I understand there is half an hour left of Fianna Fáil time and the Minister is to conclude at 4.30 p.m.
Beef Industry: Statements (Resumed).
There are 15 minutes remaining in that time slot.
The real test of any Minister is whether he knows what to do in a crisis. Thanks to the MacSharry CAP reform package negotiated by his predecessor, Deputy Joe Walsh, which ensured rising income subsidies up until now, and the Structural Fund measures that were part of the National Development Plan, such as REPS, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry would agree that he had an easy run until now. It was not difficult for him to look good. He faces a real test now, whether he can steer Irish agriculture, or certainly the beef industry, past potential disaster. Needless to say the Opposition wants him to succeed in that.
The country owes a considerable debt of gratitude to former Minister, Senator Michael O'Kennedy, who took the necessary action, and provided Ireland with one of the toughest regimes in Europe to counter BSE. It is standing to us today. The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Joe Walsh, with the help of other Government colleagues, also managed to reopen most of the Middle East beef markets that were closed in the early 1990s because of a previous BSE scare. Ireland was then placed in a reasonably strong position to face the renewed crisis in the beef industry all over Europe, following disastrously illjudged British ministerial statements in the House of Commons about possible links between BSE and CJD.
Initially, there was little panic here. Inside Europe, Irish beef was not linked to any ban applied to British beef. Prices were surprisingly well maintained in the markets. The drop in domestic consumption after the initial shock was not too severe. I regret that the situation has deteriorated, especially in recent weeks. We have been calling constantly for a debate on the beef industry and I am glad the Minister has acceeded to the persistent requests of my colleague, Deputy Cowen, but we should not have had to wait all these weeks for this less than a day long debate. With the number of speakers offering we could have kept the debate going for a week. Instead we have had to share time and allow only a handful to contribute.
The Minister, Deputy Yates, made a couple of exceptionally foolish statements which completely undermined market confidence in beef and caused prices to tumble. He suggested that three million totally healthy cattle in the EU might have to be slaughtered for purely economic reasons, raising memories of the economic war. A short time later, he suggested that in 20 or 30 years time half of the country would be under trees, something not even the chairman of Coillte is predicting in his long-term forecast. I was appalled to hear the Minister this morning decribe beef as "a devalued product". As a result of this, and also the failure to win the Libyan cattle deal which went to Australia because of the lack of a hands-on approach by the Minister and the Government, confidence has faltered, and prices of many categories of cattle fell seriously.
The Minister should have travelled to Libya and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs should have gone to Iran. This Government, unlike its Fianna Fáil predecessors, has not properly cultivated relations with the Middle East and we are paying for it. The deputy president of the IFA rightly described the lack of solid action by the Government as pathetic. Even in the dispute involving the renderers, the Minister, after giving some token assistance, became totally defensive about further aid, instead of trying positively to broker a deal.
We saw the same lack of negotiating skill in relation to reducing EU fines, where the Minister succeeded, like many of his Government colleagues, in annoying the EU Commission, and had to have his irons pulled out of the fire by Commissioner Padraig Flynn. I read in The Times of 22 May where Spain managed to get a special waiver of a £230 million fine for breaches of the Common Agricultural Policy, as a way of giving drought relief. Could the Minister not try to negotiate with the EU similar aid for our beef farmers in lieu of fines due to be paid to Brussels? Our spokesperson. Deputy Cowen, rightly raised the question of looking again at GATT provisions in the present exceptional circumstances.
In Britain the foolish statements of Ministers undermined at a stroke not just confidence in British beef but to a lesser extent in the entire beef market throughout the Union and in third country markets. I regret that recent defeatist statements by our Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry had the effect of undermining confidence at home. It suggested that the problem is getting on top of him, instead of him getting on top of the problem.
This is not the first time we have faced difficulties in farming. Fianna Fáil Ministers for Agriculture such as Ray MacSharry, in the wet summer of 1980, took a hands-on approach which went all out to cushion the effects of adverse circumstances. In the 1987-88 period, after some years of stagnation, Fianna Fáil's active approach to the beef industry on return to Government generated such confidence that cattle prices reached their highest levels ever of 119p to 120p per pound, in the autumn of 1988. They are down to 88p to 90p today. We need vigorous ministerial activism, instead of the doleful face and wringing of hands that seems to be the characteristic reaction of all too many Fine Gael Agriculture Ministers whenever they have to tackle real problems.
The cattle industry is our largest agricultural sector. It underpins the entire rural economy. We are talking about a £1 billion export industry. Extra aid can be channelled through the special beef premium and headage schemes, and that would provide some immediate assistance. If outstanding unpaid EU fines could be waived, as in the Spanish case, and put towards assisting farmers, that would also help. We need a much more high-powered marketing campaign to boost domestic beef consumption. It would be the patriotic duty of every family that has been in the habit of eating Irish beef or processed meats made from Irish beef to continue doing so, without fear of any risk to health and I appeal to them to do so. If we are not willing to protect our own industries, what can we expect?
We also need to undertake far more intensive efforts to market Irish beef in Britain, in Europe and in third countries. Looked at in the medium to long term there should be positive market opportunities for Irish beef, and we should always be on the look-out for those opportunities.
The BSE crisis has huge political dimensions. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, I am sorry to say, has taken absolutely no interest in the plight of Northern Ireland farmers, who have been cut off from their markets. Northern Ireland farmers are paying a dear price for an approach that subordinates their interests to those of the UK as a whole. In fact, it would not be too much to say that Northern Ireland farmers are at present being sacrificed on the altar of the Union. They are not being helped, and no case is being made for special treatment, because allegedly it would not be in the interests of English farmers. From the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which founded Northern Ireland, down to the Framework Document of 1995, the British Government has always recognised that ideally animal and plant health policy should be conducted on an all-Ireland basis. It would of course mean that there could be no cattle imports from Britain for the time being. But there is very little such traffic anyway, I suspect.
While I do not question the necessity to close off the Border and police it rigorously under present conditions, has the Minister held any discussions with the Northern authorities or with Northern farm organisations to see if we could help establish a joint approach? It would be very helpful if the Minister could outline this in his reply. It is surely the case that one possible avenue for alleviating the situation for Britain as a whole would be to break down the UK into regions, so that the export ban would be lifted from those regions that are BSE free such as Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Surely a differential regional approach might help alleviate the problem for the British authorities, though it would have to rigorously police any cattle movements from affected areas to unaffected areas in that case. In last week's Independent on Sunday senior Commission officials are quoted as saying that the British should draw up clear, workable, convincing proposals for declaring and certifying parts of the British herd and parts of British beef production to be BSE-free. It could perfectly well do that. We have been asking them to do that. What is the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry's attitude to this?
The Minister was boasting this morning of policing the Border at a cost of £350,000 a week. That is a heavy drain on the Exchequer, and we would not want it to become a long-term operation. It has given rise to individual hardship cases. I would like to give the Minister some details of individual hardship cases but time does not permit me to do that and rather than putting individual cases that are in the text of my speech on record I ask the Minister to examine the individual cases.
The scientific basis for the measures being undertaken needs urgent review. It is clearly essential to achieve a rapid elimination of BSE from herds as a precaution from a human and animal health point of view. The evidence for a related CJD epidemic, on the other hand, is thin in the extreme. There should be an effort to ring-fence the problem where it really exists. The British Government should be encouraged to get its act together with a promise of reciprocal EU support for a credible approach. It could be a vital responsibility of the Minister to broker a deal which will underpin consumer confidence in Europe and remove the threat to the disruption of the EU.
The Minister should spell out the challenges, by all means, but he should stop accepting defeat. He should insist on solidarity among his Government partners and that they stop their attacks on the beef industry. Today, Members on the Government side asked what attacks had been made. On 18 April Deputy Eric Byrne stated in the Dáil: "However, our tax system should not be used to further maximise the benefits already derived by large farmers from the plethora of featherbedding schemes."
Surely schemes which are designed to assist farmers cannot be described as featherbedding. The Minister owes it to the House to condemn any Member who undermines the agricultural industry. If Members on this side or people outside the House did this, he would condemn them. Either the Government supports the comments of Deputy Eric Byrne or it rejects them. The Minister must state which is the position. If I had time, I could give 20 or 30 such quotes.
We will wait and see whether the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Deputy Rabbitte and Deputy De Rossa will show some interest in the problems of agriculture. The Minister is receiving no support from them. They even refused to give him the Government jet to visit third countries. The jet has been everywhere. It was probably in Knock last weekend for that airport's tenth anniversary.
Deputies
Or Tralee.
The Minister must call for solidarity and reject Government backbenchers who undermine his position every day.
I thank Deputy Ahern for sharing his time. BSE has caused great concern in the industry and this has been compounded by the lack of immediate and definitive action by the Government. Before Christmas there was a BSE crisis but not as bad as the one we face at present. However, we lost markets during the first crisis which have not yet been regained.
The attitude of consumers to red meat has changed over the past ten years. This matter must be addressed by intensive marketing of beef to sustain the industry. The present decrease in consumption because of the BSE scare has compounded this problem and consumer confidence must be restored. The recovery which began over the past two months has stalled. Consumers and retailers are looking for trade stability and cleaner product assurances and the beef industry must be able to deliver these.
To seek recovery in the consumption of beef, we must ensure that measures are taken by Brussels and the Government to restore confidence in beef. An aggressive promotional campaign is needed in different market-places to restore confidence and promote beef. The European market must be targeted by providing information, reassurance and promotion. We must face up to the fact that BSE is likely to be a problem for many years rather than a short-term concern. What extra funding has been allocated to An Bord Bia to help counter this crisis? Surely such an emergency warrants immediate extra funding so that the board can do a more effective job in promoting the beef industry. The Government must immediately address this matter and the issues raised by Fianna Fáil today.
Last October farmers celebrated what was probably their best year. Cereal farmers were doing well, dairy farmers had an unprecedented good year, the price of pigs was increasing and beef prices were high. This was because of agreeable climatic conditions and the sound price structures put in place by the former Minister, Deputy Joe Walsh. The present Minister jumped on board this wave of euphoria and claimed credit right left and centre for the good fortune of farmers. His photograph appeared everywhere except on a wanted poster.
His PR machine rolled into town with fanfare and went to every dog fight. However, when the pressure came on, he failed. He failed to deal with the sheep crisis but the PR machine protected him. He failed in the case of export refunds and told farmers prices would not fall. Again the PR was brilliant. He failed in the case of BSE, even though our economy was more badly hit than any other economy, including Britain. He allowed Britain to take the high ground at EU level. His PR machine failed on this occasion.
Farmers and everybody involved in the beef industry, from the fields to the VAC packs, are angry at the Government. The Labour Party has absolutely no interest in agriculture. Democratic Left is clearly and viciously anti-farmer. Fine Gael has sold out on the farmer to the left to ensure continuing support. In the struggle of power versus agriculture, the latter has lost. We are the only party which the Minister can be sure supports him.
It was with a great deal of anger that I listened to the Minister's pathetic attempts to justify himself and the Government. I wish to be constructive but we must be concerned about our present position. In our major markets beef consumption has decreased by between 30 and 40 per cent. With regard to live exports, our beef markets in third countries are either closed to us or operating at a reduced capacity. At home our producers are on their knees. Prices per pound fell from 102p in January to 88p this week. A price of 105p is required to break even. Intervention has failed to put an adequate floor price in the market due to the Minister failing to deliver on a commitment to set aside the normal market price reporting mechanism in determining the intervention price. Increased refunds failed because he did not take steps to ensure they were paid to those who needed them.
The Minister knows that the most important factor in maintaining prices in the home market is live exports to third countries. Where is the live trade with third countries? The Minister went to Russia but this was too little too late. As said this morning, if this was any other industry Ministers would have flown all over the place. What happened in this instance? Agriculture accounts for 40 per cent of all employment and its most important sector is in crisis. What is the Minister's reaction to this? It is, without doubt, that of an ostrich; he is burying his head in the sand.
Why did the Taoiseach take no further action than making a phone call? If, as claimed, that call was most productive, how much more productive would a visit have been? It is said that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is in the air more often than Richard Branson. Where was he when he should have helped to open up third markets? I understand he agreed to visit Iran and that the Government there would have received him. However, he changed his mind. Why? Is it because the hotels in Iran are not up to his usual standards?
There should be full premium compensation for winter beef producers who suffered the most severe losses. There must be long-term premium compensation for any loss of production or price caused by the BSE crisis. There must be a ministerial and diplomatic offensive to have third markets reopened for Irish beef and live cattle exports. The Minister and the Government must seek from the EU adequate support to a ensure a reasonable floor price in the market and that decisive action is taken by the EU to ensure the UK takes adequate steps to deal with the BSE problem.
The total cost of the package is £260 million. We are talking in terms of £600 million for Britain, even though our economy has been worse affected. What I have proposed is achievable, if we all work together. Are all farming organisations invited to tomorrow's meeting and, if not, why?
Listening to Fianna Fáil speakers, its spokesman on Agriculture, Deputy Cowen, in particular, one would think the Government was responsible for the outbreaks of BSE in Britain and, to a much lesser extent, in this country.
Is the Deputy supporting the farmers?
I did not interrupt the Deputy. The only thing Deputy Cowen did not blame the Minister for was the good weather last summer. Through their moaning and groaning, Opposition speakers have instilled greater fear in the minds of consumers. The one exception was their party leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern, who called for co-operation to bring the crisis to an end. Every other Opposition speaker dealt the industry a devastating blow. Instead of reassuring people that Irish beef is clear of BSE and the best in the world, they have instilled a greater fear in the minds of consumers. Wild and reckless contributions will not help the Government and the Minister in their efforts to restore the confidence of consumers in the quality of Irish beef.
The Minister must be congratulated for his super efforts in handling this delicate issue which resulted from the gigantic BSE problem in Great Britain. He has utilised and mobilised the Department, the diplomatic services and An Bórd Bia——
Did he write the Deputy's speech?
——to reassure the authorities in our export markets——
And Democratic Left.
——of the safety and quality of Irish beef and beef products. What more can he do?
Has he succeeded?
High ranking delegations visited Egypt and Iran while a senior departmental veterinary official travelled to the Gulf states to discuss the specific issues raised by them. The Taoiseach had several telephone conversations with President Mubarak of Egypt and succeeded in having the Egyptian market reopened for Irish live cattle exports. Had he received greater co-operation from the Opposition during those dreadful days, instead of having to answer petty questions in the House, he might have had the opportunity to travel abroad. The image must be portrayed that Ireland is a source of superior quality food.
The Minister is to be congratulated on his successful trip to Russia this week where he engaged in an aggressive marketing campaign on behalf of our beef industry. At more than 100,000 tonnes with a market value of more than £350 million, Ireland supplies more than one-third of Russia's beef imports. This is a remarkable achievement. The Minister did not come home empty-handed. He was promised this figure will be increased by at least 10 per cent this year. This is a major boost to the industry at a time when other markets are still recovering from the impact of the BSE scare. It underlines the Government's commitment to increasing our exports which are a valuable source of income. The Minister has played his heart out for the farming community and has no intention of throwing in the towel.
They walked out on him this morning.
Round one of the battle was an undeclared victory for the Minister. In future rounds he will not need anybody's help, all he will need is the co-operation and assistance of the Opposition.
Will he receive the assistance of Deputy Pat Rabbitte?
I am sure the farmers in the gallery were not impressed with some of the outlandish statements made and by the manner in which Opposition speakers addressed the matter. They have not made one constructive suggestion to break the deadlock.
The Deputy should read my speech.
The Minister can handle the matter and will ensure the future of the beef industry. The Opposition should not stab him in the back in his attempts to do so.
Listening to the contributions of Opposition speakers one would think the Minister caused the crisis——
(Wexford): We did not say that.
He has contributed to it.
——and that only he can solve it. They would have us believe that if they were on this side of the House the problem would have been resolved within 24 hours.
(Wexford): It would have been resolved a long time ago.
Those suppositions have to be taken for what they are, a cheap political contribution.
I agree with the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Bertie Ahern, on one point. He said the test of any Minister is how he acts in a crisis. Fianna Fáil is in a position to talk. It is on the opposite side of the House because of the way it acted during the crisis it created in December 1994. The Minister will be judged on how he handles the crisis in the beef industry which he has steered through one of the most difficult periods it has experienced this century.
Farmers do not think he handled it well.
That is nonsense.
The people who are suffering most in this unprecedented crisis and whom we should not forget are farmers and all those working in the agriculture industry.
Agreed.
The crisis derives from the way the matter was handled in the UK.
Blame everyone else.
Our problem was that consumers were unable to differentiate between Irish beef and British beef. They were led to believe Irish beef was also infected. As a result, many farmers are in crisis. The Minister has made superhuman efforts and is continuing to do so. If the Opposition can point out what he did not do, then perhaps we could believe them. As bad as the crisis is, all we can say is thank God we have Deputy Yates as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
God help you.
I thank all Deputies who have contributed to this debate, obviously some speeches contain more wisdom than others.
Thank you very much.
There is no need to be magnanimous about it.
I will leave each Member of the House to judge that. I will sift through some of the points made and I hope I will be able to address as many as possible. Deputy Cowen proposed a food quality authority. The Government has been looking at the role of the advisory board on food safety, as well as the relationships between the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the Department of Health, and the overlap between the veterinary service, the EHO service and the Department of Enterprise and Employment.
Several weeks ago the Secretary of the public service management and development in the Department of Finance, Mr. John Hurley, chaired an inter-departmental committee on that area. The report has now been completed and will be going to Cabinet shortly. I am satisfied with our own Department's role in EU directives. However, we need to sort out some areas of overlap between both Departments, and new proposals will emerge from that. It will deal with all aspects of food safety.
The question of where they stand in relation to compensation is of most interest to farmers at this time. Yesterday, the Commission put forward detailed proposals for initial discussion next week and for agreement, perhaps, at the end of June. In ballpark terms, we are talking about an increase in existing premia of £10 million to £20 million for suckler cows, a two month special beef premium of the order of £52 million, and £8 million for national flexibility. It is my intention, subject to the Council agreeing — and it may also require a European Parliament opinion — that a sum of the order of £8 million will be payable to those who had cattle slaughtered after 20 March up to the end of the DSP or deseasonalisation premium period. There is a number of reasons for that. First, people who sold cattle before 20 March were paid on average about 99p per lb. There was no BSE crisis then, whatever about the general marketability problems for beef. Second, there is a structure of applications and procedures that we can administer effectively for people who, at the moment, are paid as low as £15 on the DSP. It would mean quite a substantial individual payment to affected farmers, and it is my broad intention to meet with the requests put forward by all the farm organisations that we have that. The original proposals were for suckler cows and the beef premium, but there was nothing for winter finishers. If the 22 months had already been drawn on an animal there was nothing for them, so it is my intention to deal with that.
In relation to the compensation issue generally, since I spoke in the House this morning, I have had a discussion with the British Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Douglas Hogg, about developments in Britain. A number of ministers will be coming here during the Irish EU Presidency to progress issues, and on every occasion somebody asks me for anything, I will make it clear to them that the total amount of money available for compensation is unsatisfactory. I will be seeking a further major injection of funds.
How much?
All this is in the generality of horse trading because we are subject to existing budgetary flexibility. However, I am prepared to ensure that at the Florence Summit, or at the Dublin Summit during the Irish Presidency, if these compensation issues have to be addressed at a higher level than the Agricultural Council, then Ireland will be prepared to raise them then.
The question of market issues has been raised by a number of Deputies. Much unfair criticism was made of the Tánaiste and my other colleagues in Government. The fact is that I have responsibility for this situation.
God help us.
Ministers have provided whatever appropriate support is necessary and they will continue to do so. An interdepartmental structure is in place under the chairmanship of an official from the Taoiseach's Office who is looking at the lasting effects of this, both in budgetary terms, in the context of the 1996-97 period, and diplomatically also.
In relation to the markets, the Libyan situation is turning. From a trade perspective it is clear that the contracts signed up, including those by Irish operators for Australian animals, are now unravelling. The journey up through the Suez Canal and logistical difficulties, including prices, have caused this unravelling which opens up a window of opportunity.
It is patently clear that the technical authorities in Libya were not prepared to lift the European ban at the time of my scheduled meeting on 15 May. Their way of saying that was to cancel the meeting. The current trade pressures to get a source for supply also open up a window of opportunity.
Today I asked Ambassador Joe Small and officials in lveagh House at the Department of Foreign Affairs to redouble their efforts to arrange a meeting. I have a very clear focus on that. The only two markets that are a problem in terms of closure are Iran and Libya. Members should bear in mind that when Iran closed its market before, it took three years to reopen it. To get it reopened in three months would be a terrific result because in my view it was never going to be resolved overnight.
That was not their view. It was a technical issue.
The appropriate ministerial visit will take place when the technical issues with Teheran are resolved. They have not yet been resolved in the eyes of the Teheran authorities and, therefore, they are sending a veterinary delegation here. This is not the first veterinary delegation to visit and we have already brought people up to the Border areas. That is the singular focus I have for reopening the two markets. There is an ongoing effort in terms of the marketing situation there.
The Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Ahern, seriously misrepresented some statements of mine. As long as I am Minister, whether I am judged to have done a good or a bad job, I will tell it like it is. If I have detailed market analysis to show that the drop in consumption is such that the market and the European regime will be in serious imbalance, then I must react to the situation when the price of beef cattle drops by 7 or 8 per cent and the price of store cattle goes up.
People are facing horrendous difficulties in relation to the autumn. I cannot predict what the price of cattle will be in the autumn, nor can I venture to suggest what my officials in An Bord Bia and trade sources might tell me about beef cattle prices then. All the forecast prices I have heard are wholly unacceptable. I am obliged to give leadership so that people are not misled into thinking a windfall can be gained because the UK trade is out of production. I make no apologies for the statements I have made. If there is one million tonnes of beef, or whatever the figure will be depending on where consumption comes back to, people should have the full level of information.
I do not take back anything I said about forestry. I believe that, one day, Irish output from the forestry sector will exceed the current level of the value of the beef sector. There is one million acres of land that can produce more from forestry than from any type of agriculture.
I was criticised for not doing more about the rendering industry. At some point, whether it is in six days, six weeks or six months, a taxpayer subsidy would have to be discontinued. It was a farcical situation because when my senior officials chaired three meetings with the renderers, producers and processors, they all agreed that Minister would have to seek more money from the Department of Finance. It was weakening our whole involvement.
To allow a stand-off to develop and to allow the commercial realities to prevail, was the right thing to do. What happened this week was unavoidable and was a vindication of the stance I took. I hope the situation improves for renderers but there was no pleasant way of overcoming that difficulty.
Deputy Cowen is right in saying that the industry must be consumer driven. One of the permanent lessons of this is the need for a quality assurance programme. Something of the order of 12 per cent of Irish beef goes through the Q-mark with a shamrock on it. Deputy Ellis referred to uniform residue testing. These are matters of which I am very supportive. I do not want to put in place a large bureaucracy with a big levy structure because that invariably is the road one can go down in such cases. It is obvious from an examination of the organisation of the dairy sector and, to a limited extent, the sheep sector that a great deal of work has to be done. We have a story to tell in relation to all those aspects with our grassland based system, in terms of its genuine green image, and I will do anything I can to pioneer that.
On the question of ministerial visits, I simply make the point that timing is critical. If I returned empty-handed from these visits, the people who are critical of me for not making them would be the first to say they were a waste of time.
That is not the case. The Minister should go to those markets.
The Minister is in possession.
Now we know where the Minister is coming from.
The Minister is letting the cat out of the bag.
My criterion for going on any trip is not whether I get a result but if it will make a difference.
I am glad to hear that.
In that regard I am available to travel any time.
The Minister claimed success for the three trips he made yet he says if he makes another trip it will not be successful.
We have had an orderly debate on this important issue. The remaining three minutes should be orderly.
Is Deputy Cowen disappointed the Minister was successful?
No.
The Leader of the Opposition raised the question of Northern Ireland. I sympathise with the people in Northern Ireland who are experiencing great difficulties in this matter. The incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland is 40 times that of the Republic — it has a different veterinary regime — but it is a fraction of the incidence in southern England. I hope a framework will develop under the Irish Presidency, not in terms of lifting the ban on UK beef and beef products but in terms of progressing the view that a regional approach or the itemisation of certain practices in areas of Northern Ireland or Scotland is a real possibility. I will be available to support our colleagues in Northern Ireland but not at the price of jeopardising in any way the difference between the regimes North and South having regard to our low sporadic levels of BSE. The door is open but Northern Ireland will have to follow our depopulation policy or come up with some significant initiative which would be acceptable to my colleagues on the Council and to the SVC.
The Government is totally supportive of the beef industry. This has been a political point-scoring exercise and I have been long enough in Opposition to know the nature of these debates.
With respect, it is more than that.
I want to make it clear that irrespective of any personalities in the beef industry, we are dealing with 6 per cent of GNP and 10 per cent of net farm earnings in beef alone. Obviously the direct concerns of producers and processors in regard to employment and trade are matters to which the Government will be giving its total support.
Is Democratic Left supporting the Minister?
I pay tribute to my officials who have worked seven days a week, through weekends and holiday periods. They have provided an excellent support service to the Government and An Bord Bia. We have a solid track record of performance in the areas on which we are working which include marketability, the markets themselves, compensation, export refunds, intervention and sealing off the Border. I call on Opposition Deputies to identify any Government in Europe or the world that has such a focus and level of activity and which has secured such solid results in an impossible situation.
That is a political assertion.
It is total rubbish.
If Deputies opposite want a full view of what I inherited they should reflect on what was agreed in CAP reform and the GATT as to the price of beef in 1996.
The Minister is supposed to be doing a job. He has failed.
It was a great deal lower than 99p per lb. That was all part of my inheritance.
I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate. The constructive suggestions made will be followed up and I will be happy to have a further debate on this issue at any appropriate time in the future.
Before the recess?
If the Whips agree.
That concludes statements on the beef industry.