I move:
That Dáil Éireann, recognising the severe threat to many farmers' incomes this year, arising in particular from the collapse of live exports to both the EU and third countries, the continuing Russian ban on exports of carcase beef from seven Irish counties, the failure to secure payment of national compensation of £17 million to beef producers (£50 slaughter premium) and the disastrous grain harvest especially in the south and south-east of the country, condemns the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Government for their inadequate and ineffective stewardship of agriculture since coming into office and calls on them to take immediate and effective action to redress the situation.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Connaughton and Ring. The current Minister for Agriculture and Food, in his then capacity as Opposition spokesman, introduced a similar motion which was debated in this House on 15 and 16 April. The following month the general election was called and shortly afterwards Deputy Walsh became Minister. I congratulate him on his appointment and wish him well in the vital position he occupies for Irish agriculture, but I do not have much else good to say about him.
It is very revealing to look at the record of last April's debate and particularly the words of the Minister and his leader, the Taoiseach, who contributed to that debate and whose contribution was an indication of the importance the then Opposition placed on agriculture. Deputy Bertie Ahern stated that agriculture needs a Government prepared to act with energy and to maintain farm incomes. He stated that a Fianna Fáil-led Government would do a better job, would be far tougher in negotiations and that as leader of such a Government he would give the highest priority to reopening third country markets which are vital to healthy competition.
In the same debate the Minister, Deputy Joe Walsh, stated that the single most important thing the then Minister could do was to seek to have live export markets reopened. He roundly criticised the Minister for neglecting the real work which needed to be done in Brussels, Cairo, Tripoli, Tehran and Moscow. He referred to the failure to deliver on matching compensation for green pound revaluations. On the EU market Deputy Walsh stated that in regard to cattle prices there was no BSE or animal disease problem but there was a ferry transport problem. He then promised that on return to Government Fianna Fáil would immediately embark on an action programme which would confront all the issues highlighted. He said the first step would be to embark on a tour of capital cities of third countries to reopen beef and live cattle markets. There was a strong implication that not only would the Minister tour those cities but also the Taoiseach, if necessary.
The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, to whom I extend congratulations and good wishes, made a characteristically spirited contribution to that debate, in the course of which he stated that live exports have been the backbone of the cattle industry and that we must have live exports. Deputy O'Keeffe asked what happened the young farmer installation aid and the reason for the delays in that scheme.
I will not take up the time of the House with endless repetition and quotes from the then Opposition — there are many other references which are even more juicy. Replies furnished by Fianna Fáil to the IFA pre-election questionnaire, published in the Irish Farmers' Journal, stated that Fianna Fáil would negotiate the reopening of the vital live cattle trade and beef markets currently closed or restricted. They stated that Fianna Fáil would ensure live cattle exports are always facilitated so that there is a maximum price competition for cattle at all times. In response to a questionnaire from Macra na Feirme, Fianna Fáil stated in regard to installation aid for young farmers that the party is committed to the continuation of this scheme which is very important not only for young farmers but for the general profile of agriculture.
Against the background of those recent statements and undertakings it is reasonable to ask how the Government is measuring up to the expectations which those statements raised in the minds of farmers. It is precisely because the performance to date has fallen so far short of expectations that my colleagues and I in Opposition felt it incumbent on us to put down, at the first opportunity, this motion of censure and to seek an urgent debate on the serious decline in the incomes of many farmers as well as on the threats and uncertainties surrounding agriculture.
I wish to refer first to the crucial issue of live exports to the European Union and to third countries. The Minister knew in Opposition that the only substantive impediment to the export of live cattle to the European Union is the unavailability of suitable marine transport. Yet it has taken him practically three months to obtain a commitment from his Cabinet colleagues to provide a subsidy for the establishment of a roll-on roll-off ferry, even though the necessity for such a commitment was as evident on the day he took up office as it was in the middle of September. I hope I am wrong, but even now we are not sure if he has negotiated approval from the European Commission for this subsidy, despite the fact that as an island nation without a shipping service for our cattle exports to the EU we are at a serious and continuing trading disadvantage. That is certainly not in the spirit of EU regulations. Furthermore, in the peak season for the export of weanlings and heavier cattle, farmers still do not know whether a ferry service to the Continent will materialise or, if so, when.
There is also a market for the export of heavier cattle to the European Union. It is obvious that a specialist cattle ship rather than a roll-on roll-off ferry would be more suitable than a ferry service for the export of such cattle. There is a proposal to provide such a service through the port of Cork in a Danish registered ship the Caroline which meets all EU regulations, but falls slightly short of a small number of additional Irish regulations. I accept these additional Irish regulations were introduced during the term of the Minister's predecessor but, nonetheless, will the Minister consider relaxing them a little, on a trial basis only, in the light of the current transport crisis?
As of now all exports of live cattle to the European Union are blocked due to the absence of suitable marine transport. Given the Government's stated priorities this position is not good enough and has continued for far too long. Farmers are entitled to demand that such an intolerable imposition on the export of their produce be removed immediately. It is the duty of the Minister to respond without further procrastination or delay to this entirely reasonable demand and I hope he will do so in his response.
Bearing in mind the high priority afforded to third country exports by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the abject failure to open the Egyptian and other Middle Eastern markets is indefensible. When the Minister finally decided to visit Cairo farmers could have been forgiven for assuming that positive news was at last at hand. However, other than a vague proposal to export a trial batch of 2,000 cattle at some indeterminate date in the future, the visit appears to have been a damp squib. Reading the reported statements of the Taoiseach at the ploughing championship last week, in which he clearly set out to lower expectations, it would appear the trip to Cairo was not as successful as we had hoped.
It is worth contrasting this with the position at the beginning of June when the then Minister, Deputy Yates, received a letter from his counterpart in Cairo on 4 June which stated:
Following our meeting in Cairo during the first week of May, and the letter of Secretary John Malone of May 12, 1997 to Mr. Hassam Salem, the Egyptian Ambassador to Ireland, and our telephone conversation on June 2, I am pleased to inform you that the Egyptian Veterinarian Authority has thoroughly examined the proposal of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry of Ireland concerning exports of live cattle to Egypt. It has been agreed, in principle, to allow imports of live cattle, ready-for-slaughter and not more than two years of age, from herds that were never fed meat and bone meal and from areas declared "Free of BSE" in Ireland.
The details of the implementation of the terms of the proposal, however, should be outlined by the Veterinarian Authorities in both countries as soon as possible.
I accept that was a decision in principle and that some details needed to be followed up, but it is now early October and that market appears to be as tightly shut as it was when Deputy Yates received that letter. I disregard comments that the letter was written in the context of a general election. The Minister for Agriculture in Cairo is not likely to be drawn into an Irish general election. I do not believe it had any significance in that sense, although it was obviously something the then Minister was anxious to produce.
I do not need to outline to the Minister or the Taoiseach the importance of live cattle exports to Ireland. By their own words they have identified this issue as their priority, but what effective action have they taken since coming into office last June? As far as Irish farmers are concerned they have done nothing and that is a severe indictment of the Minister and the Government.
The Russian ban on the export of carcase beef from seven Irish counties continues. While gladly acknowledging the recent reduction from eight to seven counties, it is a minimal return from a Minister who had invested so much apparent effort and energy in this high priority area for him and the Government. I wish the Minister well in his endeavours on this issue, but farmers expect him to achieve more sooner rather than later. As long as a ban remains in respect of any Irish county, third country exports will be rendered much more difficult. Our competitors are not slow to use the ban to further their ends and to damage exports of Irish live and carcase beef.
The Minister's failure to date to secure payment of national compensation of £17 million to beef producers is inexplicable. That £50 slaughter premium was announced by his predecessor at a meeting in the Red Cow Inn on 23 April last. I understand that at that meeting Deputy Walsh described the payment as much too little and much too late, but five and a half months later not one penny of this national compensation has been paid to hard hit beef producers. I spoke to my colleague, Deputy Yates, about this matter and he is in no doubt that he would have been able to deliver on this commitment if he were still in power. He further stated that he received a personal assurance from the Farm Commissioner, on the margins of the April Council meeting, that the Commissioner would not oppose the payment of national compensation in this case.
In all these circumstances, and given the high priority afforded by the Minister to this issue, it is incumbent on him to negotiate and obtain immediate clearance for the payment of the promised £50 slaughter premium to beef producers, at a cost to the Irish Exchequer of £17 million.
On the issue of installation aid for young farmers, given the unequivocal Fianna Fáil undertaking to Macra na Feirme, to which I have already referred, how can the Minister or his Government maintain any credibility with young farmers? They naturally assumed the Fianna Fáil commitment to the continuation of this scheme meant what it said, but they have been cruelly and cynically deceived. I call on the Minister to try to reverse this disgraceful decision to renege on such a solemn and clear-cut undertaking to young farmers, and to restore this scheme immediately.
The Minister explained some of the reasons for the discontinuation of the aid from 7 August in his reply to my question yesterday. However, it has caused a great deal of cynicism in the minds of young farmers, many of whom I met at the ploughing championship. They cannot believe this Minister, for whom they have a high regard, would cynically remove that scheme, irrespective of the reasons. I ask him to look at that again.
The final subject to which I will refer is the question of support for those grain growers who have experienced such a disastrous harvest this year. This is the issue of which I have most knowledge because of my involvement in that business. However, given the present climate, I emphasise to the Minister that I have no personal interest in what I am asking him to do because I was extremely fortunate — rather than skilful — in having nothing but winter feed barley which was harvested in July and were, therefore, free of the problems to which I will refer.
Grain growers, especially in Counties Cork, Waterford and Wexford, were devastated by the continuous rain and wind which persisted throughout most of August and much of September. Many crops were badly lodged, sodden, sprouting and, in some cases, totally unharvestable. Ground conditions were appalling, more akin to midwinter than late summer. In the southern counties few can remember such unfavourable conditions. In addition, the prices available to grain growers are way down on last year, in fact, they are the lowest in 20 years.
This double tragedy of a disastrous harvest and rock bottom prices is destroying the livelihoods of many grain farmers, especially those dependent on grain for their sole or main income. It is no exaggeration to describe the situation as a crisis and, furthermore, a crisis outside the control of those suffering the consequences.
In such circumstances, it is the duty of the Government to look with sympathy on the plight of these unfortunate people, especially when a booming economy offers the means to offer some tangible assistance. There are precedents for a sympathetic and practical response to weather made calamities. When disastrous floods struck the west in 1994-5 and again in 1996 in the Clonmel and Carrick-on-Suir areas I was directly involved as Minister responsible for the Office of Public Works in obtaining disaster aid from the EU and matching funds from my Government colleagues. That was not easily achieved, especially the EU funding element.
While the present situation is not identical it has clear parallels as the essential cause of all these events is excessive rainfall. I have no hesitation, therefore, in asking the Minister to seek financial assistance, both from the EU and his Cabinet colleagues, for the worst affected grain farmers whose incomes have been demonstrably devastated this year. I am not asking him for a blank cheque but rather a focused and targeted response to those whose incomes have been so damaged as to clearly jeopardise their livelihoods and future viability in farming. Teagasc can easily identify such farmers and focus any funding on those in the most obvious need of support.
In addition to direct financial assistance for the worst hit victims I strongly recommend the following proposals. First, prompt payment of area aid to grain farmers, at least 90 per by mid-October and the balance by the end of October. Second, Government matching funds with EU revaluation aid. This would cost the Government approximately £3.8 million, which in the circumstances of the 1997 harvest is more than justified. Third, the brief to Teagasc should be extended to look at grain growers other than those whose crops were unharvestable. I understand the original instructions to Teagasc were to look at and concentrate solely on farmers who could not harvest their crops. Some farmers tried desperately to harvest practically unharvestable crops and they should not be outside the net. Finally, the possibility of providing Government subsidised very low interest long-term loans for the worst affected grain growers to get themselves off the floor should be considered. Again, this could be carefully targeted by Teagasc.
These measures when taken together can offer hope and practical assistance to the worst hit grain growers, many of whom without such assistance cannot and will not survive in business. I hope the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to these proposals and I look forward with anticipation to his response.
Farmers need a Government and a Minister who understands and shares their concerns and who will take decisive action on their behalf. Judged on that criteria and on the stated priorities of the Government, the performance of the Minister and the Government has fallen far short of the expectations of farmers. I await with interest the Minister's response to the points made by my colleagues and me in this debate.
