Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Jun 1998

Vol. 492 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Agricultural Schemes: Motion.

Mr. Connaughton

I move:

That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for its failure to honour its pre-election promises to provide funding for the following: (a) a new control of farmyard pollution scheme; (b) a dairy hygiene scheme: (c) introduction of a new farm installation grant scheme for young farmers; (d) to reopen the live cattle export trade to Egypt and Libya.

Furthermore, Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for its failure: (a) to introduce an efficient farmer-friendly animal traceability scheme; (b) to introduce a comprehensive quality assurance scheme at farm level which is not excessively costly to farmers; (c) to reorganise the area aid unit; (d) to guarantee farmers that results of the 30-day blood tests be made available inside a ten day period and (e) to use its influence to provide for a live cattle shipping service to the Continent.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Ulick Burke, Perry, Neville, Crawford and Naughten.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Connaughton

This debate is of paramount importance to the 150,000 farming families. Farmers are bemused when they hear of the Celtic tiger. Our economic performance is the showpiece of Europe and we are very proud of that fact. However, farmers know that the tiger's footprints are not to be found in the fields of Ireland. All is not well with agriculture. People are leaving the land at an alarming rate. In 1981 there were 220,000 farmers. In 1995 this had reduced to 150,000 — a reduction of 70,000 or 5,000 farmers for every year. Against the 5,000 people leaving agriculture, only 670 young farmers entered farming each year via the installation aid scheme.

The signals are not good and 1997-8 saw the first reduction in students entering agricultural colleges. I am constantly reminded of the reluctance of young people to enter farming. Many parents are turning prematurely grey trying to convince a son or daughter to stay. The more successful the economy and the more jobs that become available the more difficult it is for young farmers to earn an income comparable to that which family members earn in other sectors. This phenomenon is not confined to small farmers. Even on well run, profitable farms young people do not want to continue farming.

The Agenda 2000 proposals will take £250 million out of our economy annually. Worse than that is the fact that the proposals will strike unevenly. Many sectors of the community, such as the beef sector, will not withstand the proposals. The BSE outbreak is out of the news and the fact that only small numbers have been recorded in the past few months should mean that the prospects for exports will improve. However, there is a huge decline in farm-related construction spending this year estimated at £70 million to £80 million.

Before the last election the current Minister for Agriculture and Food stated that if returned to power he would introduce a new control of farmyard pollution scheme, continue the dairy hygiene scheme and introduce a new installation aid scheme for young farmers. He convinced many farmers that he would deliver on these promises if he became Minister. He has been Minister for one year but his performance has been disappointing to thousands of farmers. They believed him before the election and voted accordingly.

How can it be that in the run-up to the crisis in the year 2000 the Minister is allowing an agricultural economy to be without schemes of this type? We need someone to instil confidence in the industry. There are too many black clouds — real or imaginary. The Minister has decided to put his head in the sand and this does not augur well for our negotiating stance in the year 2000 when we will need a strong hand in Brussels.

Government Ministers run with the class acts such as the computer industry. We are glad to see this as it is good for employment. Everyone wants to be associated with a winner. However, where are the traditional values that Fianna Fáil, in particular, always espoused? It always said it would back small and medium sized farmers. I have never heard less about agriculture from any Taoiseach than from Deputy Ahern. The Minister seems isolated in Cabinet where he has few friends because it does not seem popular to speak of agriculture although it still has huge export earning potential. There are huge opportunities for job creation, directly and indirectly. That is in addition to the 150,000 farmers and their families who have to earn a living. It is not a small industry and should be treated differently.

No one ever expected the Progressive Democrats to be good for agriculture. However, I am very disappointed with the three Independents who keep the Government in power — Deputies Fox, Blaney and Healy-Rae. They represent rural constituencies. Are there no young farmers looking for or entitled to installation aid in their constituencies? Do farmers not want a grant to control pollution? Are there no dairy farmers with a problem with dairy hygiene? These Deputies will get their chance at 8.30 p.m. tomorrow. By changing sides they will not bring down the Government but they will send a signal that they do not like what they see when it comes to agriculture. If these Deputies mean what they say to farmers now is the time to show it.

About 25,000 farmers would apply for the control of pollution grant or the dairy hygiene grant, if available. These figures come from senior departmental officials. Control of pollution is not only a matter for farmers or the local community, it is a national environmental problem. It is vital that we control pollution from whatever source, particularly farmyards, if we are to prevent fish kills such as that last week.

Any money spent by a farmer on a slatted house, an underground tank which collects slurry, is dead money. There is no return on such an expensive undertaking. The smallest slatted house will hold about 50 cattle and cost between £25,000 and £30,000. There is a need for a substantial grant which would meet about one-third of the cost. Against this background I put it to the Minister recently at Question Time that it was vitally important that he immediately announce, for the benefit of all concerned, whether it was his intention to introduce a control of farmyard pollution scheme this year. He knows as well as I do that any developments are planned to coincide with the good summer weather. Any such scheme should not be announced next November when it would be of no use to anyone. What will the Minister do for farmers this year so far as control of farmyard pollution grants are concerned?

On the dairy hygiene scheme, the Government is correctly emphasising the need for quality assurance to ensure the product that leaves the farm is not matched for quality anywhere in the world. There are approximately 10,000 dairy farmers whose product would not pass this test. If the Minister is not in a position to provide financial help to ensure their yards are up to standard, there will be 10,000 fewer farmers in milk production this time next year.

Under the installation aid scheme a grant of £5,600 was payable to young farmers under certain conditions. If the amount payable, which was never increased, had been indexed linked, it would have stood at £10,000 or £11,000 when the scheme was axed. The sum of £5,600 may not make the difference in a young person deciding to remain in farming but it was the wrong signal to send to an industry that is haemorrhaging badly. Up to 5,000 farmers are leaving the land annually. Against this background I cannot understand why the Cabinet will not back the Minister in ensuring every eligible farmer receives a grant. I understand it is his intention to introduce a more focused scheme. I do not know what he has in mind but if it is anything like the last one, it will not solve the problem.

At several meetings that I attended before the last general election it was said that the then Minister, Deputy Yates, was not doing enough to have live export markets reopened but no man did more to have them reopened. Unfortunately for Fine Gael, the Egyptian Minister for Agriculture agreed in principle on election day to reopen that market. I do not want to be too critical as I know the Minister's heart is in the right place but it is results that count. The Minister told farmers that on his return to Agriculture House he would have markets reopened but that is not the way it has turned out. It appears that we are as far away as ever from having them reopened.

To ensure competition with the meat factories there is a need to put ships on the high seas. The live export trade is invaluable to farmers. We export nine out of every ten cattle that we produce. The Minister is to be congratulated for providing £1 million to fund the service to the Continent. To whom was this money allocated and why is a service currently not being provided?

Farmers are hoping that this year will be better than last year. It is when the industry is in a depressed state that a good Minister proves his or her worth. I have great faith in the resilience of farmers. If given half a chance, they will respond. In recent weeks there was a skirmish over the £114 million allocated for the Luas project. It appears the Minister did not secure any of this for the control of farmyard pollution scheme or any of the other schemes mentioned. I hope he will respond to our promptings and instil an air of confidence in farmers so that the industry can move forward with hope and vitality.

Mr. U. Burke

I thank Deputy Connaughton for sharing his time with me. I support the motion and compliment Deputy Connaughton on introducing it.

Despairing, disillusioned and discouraged are mild words to describe the attitude of an ever increasing number of farmers. This attitude stems from the Minister's half-hearted and lethargic approach to agriculture and its problems. At Question Time earlier he defended the Department's so-called even-handed approach to farmers and their wives in relation to their separate applications to participate in various schemes. He outlined the rules and regulations and stated that the sharing of labour, machinery and accounts would be ample evidence in deeming the implications to be invalid. Further participation would be prevented. Decent, ordinary, hardworking people are being harassed by departmental officials. At the same time the Minister and his officials are turning a blind eye to a situation where they are blatantly manipulating the scheme themselves.

The Department and Teagasc operate a number of farms as research centres with a different herd number for each. There are two in my constituency, one with 350 cattle and a flock of sheep and the other with 500 cattle and a flock of sheep. Farm machinery and manual labour are shared between both farms. Does the Minister propose to apply decision reports to the Department and

Teagasc herd numbers nationwide, given they are in the same ownership, return the same accounts and share machinery and labour? Since Teagasc and the Department would have the limit of one herd for headage and premia nationwide, will the Minister, in accordance with natural procedure, ensure recoupment of the overclaimed moneys and, in the interest of fairness, with interest and penalties?

In a recent letter to a farmer, the Department of Agriculture and Food stated it had been advised by the Attorney General that where any doubt exists as to separate and independent farming, applications under the schemes should be rejected. Does that represent a policy of guilty until proven innocent? Is that in line with citizens' constitutional rights, given that the principle of innocent until proven guilty underpins the State's constitutional legal system? I note the Minister mentioned that information is voluntarily given, yet it is requested with a demand attitude and no grants are paid in the interim. Is that the new definition of "voluntarily" emanating from Agriculture House?

The independent appeal's board under REPS is anything but independent because those who are members of it operate the scheme on a daily basis. Is that natural justice? Are all the decisions it has taken null and void? Perhaps the Attorney General has given it the advice it wants to hear.

Mr. Neville

I also congratulate Deputy Connaughton on tabling this timely and comprehensive motion which deals with difficulties faced by farmers and the agricultural industry. I wish to deal specifically with an item that has caused a great deal of frustration for farmers over a period, the delay in returning the 30-day brucellosis test results. That delay has caused farmers great difficulties. Rural Deputies recently received more complaints about that delay than any other matter. Farmers throughout the country are complaining about the excessive length of time it takes the Department to process those test results.

The Minister recently stated there has been some improvement in this area, but that resulted from a fall in cattle sales. This is a period when sales drop and the Department is bound to make some inroads in issuing such test results. However, the same problem will exist come the fall. Will the Minister ensure proper facilities are in place and there is an adequate number of staff in the Department and the laboratory in Cork to ensure those test results are issued to farmers within seven to ten days. Many farmers have had to wait up to 15 days for their results. I have heard reports from farmers who have had to wait more than 20 days from the day the blood test was taken by the veterinary surgeon to the day the result was communicated from the laboratory in Cork. Despite the long run-in time before the brucellosis scheme was introduced, it appears the Minister and the Department have not made appropriate plans to cater for the increased volume of tests which it must have known it would have to deal with.

It is reported that the brucellosis kits supplied to the laboratory in Cork were in short supply at one stage. Is that still the case? That was a cause of most of the delays. That is an administrative matter and it could easily have been sorted out by the Minister and the Department. Priority must be given to ensure that the 30-day test does not frustrate the sale of cattle and that farmers are given the maximum opportunity to show their cattle at marts and so on. I understand sales of pedigree bulls have fallen this year because farmers found it difficult to ensure they could move bulls to marts for sale in time. I ask the Minister to address this issue.

Mr. Perry

I thank Deputy Connaughton for sharing his time with me. The control of farm pollution scheme and the dairy hygiene scheme remain suspended and as a result no farm investment schemes exist for the first time in nearly 50 years. That is unbelievable and discouraging to young people getting into farming. Investment is critical to ensure the survival of any business and agriculture is certainly discriminated against. Farmers want to maintain what they have, but the future looks bleak for them, if they do not get some form of assistance.

I wish to refer to the horticulture sector which is critical due to the major development of our food sector. I plead with the Minister to make more funds available to growers to enable them develop their businesses. If agriculture is to develop, diversification will be an important factor. Major buyers in the supermarket trade inspect growers' premises and many require major improvement works to be carried out on their farms. Funds and grants are needed if farmers are to do that. The amount of imported vegetables from Europe on sale in the Dublin fruit market is criminal. We have a fine country and we should be able to meet the needs of our home fruit market.

A Northern dealer I spoke to at Ballymote mart during the week told me he had stopped attending it because heifers are allowed only one movement under the 30-day test. Ballymote mart was a centre for Northern people to buy heifers, but they have stopped attending it. Something should be done about that measure which is creating a big loss for a small town like Ballymote.

It is imperative the Border counties, the west and the midlands qualify for objective one status. When the Taoiseach was in Opposition he stated that when he got into Government he would address this issue. However, the EU Commissioner stated that unless regional structures are put in place she cannot grant objective one status to those areas.

Mr. Crawford

I congratulate Deputy Connaughton on raising this very important issue. The Government is 12 months in office, and I recall the abuse given by the then Opposition spokesperson on agriculture, Deputy Cowen, the then Deputy Walsh, and above all by the former leader of the Opposition, Deputy Ahern, when my party was in Government. We were in the midst of a major BSE crisis and those Opposition Members said the then Government was doing nothing to assist the export of live cattle and the sale of beef to countries, such as Iran. They told us what they would do if they were in Government. Their promises were unbelievable but, unfortunately, they have turned out to be just that. They were not capable of doing what they promised. Live cattle were already in transit on boats when the BSE scare was made public in Westminster Parliament. The then Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton, telephoned his counterpart in the midst of the crisis and was able to arrange not only for those boats to be unloaded, but to reopen the trade with Egypt. One begs to ask the question, what the Minister and, more important, the Government has done in their 12 months in office?

The Taoiseach, when in Opposition, made it clear that if he had been in Government he would have boarded a plane to try to resolve the problem. Every effort was made to split the then coalition by accusing the then Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs of failure to re-open the markets with Egypt, Iran and other countries. What has the Minister for Foreign Affairs done? Three or four of them when in Opposition went to Iran when the boats were already being unloaded to try to claim they were getting the market opened. It reminds me of the time the then leader of the Opposition, Charles Haughey, went to Libya and did a deal in the sand which did not come off.

The honeymoon is over. The Minister is a nice man, something I have already said to him, and it is easy to be friendly with him. However, one must ask what he has been able to deliver as Minister at a time of great prosperity. The economy was never as flush with money. Yet the Department of Agriculture and Food is £34 million worse off this year as a result of the budget. Was the Minister at the Cabinet table? Are the Taoiseach and the Government committed to agriculture? Before the election we were promised that young farmers could be sure of a great future under a Fianna Fáil led Government. What have the Progressive Democrats done to the Government? Is it that party's fault or the Minister's fault that installation aid is no longer available? Promises were made that it would be available. I know the Minister assured Macra, the Opposition and others that he would reintroduce a programme. However, I warn him that we do not want a Mickey Mouse type programme but one that will give young farmers the opportunity to take up farming in a businesslike manner.

Installation aid is not enough. Fianna Fáil promised that a farmyard pollution scheme would be introduced immediately if it was returned to Government but there is no indication of this happening. I appreciate that the Minister said if there were EU or other funds available he would make sure they were used for this purpose. However, as Deputy Connaughton stated, Luas seems to have come and gone and there are no farmyard pollution or dairy hygiene schemes. We need some sort of commitment at this stage. Young farmers should be told there is some future. Agricultural colleges found it impossible this year to get recruits. We look forward to the Minister's comments and hope there will be guarantees that young farmers and their families will have some future.

There is a proposal to cut the price of beef by 30 per cent under the Santer proposals. It will be difficult to get all we want in terms of the Santer proposals, but it will be more difficult if the Government does not show its commitment to agriculture. I accept the Minister's statement that he is getting the support of the Taoiseach at different negotiations in Europe. However, he needs the public support of the Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Minister for Foreign Affairs and the rest of the Cabinet through the reintroduction of what is necessary for young farmers if he is to be even listened to at European level.

Mr. Naughten

This is a crucial motion. A headline in one of last Sunday's newspapers read: "Irish farming population dwindling". Statistics show that only 14 per cent of farmers are under the age of 35 years, yet this age group represents over 50 per cent of the population. In the period from 1985-94, 67,000 farms have disappeared. Young people have lost confidence in the agricultural industry and the Government's ability to ensure the economic survival of the sector. There was a 9 per cent drop in the number of entrants to agricultural colleges in 1997-8.

On average farm incomes are just above £10,000. Yet the Government has abandoned installation aid for young farmers. Installation aid was one of the small financial encouragements which young courageous people received to take up this difficult profession. Young people are given no encouragement to take up full-time employment in farming. In 1996 the IDA aided 13,319 jobs at an approximate cost of £11,920 per job. Yet a meagre grant of £5,600 for young farmers, designed to encourage them into the agricultural industry and a career in farming, was cut. How can the Minister for Agriculture and Food expect young people to choose a career in farming, given its long hours, the necessity of working in all weathers, variable and unstable income and huge overheads, over a stable, well paid Government supported industrial job? We are reaching the stage where there will be shortages in the agricultural employment sector. This can already be seen in rural areas where people are moving to towns and cities to take up well paid jobs leaving no young people to work the land. More young people are taking up third level courses, except for the certificate in farming in agricultural colleges. For the first time in ten years these colleges are unable to fill places on offer because of the Minister's inability to display confidence in the industry and in young farmers through the provision of installation aid and proper support systems.

In its election manifesto Fianna Fáil stated that in Government it would initiate a comprehensive programme of rural development. Judging from the Minister's actions to date, the programme is one of rural destruction. The Minister will be remembered as the man who killed rural Ireland. I ask him to deliver on his promise and that of Fianna Fáil candidates prior to the general election that installation aid would not be abandoned. Talk is cheap and the Minister now has an opportunity to deliver on the promise on which he reneged following the general election. It would be a small step in bringing an end to the discrimination against young farmers at the hands of previous Governments but especially this one. How can the Minister stand over a policy of funding one job to the tune of £11,920 while cutting grant aid for another?

Teagasc must maintain better contact with its green certificate students following completion of their course. It must put a discount scheme in place. It is a disgrace that it costs £550 for a young person to draw up a REPS plan with no help available.

The enlargement clause in the farm retirement scheme regulations inhibits young people wishing to enter the agricultural industry. If a young person decides to go to college the State will fund them to the tune of £10,000 to £12,000. However, it will not give farmers £5,600.

Given current concern over Agenda 2000 the Minister must instil confidence in the industry. I, therefore, appeal to him to introduce installation aid immediately and bring forward a comprehensive package of supports for young farmers. The current tax system is inhibiting reinvestment in farming; stamp duty and capital gains tax should be removed for all young people. They must have greater access to quotas and there is an urgent need to restructure the farm retirement scheme. These initiatives, with a proper subsidised service from Teagasc and other State agencies, would at least make farming a viable option for young people. There are many farmers here tonight, but very few young people, because they have lost interest in the agricultural industry, a situation not helped by the Minister.

The recent decision by the Government, with the approval of the EU, to reduce the SAC and NHA payments in up to 6,000 cases is not helping many small farmers. This will crucify many farmers in disadvantaged areas with small designated areas. Many of these were planning farm investment on the basis of receiving this money until the Government's U-turn. Will the Minister consider reintroducing the control of farmyard pollution scheme, if only for the people in these areas who will be under severe pressure from environmentalists and the Department to control pollution? Some form of compensation must be given to them. It also indicates a blatant discrimination in the context of the midland counties and their bogs, lakes and rivers. These areas have been seriously discriminated against as a result of this U-turn. Farmers in parts of the west of Ireland have got a good deal and I congratulate them on that but smallholders in the midland counties will be crucified by the Government's decision.

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr. Walsh)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann commends the Government for the effective way it has promoted the agriculture sector since coming into office and, in particular, its efforts in the following areas:

(a) the Control of Farmyard Pollution Scheme;

(b) the Dairy Hygiene Scheme;

(c) the introduction of a new Farm Installation Grant Scheme for Young Farmers;

(d) the reopening of the live cattle trade to Egypt and Libya.

Furthermore, Dáil Éireann commends the Government for its work on:

(a) the introduction of an efficient farmer-friendly Animal Traceability Scheme;

(b) the introduction of a comprehensive Quality Assurance Scheme at farm level which is not excessively costly to farmers;

(c) the reorganisation of the Area Aid Unit;

(d) the guaranteeing to farmers that the results of the 30-day blood tests be made available inside a ten day period, and

(e) the provision of a live cattle shipping service to the Continent."

I thank Deputy Connaughton and his colleagues for tabling this motion as it is important our primary industry is brought to the attention of the House.

I am pleased to have the opportunity of responding to this debate although I reject in the strongest possible terms the Opposition's suggestions in regard to the specific issues raised. The Opposition has also totally ignored the progress which has been made on a broad range of measures since this Government took office. The Government takes agriculture seriously and has a clear programme for the development of a sector which is still vital for the overall national economy. While numbers in the sector may have declined in the past 50 years, agriculture is still three times more significant to Ireland than to EU economies generally.

The role of the agri-food sector continues to be of vital importance in the Irish economy. The sector accounts for an estimated 14.2 per cent of GDP, 13.4 per cent of employment and 13.2 per cent of exports. Agri-food exports accounted for more than £5,000 million in 1997 which shows the sector to be a critical part of the overall economy by any standards.

The farm family remains the cornerstone of Irish agriculture.

Mr. Sheehan

It is fast disappearing.

Mr. Walsh

As well as its economic importance, the well-being of agriculture is important for the fabric of rural society and for rural development generally. Some important changes have been taking place, including a greater dependence on direct payments and a growing trend towards part-time farming. The most recent household budget survey shows that only half of total farm household income now derives from farming activity and some 47 per cent of income derives from direct payments.

Before moving on to deal with the particular areas listed for debate under this motion, it is important to put in context the level of support provided for agriculture. The total expenditure of the Department of Agriculture and Food in 1997 exceeded £2 billion. All of this was spent on supporting farmers and the agri-food sector. For example, £941 million was spent on direct payments to farmers; £783 million was spent on market supports; £196 million was spent on farm investment grants and disease controls, and, £122 million was spent on administration in the Department, including administration of the more than 80 schemes the Department runs to support the farm and food sectors. It is clear that, from the point of view of the farmer, the making of direct payments must be regarded as very important.

The contribution of direct payments to aggregate farm income has been rising steadily in recent years, from 12 per cent in 1989 to 47 per cent last year. The dependence of the farming community on these payments is fully appreciated both by me and by my Department and we are committed to expeditious payment in all instances. However, in disbursing public funds, both EU and national, we are obliged to ensure such funding is made strictly in accordance with relevant regulatory requirements. I am sure nobody would argue the situation should be otherwise. In fact, parliamentary questions are tabled virtually on a daily basis in regard to whether the Government is meeting its commitments under EU regulations. The schemes are, therefore, subject to strict auditing requirements and many of these schemes are complex. I regret that in recent times proper probity in disbursement of public funds is being misconstrued as latent distrust of the farming community on the part of the Department of Agriculture and Food. This notion must be rejected as utter nonsense as the Department is determined to ensure the farming community benefits to the maximum extent from all available funding. The record shows this to be the case.

The Department is committed to providing high quality, user-friendly services to the Irish farming community and is constantly striving to ensure and improve the quality of that service. The most recent initiative is the customer service action plan which I launched last month. To further emphasise the importance of customer service the Department has placed quality, not as a separate item, but as an integral part of all operations, in its statement of strategy.

Under the customer service action plan, delivery targets are established for the payment of EU and national direct payments to farmers, including headage, premia, grants and compensation packages. In regard to EU funded schemes, these targets provide for the most expeditious payment service of any member state in the EU and are considerably shorter than the eligible period allowed under the relevant regulations. In spite of the tight, self-imposed deadlines, payments targets are generally met and more than 90 per cent of payments are made by target date in respect of all relevant schemes. Most of the cases where the payment target is not met relate to instances where the applicant is either ineligible or further information is required to determine entitlement. Every possible effort is made to determine entitlement and to pay farmers their due entitlements.

Mr. Sheehan

They have waited a long time for that.

Mr. Walsh

On 24 April, revised arrangements were introduced for the operation of the area aid unit. This involved the division of the unit's work into five sections, on a county basis in proportion with the number of applications in each county. To enable the staff in the unit to clear up a backlog of 19,700 cases, it was necessary to close the office to the public for a month. Having cleared the backlog, the office reopened in the last week of May.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the large number of farmers who have responded to the unit's requests for further material, particularly maps, in support of applications. I would also urge any remaining farmers who have not responded or any farmers who have received lower than expected payments to contact the unit immediately if the payment statement indicates that an area aid penalty has been applied.

In relation to 1998 applications, the revised methodology for handling claims will remain in place. In this regard I would like to thank the staff in my Department's local livestock offices and Teagasc staff for the help they gave farmers in completing their 1998 applications. I would also like to thank the agricultural media which is extremely helpful in informing farmers of deadlines and so on. Finally, I am confident that, with the area aid unit starting its work without a 1997 overhang, it will be able to ensure that farmers will not encounter area aid related payment delays in respect of their 1998 payments. The co-operation of farmers is, of course, a critical factor here and, in the light of the changes I have outlined, it is clear that the area aid unit has in fact been reorganised. We are starting with a clean sheet and I do not foresee any delays in regard to 1998 applications.

The control of farmyard pollution scheme has had a very positive impact on pollution control and environmental protection on many farms. Under the current Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry, 1994-9, some £100 million was made available for the scheme. Due to the high level of demand, it was decided to suspend the acceptance of new applications in April 1995. When the scheme was suspended, there were some 18,400 applications in hand. Up to the end of May 1998, approximately 18,070 applications had been fully processed and approvals had issued in respect of 15,740, representing a grant commitment of some £148 million. A further 2,330 decided not to proceed with their applications following consultation with local officers of the Department. The balance of 330 applications involve the provision of necessary information to the Department and those are being processed at present.

In the context of the mid-term review of the Structural Funds, I succeeded in having additional funding of £20 million made available to the scheme in July 1997. The Government made a further £9.5 million available from national Exchequer funds in the 1997 Supplementary Estimate as well as £3 million in savings in 1997. Therefore, I have made considerable funding available for this measure and I should add that this scheme was closed in 1995 long before I took up office.

Mr. Connaughton

That funding was peanuts. The Minister was aware the scheme was closed prior to taking up office.

Mr. Walsh

By the end of May 1998, almost 14,000 payments, involving almost £118 million, had been made under the scheme. Grant assistance is not the only way of encouraging pollution control. The capital allowance scheme for necessary pollution control works operates from 6 April 1997 to 5 April 2000. The level of expenditure which qualifies under the scheme was increased from £20,000 to £30,000 in the Finance Act, 1998. The special provision allows farmers to write-off 50 per cent of qualifying expenditure on pollution control measures against their taxable incomes in the year the investment is made. The balance of the qualifying expenditure is written-off in accordance with the normal capital scheme.

Mr. Crawford

Does that mean there will not be any new grant schemes?

Mr. Walsh

In relation to the dairy hygiene scheme, £29 million was available for the measure under the operational programme. Due to the extremely high level of demand compared with the funding provided, it was decided to suspend the acceptance of new applications in October 1996. When the scheme was suspended there were 7,900 applications in hand.

Up to the end of May 1998, about 7,500 applications had been processed and approvals had issued in respect of 6,800, representing a grant commitment of £40.5 million. A further 740 applicants decided not to proceed with their applications following consultation with local officers of the Department. The balance of 360 applications either involve the need to return necessary information to the Department or are being processed.

Mr. Sheehan

They have been put on the long finger.

Mr. Walsh

By the end of May 1998, a total of £22.9 million had been paid to 3,640 applicants.

In the mid-term review of the Structural Funds an additional sum of £8.5 million was made available which brought the overall allocation for the scheme to £37.5 million. In addition, a further £2.7 million in Exchequer funds was made available in the 1997 Supplementary Estimate. With regard to both schemes, I am monitoring developments in the Community Support Framework carefully. In the event of funds becoming available due to certain decommitments, I will seek additional resources for the schemes.

On the broader front, and in line with An Action Programme for the Millennium, I regard on-farm investment as a high priority. In that context, I am currently examining funding possibilities for more focused schemes for farm pollution and dairy hygiene. However, even in their more focused form, these schemes require significant levels of funding.

The scheme of installation aid for young farmers was highly successful in assisting young farmers to embark on their careers. Since the inception of the scheme in 1986, 6,478 applicants have been paid aid of about £38 million. Under the current operational programme, a total of £17 million was made available for the scheme on the basis that about 3,000 young farmers would participate in the 1994-9 period. This projected number was reached by mid-1997 and it was necessary to suspend the scheme in August 1997 in respect of new applications.

Mr. Sheehan

What about the Celtic tiger?

Mr. Walsh

There are approximately 600 applications, received by the Department before the suspension date of the scheme, currently being processed with a potential grant commitment of a further £3.2 million approximately.

I am firmly committed to the reintroduction of the scheme. I have obtained the agreement of the Minister for Finance to the introduction of a more tightly focused revised scheme targeted towards smaller farmers who are in most need of assistance. The scheme will be financed solely by the Exchequer and in the current financial year the funding will have to be found from the resources of the Department.

Following discussions with various farming organisations, the terms of the revised scheme are currently being finalised. The formal approval of the Minister for Finance and also the approval of the EU Commission will be required before the scheme can come into operation. I will endeavour to secure the necessary approvals as quickly as possible.

The live cattle trade has been mentioned by a number of Deputies. The markets in Egypt and Libya have been closed for some time and I have devoted considerable time and effort to reopening them. Every possible avenue has been pursued. Following my visit to Cairo last year, for example, I forwarded a detailed proposal for a trial shipment to the Egyptian Deputy Premier and Minister for Agriculture. The proposal was drawn up following a veterinary and engineering assessment of slaughtering facilities in Egypt.

The proposal was discussed with the Egyptian authorities during a visit of a technical delegation from my Department to Cairo last February. A considerable amount of technical information has been provided and, while the proposal remains under consideration, the Egyptian authorities have not yet given a positive decision.

Mr. Sheehan

Not one animal has been exported.

Mr. Walsh

In the meantime, imports of Irish frozen beef to that market have increased significantly. Egypt is now taking close to 80,000 tonnes of beef, a considerable increase on the previous year. The further development of trade will be pursued at every appropriate opportunity especially through contacts at ministerial level. My ministerial colleagues have also raised the matter with various contacts.

I met the Deputy Premier and Minister for Agriculture, Dr. Wally, again in Cairo last month. My objective is to ensure that the Egyptians fully understand the effectiveness of our BSE controls. I pointed to the decline in the number of instances of BSE and reiterated my demand that Irish live cattle be allowed back onto the Egyptian market.

Libya imposed a ban on cattle and beef imports from all European countries in April 1996. Since then, efforts have continued to have the ban lifted in respect of imports from Ireland. Again, considerable technical information was provided especially during a visit of a Libyan technical delegation to Ireland in March 1997. It is understood that Libya is satisfied with the animal health controls in Ireland. They have no difficulty with them and the technical delegation reported favourably on them to Tripoli. The latest development is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs invited senior Libyan officials to visit Ireland for discussions on a range of matters of mutual interest. No response has been received to date but the ambassador in Rome is due to visit Libya next week to follow up on this matter.

It is worth mentioning one country where a new market has been developed. Live cattle are being exported to Lebanon in increasing numbers. Last year, more than 2,000 head of cattle were exported to this market while the figure for this year is likely to be ten times that amount. Last week I was in Lebanon and met both the Prime Minister and the Agriculture Minister as well as a wide representation of the trade involved in the import of live animals. This is a valuable trade which it is expected will continue to contribute towards maintaining prices for Irish beef and cattle producers. Therefore, I can defend the Government's and my own record on this issue. We have pursued the case with vigour and no effort has been spared.

Mr. Connaughton

A small amount.

Mr. Walsh

It is a start and every possible avenue and access route to various markets is being pursued at every level — political, diplomatic and industrial.

Mr. Sheehan

A few marts in Bandon could fulfil that order.

Mr. Walsh

I have given a high priority to exports of livestock to the Continent. Following the declared withdrawal by Pandoro in 1997 from the carriage of livestock, I sought and obtained Government approval for a once-off State aid of £1 million to assist in the start-up of a ferry service between Cork and Cherbourg to facilitate animal exports to continental European markets. This service proved to be of great value during the critical winter months last year. However, this State aid is now the subject of an examination by the European Commission.

The provision of a further ferry operation over and above the existing services which would be committed to the carriage of livestock to export markets is, in the first instance, a matter for commercial interests to evaluate. Such interests are now examining the options available in that regard. I will continue to give every appropriate encouragement and assistance to them in their deliberations.

In the meantime, I can confirm that, following a trial shipment, the new Irish Ferries ship, the mv Normandy, has been approved by the Department to carry a limited number of units. In addition, the Department recently inspected and approved an aeroplane for calf transport. Seven flights to the Netherlands have taken place thus far with further flights reserved every day this week.

With regard to animal traceability, Ireland already has a variety of measures in place to identify and trace bovine animals. We are well on the way to having a full traceability system. All cattle are tagged at birth with a unique identification number. There is a cattle identity card for each animal and this card must be produced each time the animal is moved. Since 1996, a national calf birth registration centre is in place. In January this year, the card was expanded to include a wide variety of additional information. Work on the new system with a view to incorporating records on all animal movements is well advanced. It entails recording all movements of cattle to and from farms and marts, to meat factories and for live export. The use of this data will verify the origin, identity and life history of animals before they enter the food chain.

It is a huge undertaking which involves capturing details of millions of animal movements each year among 150,000 herds, through 110 marts, to 470 abattoirs and for export. Maximum use is being made of electronic means to capture the information. It is not being collected for the sake of having information. It is required as an absolute minimum by our importers and customers. They demand traceability and a record of cattle movements and we are providing that.

Detailed arrangements for the implementation of a comprehensive traceability scheme include the following. A major enlargement of the Department's mainframe computer system was carried out in the last year. We have had extensive negotiations and discussions with industry partners about the design of the system and systems design and computer specifications for the new system have been completed. Computer links have been established with all marts and computers have been installed in 48 marts. We are upgrading the computer links and equipment already established in meat factories to provide for a live computer system and we have engaged an outside agency to complete our computer programming requirements. We are also about to engage an outside agency to operate a paper notification system. Over the coming months we will complete the outstanding tasks.

To summarise, most of the building blocks of an animal traceability system are already in place and working, and solid progress is being made on the detailed implementation of the project. I am confident that, with the co-operation of all in the industry, the final element of the system will be operational later this year.

Substantial progress has also been made with regard to the introduction of the national beef assurance scheme. A considerable amount of preparatory work has been completed and we are on target to introduce the scheme later this year.

The scheme will provide credible and independently backed assurances about the safety of Irish beef. This will be done by enforcing common high standards of production and processing and by providing the comprehensive and effective animal identification and tracing system I mentioned earlier.

The other main element of the scheme is the development of protocols which set out in clear and succinct terms the baseline standards for all who trade in cattle and beef. These protocols have been discussed extensively with the industry and are in the course of being finalised. They contain a comprehensive statement of the standards that are required of those engaged in the industry from farming to processing. For the most part they draw on and consolidate existing provisions and will not generate excessive costs for farmers. These protocols will be enforced through a process of inspection and approval. They will be underpinned by national legislation and it is my intention to present proposals to Cabinet on this over the summer months.

As the House will be aware, there has been a significant deterioration in the overall incidence of brucellosis in cattle over the past two years. While the main problem continues to be in the south-western part of the country, there was at least one brucellosis breakdown in all but two counties in 1997. Against that background and following prolonged discussions, I introduced a range of additional measures in the middle of 1997 and again earlier this year. These measures were designed to safeguard public and animal health and to protect our trading outlets for both livestock and livestock products.

The additional testing regime resulted in a huge increase in the volume of blood samples received for testing in both the Cork brucellosis laboratory and the regional veterinary laboratory in Sligo. An extra one million blood samples were received in the Cork laboratory up to the end of May 1998 compared with the corresponding period in 1997. In some weeks the numbers of samples received were in the region of 150,000.

Additional staff were recruited from April onward to cope with the extra volume of work in the Cork laboratory. As Deputy Neville and others said, despite this the laboratory was unable to cope with the greatly increased throughput in the period following Easter. At the same time, priority was given to processing private or pre-movement blood samples where these were so identified by private practitioners. Some delays did occur in the laboratory in processing other blood samples. The position now is that following initiatives taken by me there are no arrears in the laboratory and processing of blood samples commences on the dates they are received in the laboratory.

The Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, and I visited the laboratory about two weeks ago. We were given a commitment by the staff that they would clear the backlog and have a clean sheet within two weeks. I compliment them on that. They worked overtime and over the bank holiday weekend. They did a fantastic job for the farming industry.

Mr. Connaughton

What will the system be like in October?

Mr. Walsh

They assured me that with the improved facilities and additional staff, they will be able to cope. Nonetheless, we are monitoring the situation carefully. A number of further measures are being taken to underpin the improved service. These include an inquiry desk to help farmers and practitioners who wish to inquire about samples, further e-mail facilities and the use of An Post's swiftpost system for delivery of test samples to the Cork laboratory. This latter system includes a guaranteed delivery timescale as well as a tracking and tracing capability. In some cases, the amount of time it took An Post to deliver samples from practitioners to the laboratory was inordinately slow.

I am satisfied the systems in place and the measures I have taken enable the Cork laboratory to provide a satisfactory turnaround for the volume of blood that will now be received. Some further steps are being taken to speed up deliveries and if delays do occur, to identify where they are occurring. I will ensure the system is closely monitored. This highly automated laboratory is capable of processing large volumes.

Turning to wider issues, since coming into office a year ago and in addition to the steps I outlined, I have taken significant actions on a general level to underpin the farm and food industries and to lay the foundations for future growth. I have been supported by both my ministerial colleagues, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe and Deputy Davern.

Farmers have benefited substantially from the 1997 Supplementary Vote for Agriculture of £63 million, which included funding for farm pollution costs, disease control and headage. The 1998 budget also brought changes to the tax regime, including concessions on stock relief, capital write-offs under the farm pollution control scheme and VAT changes. The series of high level meetings which have taken place with importing countries and food buyers have brought success through better cattle prices.

Mr. Sheehan

That is not evident at marts. Has the Minister visited Bandon mart? It is making little money.

Mr. Walsh

The price of beef was under 79p per pound this time last year — this year the price is 90p to 92p per pound. The price of milk was under £1 per gallon last May while the price this May is on average £1.05 per gallon. The price of lamb is firmer too and the ewe premium has increased by £7 per head from £12.42 last year to £19.41 this year. On top of this turnaround we have exported 55,000 head of livestock already this year.

Mr. Sheehan

What about calves?

Mr. Walsh

This time last year there were no exports of live cattle. I am ensuring that Ireland's vital national interests are fully reflected in the hugely important negotiations on the Santer Agenda 2000 proposals currently being conducted in Brussels. The terms of the Opposition's rather confused motion are out of touch with reality.

Mr. Sheehan

The Government did not fulfil its electoral promises. The boats will be packed for six weeks.

Mr. Penrose

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion on behalf of the Labour Party. I commend Fine Gael for tabling it as it is opportune to initiate a debate on current agricultural policy and the future of agriculture. While the motion relates to current Government policy on agriculture, we cannot isolate this debate from the discussion of the Agenda 2000 proposals.

There was a plethora of promises by the then Opposition, Fianna Fáil, that it would rectify the ills of farmers. These were dispensed like confetti prior to the last general election. The Minister is now reaping the whirlwinds of these foolish promises. People are beginning to wake up to the fact that CAP reform has failed to deliver in its efforts to maintain the maximum number of farming families on the land. It has also failed to provide food at affordable prices for consumers.

During the CAP negotiations, the EU Commission set out a number of objectives; to increase competitiveness to allow farmers take full advantage of world market developments; to improve safety and quality for the consumer; and to provide alternative incomes and jobs for farming families. The EU has failed miserably in delivering these objectives.

One only has to examine Irish statistics. Five thousand farmers are leaving the industry annually — 100 per week. Young people are not interested in farming as a career. There is plenty of evidence of this in the midlands and my county of Westmeath. Farmers with 100 or 120 acres ask me to intercede with their sons to take over the farm. It is difficult to explain to a young farmer that they will not have the weekly wage available in industry. That is what makes the decision to suspend installation aid so mind boggling.

It is not so much the amount involved but the signal which was sent and the psychological impact it had. I take issue with a recent editorial in a farming paper which seemed to downplay the significance of this decision. No one is saying it is the be all and end all but it was very important for the six or seven thousand young farmers to whom £5,600 was a small amount of money. Nevertheless it was an injection during the critical period of the transfer of the family farm. Who can say it did not play an important socio-economic role in ensuring farms were transferred at an earlier stage? That was one of the objectives in the 1970s when I studied agriculture under Professor Sheehy in UCD.

The installation aid scheme was suspended on 7 August. While the Minister fairly made the point that there is no money in the bag to finance the scheme, in the budget on 3 December £3.5 million was made available. That money, however, was to finance outstanding applications. Young farmers thought they could take part in the scheme again, but that was not the case. Legally the Minister was in the mire. He had to honour previous commitments, otherwise he would have been on the steps of the Four Courts. That is why the money was made available. Many people were confused and thought they had a chance to take part in the scheme again, but it remained in a suspended state. All that happened was that outstanding commitments were fulfilled.

I referred previously to the drop off in numbers participating in agricultural colleges in the 1997-8 academic year. In 1976 I attended the picturesque agricultural college in Multyfarnham, situated on the shores of Lough Derravaragh. At that time people had to queue to get into that college. There has been a 9 per cent drop in the number of people attending agricultural colleges this year — there are only 850 students in Multyfarnham college which has capacity for 950. Likewise, there has been a significant drop in the number of people attending Teagasc training centres. There are other attractions for young people today. The economy is booming and young people are taking up jobs which offer a weekly wage. The question must be asked whether the drop in numbers attending agricultural colleges and Teagasc training centres coincided with the suspension of the installation aid scheme. While it cannot be stated definitively that the two are linked, there is some link.

With the recently published Santer proposals, there is further bad news for young farmers. In the long term those proposals will make it more difficult to attract young people to agriculture. The additional 1 per cent quota allocated to Ireland is wholly inadequate. From various proposals emanating from the farming organisations, we need in the region of 7 or 8 per cent of quota. The EU Commission recommended that young farmers should be a priority category for the distribution of available quotas. The allocation of 1 per cent is not encouraging and I ask the Minister to take steps to ensure we secure our rights, as committed to us in the 1980s.

Recent figures from the Central Statistics Office confirm that on average our farmers are the oldest in Europe, with only 14 per cent under the age of 35. That makes Irish farmers on average about 50 years older than their Australian and New Zealand counterparts. People living in rural Ireland will be aware of the drift from the land, which is proceeding at an alarming rate. If a factory was to close with job losses of that magnitude the Dáil would be suspended under Standing Order 31 and there would be Adjournment debates, but because this matter affects agriculture it is taken lightly by politicians and the media. About 100 people per week are leaving the land. If any other industry was involved the Government of the day would establish a task force to alleviate the plight of the people affected. The last thing it would do is suspend a scheme that is of vital importance to that sector.

The installation aid grant amounted to £5,600 and in order to qualify a person had to have specific educational qualifications and be under the age of 35. It would cost about £5.5 million or £6 million to continue the old scheme. When I raised this matter in an Adjournment debate on 28 May the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt, deputising for the Minister, indicated that the Minister had secured the agreement of the Minister for Finance to introduce a targeted and focused scheme, but targeted at whom and focused on what? Those questions must be answered. The Celtic tiger means nothing in rural Ireland.

Mr. Sheehan

It is toothless.

Mr. Penrose

There will be an extra £600 million in revenue over and above the projected tax revenue announced by the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, in the budget. Only 0.75 per cent of that amount would be needed to introduce an installation aid scheme. As Deputy Connaughton said, the average cost of an IDA job is about £11,700. For less than half that amount we could secure the future of a young farmer. If that money was made available it would send a clear signal to people in rural Ireland that we are interested in them and that we want to stop the drift from farming. It would be an important impetus for rural regeneration. It would also help rural industries, shops and agricultural contractors. There would be a massive spin-off effect. In economic terms agriculture has a greater effect on the economy than any other industry. I urge the Minister to introduce a meaningful scheme that serves the desired purpose.

I wish to refer to a number of issues, some of which I raised today during Question Time. Small dairy farmers who keep suckler cows experience grave difficulties. Under the suckler cow scheme the milk quota ceiling of 25,638 gallons should be increased to facilitate smaller farmers. In order to make a living, many suckler cow farmers have had to become involved in dairying. I know of a farmer who had a quota of 28,000 gallons and wanted to lease 4,000 or 5,000 gallons to the local co-operative. He also kept suckler cows and applied for the suckler cow premium. Since the co-operative operates a leasing arrangement for only one year under the temporary leasing scheme and the Department insists on a three year minimum period, this person was in a catch 22 position. The Government should help rather than hinder people. This young married man with four or five children was deprived of £2,500 or £3,000 in vital subsidy. That man, who attended agricultural college with me, has all the relevant qualifications, but the Government puts impediments in his progress. Eventually people such as that give up and lease all their quota.

The Minister today gave a number of positive indications about the farm retirement scheme and I acknowledge that. I believe in giving credit where it is due. Deputy Spring was criticised unfairly by some of the Minister's colleagues and farm organisations, and I will deal with that.

Changes have been made in regard to the enlargement clause and the income conditions for the scheme. In order to have a meaningful scheme, those conditions must be removed. The enlargement clause is a recipe for fragmentation rather than consolidation. I would not credit a 12 year old child for introducing such a rule. The rule that requires farmers to earn at least 50 per cent of their income from the farm should be scrapped. I know a farmer who for eight or nine years derived more than 50 per cent of his income from the scheme, but because he got a job for one year and received social welfare benefit for a few months he did not qualify for the farm retirement scheme. The extra £600 or £700 he received in that year meant he was not eligible. A commitment was given to review the scheme under Partnership 2000, with the objective of making significant improvements to it. While I acknowledge the Minister is doing good work in this regard, I hope the question of income is considered. People should not be catapulted out of the scheme for the sake of a few pounds derived from social welfare benefit.

Farmers are responsible citizens. They recognise they are the guardians of the environment and that their actions will impact positively or adversely on future generations. Despite the important nexus between pollution control and environmental protection and enhancement, there is virtually no on-farm investment scheme in place.

When I was growing up people frequently referred to the land project. I did not know what that meant until one day a digger arrived and I realised reclamation work was about to take place. Since then there has always been a scheme of State grants for on-farm investment and improvements. The absence of the farmyard pollution and the dairy hygiene schemes and unfavourable tax treatment have impacted adversely on farmers' morale and dampened their self-initiative to invest their resources in farm improvements.

Over the past couple of years farmers have made significant investment in farm buildings mainly to meet environmental standards. The focus was environmental protection; it did not yield an increased income to the farm family. Up to 26 per cent of farm income was invested in farm improvements in 1987. In the programme for Government the Minister undertook to restore the CFP and to put in place a new scheme to encourage on-farm investments. The control of farmyard pollution and dairy hygiene schemes should be reintroduced as a matter of urgency and adequately funded. A sum of £80 million to £90 million would be required for the reintroduction of those schemes. The Minister should impress on the Government the need to examine the way capital allowances for investment in pollution control and animal welfare are treated under the taxation code. He referred to a rate of 50 per cent. The pollution control allowance should be increased to 100 per cent, be available in the first or any subsequent year as a free depreciation measure and be written off over a set period.

As Deputy Connaughton stated, under the public capital programme, expenditure on agriculture and food will fall by more than 20 per cent this year. When that is added to an estimated decline in farm related construction spending of approximately £80 million, jobs in the construction-contractor area will reduce by about 1,500. I am aware of this through contacts I have had with a farm construction firm in my area. People often ask who benefits from these schemes. Farmers, building contractors, concrete and steel suppliers, the rural economy — farmers have a propensity to spend in their local shops — the Exchequer and the environment benefit. A friend of mine from County Longford, who is fairly prominent in the ICMSA, has often stated that it is a win-win situation. That is why the schemes should be reintroduced. I believe some co-operatives will not pay farmers the bonus if they are not registered. That would have a significant impact on farm incomes.

I recall what was said in this House about access to markets for livestock and beef. I also recall meeting a number of dry stock farmers in the Red Cow Inn, many of whom I knew because I come from the hub of the dry stock industry. The past three winters, in particular, have been difficult for dry stock farmers, especially those engaged in winter fattening. An unequivocal commitment was given that if Deputy Spring was removed from Government, others would be on the next jet heading for Libya and Cairo to reopen those markets.

Mr. Sheehan

It was supposed to happen overnight.

Mr. Penrose

I knew that was a blatant lie because it could not happen. Nobody worked harder than Deputy Spring to try to reopen those markets, but there was an attempt to smear his efforts. Perhaps some people wanted to settle a score with him. Many Members of the House vilified him. At one of the meetings in the Red Cow Inn I was asked by people, who may have wanted to embarrass me, what Deputy Spring was doing about the matter. As Labour Party spokesperson on agriculture, I knew what he was doing. I was as strongly committed to the reopening of those markets as anyone else. I am proud to say I get a significant farming vote and always will because I stood by farmers in 1979 and 1980 and throughout my professional career as an agricultural consultant. That is why many people were shocked.

I knew the commitments given at that time were only pie in the sky. We depend on the provision of detailed technical information to those countries, supplemented by Government action and ministerial and diplomatic efforts to reopen the markets. Ultimately, the decision to purchase the products rests with the Egyptian and Libyan authorities. One would not think that from what was said at those meetings or here in the House by people who should know better.

Mr. Connaughton

They did know better.

Mr. Sheehan

They codded the farmers.

Mr. Penrose

People asked me why Deputy Spring did not get on a jet and go to the countries involved, and this was purposely fed down the line. Fortunately, I had a good relationship with the farmers in my county who knew the truth. I always tell the truth and let the penny drop wherever it falls.

Approximately nine out of every ten cattle we produce must be exported. It is vital that all possible market outlets for live cattle and carcass meat are reopened without further delay. We are a peripheral island nation which depends on suitable shipping arrangements to facilitate the export of livestock and meat. The Government should seek to obtain special EU support for the provision of the necessary vessel facilities. Freight carriers must obviously have due regard to animal welfare from the port of departure to the port of final destination. The Minister referred to this matter today.

The reopening of the live cattle trade with Libya and Egypt is extremely important to us. It would also provide vital competition for meat processors in terms of the price they pay farmers for their cattle. On 30 May a parliamentary question tabled to the Minister for Foreign Affairs asked what he was doing to reopen those markets. He stated that he had personally written to the Libyan Minister for Foreign Affairs inviting him to send a delegation of senior officials to Ireland to discuss any remaining obstacles to the resumption of trade and that he looked forward to the arrival of such a delegation.

Mr. Connaughton

He sent him a Christmas card.

Mr. Penrose

Why did he not get on his jet and travel there to fulfil his promise?

Mr. Sheehan

He told farmers the week before that that he would do that.

Mr. Penrose

The Labour Party is committed to agriculture. We do not perceive ourselves as a Cinderella for people or organisations to contact as a last resort. We want to be treated as equals because we have a strong commitment to a vibrant agriculture sector. We have given that commitment in Opposition and in Government and will continue to do so.

Debate adjourned.