setting the price paid to the producer. That is the reason for the urgency in restoring full export refunds without further delay.
The Irish Cattle Traders and Stockholders Association has pointed to deficiencies in premia payments which militate against its members. Their special case must be examined and, if it is found to have merit, action must be taken. It is easy to dismiss those in a particular sector and seek to represent them as high flyers. Their plight must be made clear to the beef management committee in Brussels and if additional payments to those envisaged under CAP reform are required, the Minister must make the case for that additional funding. These people have said that even a full return to last September's level of export refunds will not adequately protect their interests. If that is so, the Minister must establish what is required and fight for it.
Dry stock farming is the main enterprise of almost 40,000 farmers. Their ongoing viability is fundamental to the survival of rural communities. Too many sectors in agriculture have cause to seriously examine their ongoing viability and to doubt their ability to remain in rural Ireland. This element of agriculture is fundamental to farmers continuing to live and work in rural Ireland.
It is totally unrealistic to represent most farmers as wealthy businessmen, as has been done here. The vast majority of farmers struggle to provide for their families. They look to the Minister to represent their case, and we recognise the difficulties he faces in Government which were so graphically illustrated by the comments made by Deputy Lynch.
I wish to move the amendment tabled in the names of Deputy Harney, Deputy Clohessy and myself.
The Deputy may not move that amendment as there is already an amendment before the House, although the Deputy may refer to it.
The amendment is along much the same lines as the motion but it is set out in somewhat more detail.
The purchase of store cattle to be fattened for slaughter or for live export has been a traditional part of Irish farming for generations. It has been the foundation of an immensely important national industry, it represents a significant proportion of our national exports and is the sole source of income for a very large number of farmers.
Almost 70,000 farmers derive all or most of their incomes from dry stock and their situation is very precarious. According to the Teagasc national farm survey, their average income in 1994 was £4,000 from beef cattle. The family farm income from beef in 1994 was £87 per acre. Speaking in the Seanad on 7 February last, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry said that 50 per cent of total net farm incomes now comes from subsidies. This underlines dramatically the vulnerability of the modest agricultural incomes to decisions made in Brussels. That is why the unilateral decisions taken by the Commission's beef management committee to cut export refunds by a massive 45 per cent between September and December of last year had such profound implications for Irish farmers. An increase of 14 per cent in December and 5 per cent on live cattle and male carcase beef, coupled to a non-cumulative 7.5 per cent increase for boneless beef in February, does not go nearly far enough to rectify the damage that had already been caused. Were these cuts by the Commission a cynical move to undermine market prices, designed to bring them to a level below those originally indicated by the MacSharry reform package or were they a device to lower prices when part of the package agreed at the time was to compensate farmers for price cuts which would arise from the CAP reform? I have referred already to the narrow profit margins from beef production and winter fattening.
The real inequity of the Commission's move on export refunds was that many farmers had already bought in cattle for winter fattening when the most severe cuts were imposed. Investment decisions made in good faith were totally undermined by the unilateral decisions of the beef management committee. In reply to a parliamentary question tabled by my colleague, Deputy Peader Clohessy, on 15 February, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, said he had "done everything possible to get refunds back to levels which would provide reasonable returns to beef producers and in particular to winter fatteners." The facts show that the Minister has totally failed in his efforts — not for the first time has he talked tough and acted soft. Where is the tangible evidence that his much used lexicon of commitment and priority is backed up by success in Brussels? In the same reply the Minister emphasised the importance of the £60 steer deseasonalisation slaughter premium in maintaining the returns of winter fatteners. Surely he and the European Commission must see the contradiction and the incompatibility between payment of the £60 premium designed to reduce the problem of seasonality and the cutting of the refunds which will have precisely the opposite effect.
The deseasonalisation premium is at risk in Ireland. What action is being taken to maintain it in full? As things stand, according to Teagasc, the break even price on winter fattening is £1.05 to £1.06 per pound. This leaves winter fatteners facing significant losses and a potential loss to the economy of up to £160 million. The loss of all or part of the deseasonalisation premium on top of the export refund cuts will lead to additional losses again next season. What we are seeing is the unravelling of the CAP and the abandonment of the commitment given under the CAP reform package to maintain farm incomes. The Minister needs to remind his European colleagues of their obligations to fulfil commitments and that under the rules we are entitled to support from export refunds, which is being removed. This is not a special pleading for Ireland.
The Progressive Democrats amendment to this motion also highlights the fact that substantial numbers of Irish farmers were excluded from the CAP reform package; as many as 40,000 farmers have no quota because they do not produce their own calves. They have also missed out on a big proportion of the £170 million a year coming to Ireland by way of special beef premiums. Producers of quality beef heifers, the suppliers of top grade meat to Irish consumers, were also left out of the compensation package. The Minister's suggestion, in columns 788-89 of the Official Report of 16 November 1995, to extend existing premia to heifers could not be accommodated "other than by a significant reduction in the rates of payment under existing schemes and further major and permanent reductions in market support, especially export refunds,". That represents a remarkably defeatist attitude and it means that these farmers effectively have been abandoned.
What is the Minister's reaction to the views of an eminent agricultural consultant, Dick Collins of the Farm Business Advisers in Fermoy, who recently advocated the introduction of one simplified area aid premium rather than the multiplicy of existing and often contraditory schemes? The Minister will be aware of the need to market Irish beef effectively on export markets and of the opportunity presented by our record on BSE. Can he assure the House that An Bord Bia is being provided with the necessary back-up by his Department to do the job effectively? In recent weeks the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, have stressed the need to increase productivity in Irish agriculture and food production as a means of countering the difficulties caused by the strength of the punt against sterling.
Good advice and research is central to maintaining this productive and competitive edge. Yet I am told that in County Meath there is a single adviser for 4,500 beef farmers. Teagasc resources need to be devoted to where they are needed most, assisting the producers of meat, milk and crops. Why does Teagasc not have an overriding commitment to efficient production? Will we become content with social welfare type income in the future rather than relying on production related income? In an environment where the market is becoming dominant any industry which lacks the basic technical support to increase productivity while controlling costs cannot hope to survive the systematic dismantling of the supports hitherto afforded by the Common Agricultural Policy.
I compliment Deputy Cowen on his efforts to try to create a situation where we would have a public debate that would concentrate the minds of Members and members of the Government on what has to be done in this crisis.
It is crucially important in the context of the Minister's work at EU level that elected representatives present a united front on their concern as to what is happening in the cattle industry, with the loss of income and the potential damage to family farms because of the downturn in cattle prices.
When we want to present a united front from Ireland to the EU to try to change some of these circumstances is it not ludicrous that the Government had deliberately trotted in Democratic Left to cut the CAP policy to ribbons during agriculture debates? Is it not bad enough to see the CAP being systematically dismantled in Brussels without the consequence of 19 advisers from a party in Government at a cost of £500,000 to the taxpayers being paid to produce speeches which undermine the Government's efforts? I know Deputy Ivan Yates wants his public relations machine to have him in the newspaper every day but I sympathise with him when he and his Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, go to Europe because the bureaucrats are able to produce speeches by members of the Government which systematically dismantle their policy. What Fianna Fáil is trying to do — especially Deputies Cowen and Hugh Byrne — is to show a united face and demonstrate that Ireland will not take this. That is support for the Government because the Minister can then go out and fight pointing out what is happening behind him. How can he do it with Democratic Left trailing along and deliberately creating a situation where part of the Government is totally against the Common Agricultural Policy? This is not the first time we have heard such a litany from Democratic Left; we have been hearing it consistently. This may be used against us as we try to rescue the situation in the European Union. I plead with the Minister who has the support of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats to ensure his own backbenchers support the efforts of the Government to present a united front in this House.
The preliminary statistics released by the Central Statistics Office show that agricultural output exceeded £2 billion for the first time in 1995 and that agricultural incomes rose by over 7 per cent. It was a very good year for the dairy sector, the pig sector, the beef sector despite the difficulties experienced by the winter fatteners, the cereal sector and the potato sector. It is not all doom and gloom. Listening to Members across the floor one would swear the agriculture industry was in crisis; it is not, although there are difficulties which must be addressed.
Difficulties have always been experienced in the industry. In recent times sheep were forced through the doors of Agriculture House while beef and pig farmers protested out on the street. We resolved those problems and now we will try to resolve the problems of winter fatteners.
It is not necessary to dwell on the background to the difficulties being faced by beef producers, particularly winter fatteners, since the beginning of the year. The difficulties have arisen mainly because of the cuts in export refunds implemented by the EU Commission to control the level of subsidised beef exports in this the first year of the GATT. Last night the Minister, Deputy Yates, outlined the situation in some detail and explained the efforts being made to restore the refunds to levels which would underpin the incomes of beef producers.
We are extremely unhappy with the approach the Commission has adopted in managing the beef market since last September. The 35 per cent cut in refunds between September and November was unwarranted, but since then, mainly due to pressure exerted by the Minister and the Department, they have been partially restored. For example, last December refunds were increased by 14 per cent and by between 5 and 7.5 per cent on 2 February last, the latter increase after a special meeting of the Beef Management Committee convened in response to pressure exerted by both us and the French.
While these increases are not a full solution to the price difficulties faced by producers, they represent substantial progress on an issue on which we received little support initially. The Minister will continue to seek to have the refunds restored to levels which would make Irish beef and cattle competitive in international markets and underpin the income of producers.
The live trade will be an important element in the maintenance of reasonable returns to producers. A certain amount of live exports are necessary to maintain strong competition in the marketplace. It is widely accepted that the live trade is not capable of providing a sufficient degree of competition because of the cumulative effect of the reduction in refunds in recent months.
The Minister who is fighting a lone battle will do everything possible in the European Union to protect winter fatteners. In that connection we should present a united front in this House.
The Minister of State should tell that to Deputy Lynch.
I hope the Minister's constituency colleague, Deputy Hugh Byrne, will be constructive in windingup the debate. I am confident the Minister will do justice to the beef trade in Brussels in coming months.
The Minister of State should be in no doubt that the Minister, Deputy Yates, will have the full support of Members on this side of the House in making a genuine and sincere effort to improve the lot of farmers.
Fianna Fáil makes no apology for tabling this motion. It was essential to do so because, despite what the Minister and the Minister of State said, this matter has been mismanaged. The bottom line is that beef farmers are on the breadline. They do not know what the future holds for them. The motion has exposed the views of some Members about farmers, particularly those who find themselves in difficulty.
The Minister and the Minister of State informed us that 1995 was a great year for farmers. It was undoubtedly one of the best we ever had due to a combination of good weather and the excellent work done by the Minister's predecessors.
Fianna Fáil tabled this motion to focus the attention of the Minister on the deteriorating position in the beef sector. As he apportioned blame, like snuff at a wake, it was clear that the Minister's only concern was to put as much distance as possible between the Government and cattle farmers.
On 10 February, Matt Dempsey, the editor of the Farmers Journal, who has been kind to the Minister in the past, stated in an editorial:
So, we have had the increase in export refunds.
Clearly, five per cent and 7.5 per cent is better than nothing. But, that said, little has happened to beef prices, except new warnings from the meat factories of more serious declines as the spring advances. [In other words, the factories are putting down a marker]
But, why should beef farmers feel so aggrieved? It is quite clear that the Commission in Brussels feel that yet another sector of the Irish industry is crying wolf yet again. They point out that the price of cattle cannot be looked at in isolation, that the special beef premium and the slaughter premium must also be taken into the equation. Nobody can dispute that. But, we have in Ireland a special beef sector who normally do not qualify for either of the special beef premia, as mature store cattle are bought in the autumn and sold fat in the spring.
This essential point seems to have escaped the policy makers. It is not the absolute price that matters to this sector, but the price difference between buying and selling... The next issue is, should finishers simply be told that these are the vagaries of the market and must be lived with. This does not wash. Ireland has been pushed by deliberate EU policy into a reliance on Third Country markets. In 1995, somewhat over 80 per cent of our steers went to Third Countries, and even taking the full mix of beef producers — steers, heifers and cows — as Bord Bia has pointed out, Russia was our most important individual market in 1995, then the UK, France (mostly cows), followed by Saudia Arabia, Egypt and Iran.
The price paid to the farmer is a direct mix of Third Country prices and export refunds. These refunds are not in the Irish case simply applying to a residual quantity of product, as is the case with Continental producers, but account for a huge proportion of the total sales of the Irish industry and are by far the most important component in setting prices to producers.
It is remarkable that we have not seen any sensible policy paper put forward by the Department of Agriculture, the meat factory bodies or Teagasc as to how the essential and different features of the Irish industry can be dealt with at EU level — especially in a GATT framework.
That would happen if we had proper leadership. I do not expect movement from the Department, the meat factory bodies or Teagasc unless the Minister sets the pace. I am sure Matt Dempsey, in common with farmers and the Opposition, is discovering that the Minister is not as effective as he was made out to be in newspaper reports at the beginning of his term in office. After 14 months his flash Harry approach is not working. Notwithstanding that the majority of commentators were aware of this serious crisis in the beef sector since last autumn, the Minister was blinded by the flashbulbs of his interminable photo calls. It is a tribute to his handlers, however, that even he has started to believe his own press releases.
In moving this motion, Deputy Cowen illustrated the extent of the Minister's culpability in this growing fiasco. He repeatedly dismissed the threat to cattle prices from cuts in export refunds. As recently as last December he said he did not expect the new level of refunds to have an immediate effect on cattle prices. Last night in the House he said he had some difficulty remembering what he said then. If by now his press office has not dug out statement No. 257 of 1995 from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry he can obtain a copy from the Fianna Fáil press office or from me.
I am glad the Deputy pays attention to my press releases.
That is only the most recently recorded false assurance from the Minister to beef farmers. The cuts in export refunds have had a disastrous effect on cattle prices. Since last autumn the Minister presided over a reduction of 35 per cent in those refunds. Cattle farmers are devastated as cattle bought last September at 106p and 107p per pound are being sold at 98p per pound. After months of winter feeding this represents a loss of up to £70 per head of cattle and even that may be an understatement. Teagasc figures shows that a price of approximately 106p per pound would be required to break even. To make a profit of £30 per head, it is estimated that farmers need a price of approximately 109p per pound. Spread over the spring, a loss of £70 per head on 460,000 steers will amount to more than £32 million, assuming the position does not deteriorate. We have reason to believe cattle prices have not yet reached their lowest level.
This is a man-made crisis and the Minister is responsible for a huge political oversight. Many people believe he should have seen the writing on the wall last July. He compounded his error by engaging in a slagging match with the Commissioner. It appears the Minister has not heard the adage, "when you are in a hole, stop digging". Despite the Minister's height, he is up to his neck in it this time.
At a time when cattle prices are plummeting, last week we were told that we are on the verge of losing the slaughter premium. In addition, a lower qualification rate of 40 per cent for that premium will be paid for by a cut in the 22 month premium as well as reducing the slaughter premium by £15. It would be difficult to imagine a more damaging set of proposals for farmers. Once again, the Minister did not see the juggernaut coming. Irish farmers need a Minister who can cope in Brussels. We need a Minister on the inside track, this Minister is not.
We have a unique cattle system and, consequently, a unique problem that deserves a unique solution. The Minister of State confirmed that the Minister is alone on this issue. He asked members of the Government to seek solutions rather than criticisms on this matter. The Minister spoke last night as if he were defeated on this issue. We do not want him going to Brussels with a defeatist attitude, although he cannot be blamed for that because even his team mates are playing against him. The Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, who was a fine corner back in his day, would probably relegate the Minister to the substitution line and definitely would not have a Democratic Left member on the team.
He or she probably would be the goalie.
The own goalie.
The Minister should continue his lobbying. He proposes to meet the French next week, he should visit all capitals. Does he believe, as everyone else does, that this crisis warrants the Taoiseach's attention? Earlier this evening the Minister came into the House to make a speech about Johnstown Castle and its museum.
Another success story.
That is true and the Minister's great PR machine should be sent to the museum in Johnstown when he is finished with it. The Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, gave some credit to others whereas the Minister, Deputy Yates, did not give a morsel to anybody.
I gave a great deal of credit to the Minister for the Environment.
Approximately one month ago Deputy Theresa Ahearn asked the Government to provide a course on rural living and farming for members of the Democratic Left.
(Interruptions.)
It is ironic that she agreed to share time with members of that party tonight. I am sure she is sorry now because we have heard the same old predictable anti-farmer and begrudgery piffle——
It was anti-Deputy Walsh.
I am talking about a Minister. I fail to understand how a Minister can stand over someone in his Government insulting people who spend 80 hours a week working on behalf of the nation. Deputy Lynch made an incorrect and misleading statement earlier in the debate when she referred to the cost of Deputy Walsh's assistants. She should not be so selective. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Shea, and Deputy Hyland shared that cost.
Was the House misled?
May we withdraw it in Irish?
Let us hear the Deputy's concluding remarks.
It was a projected figure. Deputy Walsh had one non-established personal secretary at an annual cost to the taxpayer of between £10,000 and £12,000 per annum. Bhfuil brón ort, a chara?
The Deputy should not cast aspersions on the Irish language.
Shame on the Government.
The Deputy forgot about the programme managers and special advisers.
Let us hear Deputy Byrne without interruption.
They are distorting the truth as usual.
(Interruptions.)
They would not know the truth if it hit them in the face.
Deputy Byrne's colleagues are responsible for most of the interruptions.
We are speaking to a divided Government. For the sake of beef farmers the Government must look seriously at this issue and adopt a co-ordinated approach in Brussels. Members on this side of the House will support such an approach if the Government parties can unite.
Shame on Fine Gael.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 57.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- de Valera, Síle.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.