Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Oct 1998

Vol. 495 No. 5

Agriculture Industry: Statements.

Over the past two weeks I have outlined in this House and in the Seanad the current position in relation to agriculture and the difficulties being experienced in recent times. I also believe I have outlined the background to these difficulties. Various actions have been taken by myself and the Government to alleviate these difficulties. I will set out a list of the measures taken.

Beef export refunds have been substantially increased. Over the past three weeks the refund on male beef has been increased by over 21 per cent or about 9p per pound. This refund is provided to meat exporters to allow them trade in markets outside the EU and brings the total export refund on male carcass beef to 51p per pound. One must consider the price being paid for cattle and the price per pound at 70p, 76p or 80p. A 51p subsidy is included in that price and one must consider that beef is being sold to third countries for 27p or 30p per pound.

I have also negotiated increased access to intervention for heavier cattle, with the carcass weight limit being increased from 340kg to 360kg. The steer 04 category will now be eligible. Both these measures will allow for close to 50 per cent of our steer production being eligible for intervention, whereas the previous figure was 15 per cent. There is something radically wrong with our breeding policy when only 15 per cent of our national kill qualifies for intervention. The processors' margin has been increased by 40 per cent. Direct payments to farmers have been speeded up. Already this year, £659 million has been paid under the headage and premium schemes, of which £353 million relates to payments made under the 1998 schemes.

The advance in suckler cow and special beef premium payments has been increased from 60 per cent to 80 per cent. This will release an additional £45 million to farmers in November and December. An outstanding BSE compensation top-up of more than £6 million has been paid to certain beef producers. These payments were issued on 15 October.

Additional facilities for live exports to EU markets have been approved, with 6,000 weanlings being exported each week and more than 100,000 calves and weanlings exported to the Continent. Last week there was a record number of 6,700 weanlings exported to the Continent. I have also negotiated the re-opening of the Iranian market for our beef exports.

As regards the sheep sector, I have ensured the continuation of the sheep headage top-up for 1998 worth £2.75 million. Earlier payment will be made of the second instalment of the ewe premium worth £26 million. These payments commence today, a month earlier than usual. An EU funded private storage scheme for sheepmeat has also been introduced.

We have negotiated a substantial increase in export refunds for pigmeat. The latest increase of 33 per cent will be of immediate benefit to pigmeat producers, combined with the putting in place of a 70,000 tonne private storage scheme. I ask the industry to avail of that 70,000 tonnes of storage for pigmeat as the pig industry is going through a difficult time. Other EU states are using this facility but we have not done so to date. I call on the industry to do so, particularly when it is combined with an increase of 33 per cent in export refunds which we succeeded in obtaining last week. By any standards, the above is an impressive list of achievements which represents tangible and real assistance for the sectors involved.

As well as low prices, we also had unusually wet weather this summer. Combined with below normal sunshine levels, this resulted in reduced grass growth in many parts of the country. In the peaty and heavy clay soil areas of certain counties, the capability of farmers to make silage and hay for winter fodder was greatly reduced. The Government has made £10 million available to deal with fodder difficulties being experienced by some farmers. The details of the scheme are being finalised by my Department today.

This scheme will be directed at sheep farmers with mountain grazings, suckler cow producers and small dairy farmers in the worst affected areas, based on a Teagasc survey published in September. I am satisfied the mechanism being put in place to implement the scheme is practical, uses resources efficiently and delivers the payments directly and speedily to farmers. It is important that these payments are made directly and speedily. We have had schemes which did not work very well. Vouchers went all over the place and the farmers who most needed assistance were the last to benefit. We will use existing headage and premia systems to get money to farmers directly. It will be a matter for the farmers to use the lower cost concentrate feed which is available to supplement their feed stocks for the winter. This scheme is targeted at those most seriously affected as we used the Teagasc survey to focus on those most directly concerned.

As well as the immediate fodder scheme, my Department, in consultation with the Department of Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands, is in the process of finalising a cull ewe slaughter scheme, under which farmers will be compensated for the removal of between 100,000 and 200,000 cull ewes, particularly from the overgrazed commonages. I hope the scheme will be up and running in the next few weeks because culling will have to be completed by the early part of December. I pay tribute to my colleagues, Deputies de Valera and Ó Cúiv, for their assistance on this matter. The objective of the scheme is to ease the situation for those sheep producers who will be required to undertake some level of destocking under the environmental programmes in 1999. However, it would also assist producers who have not been able to find a market for cull ewes this autumn. At the same time, it will make a contribution to easing the fodder shortage problem facing many sheep producers.

Discussions have taken place between my Department and the farming and processors' organisations to examine the practicalities of the scheme. The general intention is that all farmers with land in degraded commonages should receive a slaughter premium to immediately remove at least a quarter of their ewes. As producers with land in overgrazed commonages will, in any event, have some of their quota rights withdrawn for 1999, this scheme, by providing additional compensation, will help them progress towards the required level of stocking, and at the same time provide an outlet for animals that have devalued significantly in the past months.

I have also held discussions with my colleague, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, on the smallholder's assistance or farmer's dole scheme. More than 7,000 farmers are in receipt of £33 million annually under the scheme which is available to all farmers on low incomes. The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs will intensify its information initiatives at local level to increase awareness of the scheme and to emphasise its applicability to farmers. In addition, the scheme is being examined with a view to increasing its relevance to farming families. In this context, due account will be taken of the difficult income situation on certain farms arising from weather and market related conditions.

I also ask the Minister to examine a problem which has been the cause of much concern for a number of years, namely the RSI scheme for self-employed people. People who paid RSI from 1988 onwards and might have had six or seven years' payments did not receive any pension, merely a refund of their payments. I hope that with a little more arm twisting, we could expect something to be done about the scheme in the forthcoming budget. Farmers, having paid their RSI contributions, are entitled as an absolute minimum to a pro rata contributory pension.

It would be useful to comment on the likely overall agricultural income position in 1998 and changes which have taken place in recent years. Farm incomes, as measured by the CSO, increased in each year from 1991 to 1996 but declined in 1997, mainly as a result of price decreases for most of the agricultural commodities. This was very disappointing, particularly in view of the good performance of incomes over the previous five years. However, taking the whole period from 1991 to 1997, average farm income increased by approximately 50 per cent. It is worth noting, when considering farm incomes, that more than 50 per cent of farm household income is derived from off-farm sources. Off farm income in these households will, along with the rest of the economy, have been boosted by the general economic boom of recent years. Farm households have also benefited considerably from the low interest rates of the past few years, which are continuing to decline.

A central aspect of farm income is the amount of direct income payments to farmers. These have continued to increase throughout the 1990s and, in 1997, reached a record £940 million, which accounted for 48 per cent of farm income or approximately 25 per cent of farm household income. This amount represented an increase of more than 132 per cent since 1992.

Off-farm employment and other earnings, social welfare payments and direct agricultural payments taken together now account for approximately three quarters of the income of farm households. All of these elements of income have been increasing in recent years, including this year. The difficulty this year centres around one quarter of farm household income which derives exclusively from agricultural operations.

I would like to consider the overall picture for farm income in 1998, looking at the main sectors very briefly. The prices for livestock had generally been performing quite well up to mid-year but deteriorated since then, particularly as a result of the Russian crisis. The position relating to the milk sector is much more positive. Prices throughout the first seven months of the year are well ahead of 1997 levels. Although the uncertainty surrounding the Russian market may have a negative impact towards year end, a satisfactory increase in output value is expected. The outlook for output value in the cereals sector is one of little change over 1997.

Overall, the most likely outcome at this point in the year is that the value of gross agricultural output for all of these products will rise in 1998. However, the cost of farm inputs also looks set to rise, mainly as a result of the need to purchase increased levels of concentrate feed. Obviously, this overall picture also masks many differences at farm level and I am well aware that some farmers have been hard hit by recent developments. It is for this reason that I have sought to ensure that the measures to deal with the problem are well targeted.

As I have said already, direct income payments accounted for 48 per cent of income arising in agriculture in 1997. These payments play a significant role in supporting farm incomes and will do so again in 1998; this is a point which is forgotten when comparisons are made in regard to previous difficulties in agriculture. The fact that I have secured Commission agreement to the advance payment of 80 per cent of the suckler cow and special beef premia in 1998 will provide a significant boost to direct payments this year.

The House will be aware that I have had to defend the level of these payments arising from adverse comments in a German magazine in which some west Cork farmers were quoted as saying they had only to sit back in Castlehaven and wait for the cheques to arrive in the letterbox. That did not do our position in Europe any good. The broadcaster, Eamon Dunphy, contacted me seeking an explanation of the direct income payment situation.

Already in 1998, outstanding progress has been made in delivering these payments to farmers. Some £653 million has been paid to farmers under the various headage and premium schemes, of which £353 million relates to payments made under the 1998 schemes. Payments under REPS and the early retirement scheme amount to almost £108 million and £50 million respectively so far this year. The REP scheme is an excellent one, and the level of payment to farmers is the most badly affected areas is increasing annually.

An advertisement was placed in a southern newspaper last week which implied that the farm retirement scheme was to end and that farmers would no longer have a pension under it. There is no truth whatsoever in that. The scheme is firmly in place and I have held discussions with Commissioner Fischler on it. Rather than being terminated, it will in fact be improved. Two aspects of the scheme have been the cause of a great deal of anxiety. The first is the additionality clause in relation to the acquisition of additional land and the second relates to people with an off-farm income. It is very important that part-time farmers should qualify for the scheme. I received a positive response from the Commissioner and the scheme will form part of the overall Agenda 2000 negotiations which are expected to conclude by spring of next year. I cannot be sure when those negotiations will conclude as more new Ministers have been appointed to the Council of Ministers, one from Sweden, one from Britain and one from Denmark. The German Government has not yet appointed a new Minister and the French and Italian Ministers are due to be replaced in the coming weeks.

The Minister is hanging on well.

He is a bit like Glen Hoddle.

I am becoming a veteran on the Council after a period of 12 months or so. The newspaper report, which some of my Cork colleagues doubtless read, was most misleading.

The charter of rights for farmers sets very specific targets for payment of grants under the headage and premium schemes. My intention is to meet those deadlines in 1998. Progress to date is impressive. Payment of sheep headage commenced this year on 21 September, one week ahead of the commencement date in 1997 and to date more than £13.4 million has been paid. Payment of cattle headage commenced on 26 September 1998, a full three weeks ahead of the commencement date in 1997 and more than £57 million has been paid to date. Payments under these schemes will continue over the coming weeks with a view to ensuring that all eligible applicants are paid by 31 October. Payments under the arable aid scheme commenced on 16 October, the earliest possible commencement date under EU Regulations and, to date, more than £52 million has been paid. Payment of the 80 per cent advance premium under the 1998 special beef premium scheme commenced last weekend, three weeks ahead of last year, and so far more than £50 million has been paid in respect of almost two thirds of January to June applications. Payment of the higher rate of advance premium under the 1998 suckler cow premium scheme commenced yesterday, two weeks ahead of last year and more than £69 million has been paid to 63 per cent of May 1998 applicants.

Last week, payment of additional BSE compensation of £6.3 million was made to those producers who had more animals in 1996 than they had in 1995 — the year originally chosen as the base year for the 1996 BSE compensation package. The EU regulation governing payment of the second instalment of 1998 ewe premium was published on Friday last, 16 October. Payments valued at some £26 million are now issuing. I am not suggesting farmers are not entitled to these payments. They are compensation payments. However, a very special effort has been made to ensure the payments are made quickly in view of the prices and fodder problems. Given the level of payments involved, this will have a positive effect on cash flow on family farms in the weeks ahead. Those making out cheques and payments became somewhat exhausted in the past two weeks as in the region of £200 million has been sent to farmers in acknowledgement of the difficult cash flow problems in some areas.

Live exports from Ireland to both EU and third countries are vital to maintaining competition in the cattle trade and in sustaining farm incomes.

The seasonality of the livestock trade in Ireland makes market access for live exports particularly critical during the back end of the year when large numbers of weanlings come off farms. I have consistently recognised the importance of promoting live exports and have delivered in a number of areas to ensure market access for our cattle to both EU and third country markets.

The availability of shipping services to transport cattle and other livestock to export markets is a critical factor and it is worth recalling the difficulties experienced in 1997. Deputies will recall that in autumn 1997 there was no shipping service available to move animals to Europe and live animals had not left the country in 1997 up to that time. I sought and obtained Government approval to provide £1 million towards the startup costs of a roll-on/roll-off service which provided the means by which cattle and other livestock could leave the country. It provided an outlet over the winter and spring, but unfortunately and regrettably was not sufficiently supported by the industry and as a consequence was discontinued by the operators after six months in service. I remember meeting some co-ops to at least ensure dry goods were carried on the service as they must get cheese, milk powder and various other commodities out of the country. While the operators could carry 12 units for livestock, the average load was about six units while the spaces for dry goods were left empty. It is a pity this was the situation.

Arising from the measures recently taken the situation is now very different from last year. Commercial operators of roll-on/roll-off ferries, both Pandoro and Irish Ferries, are again carrying livestock to the Continent and this is being augmented by the carriage of large numbers of animals on dedicated vessels. So far this year we have exported more than 100,000 cattle to the Continent. This is more than four times the number of cattle exported in all of 1997 and is over twice the number exported in 1996. Cattle exports to the EU so far this year already well exceed what we exported in 1995 which was regarded as a very good year for the trade. These are facts and figures which those who have sought to create an impression of crisis around the subject of live exports to the Continent seem consistently to ignore, but which I want to put on record. For example, more than 6,000 cattle per week have been exported to the Continent in recent weeks and exports will continue at a high level. Within the past four weeks we have exported to the Continent more cattle than in the whole of 1997. This is an out-turn which speaks for itself, particularly when contrasted with some of the very negative representation of the live trade to Europe which has been put about in recent times.

I have ensured a detailed ongoing monitoring of the trade and that exporters are facilitated in every appropriate way in shipping animals to Europe and elsewhere. I am particularly anxious to provide that the long-term interests of the trade are served by ensuring relevant welfare, animal health and certification requirements are observed by all concerned. My Department will, therefore, continue to give such matters careful attention and I urge all other interested parties to do likewise.

Shippers and cattle traders who came to the Department with an application for approval of a vessel were granted approval. In one case people thumped the table and said they did not have sufficient ferry facilities and I approved the Caroline, which did not qualify under existing rules, by modifying the rules. When I inquired a couple of weeks later as to how the Caroline was doing I was told it was ferrying sheep from Wales to the Azores. It is letting the side down when people come to the Department looking for ferry services to help the national situation and then use them for another purpose.

My commitment to live exports to the Continent has been consistent and effective. The serious EU market access problems of 1997 were addressed in a timely and effective manner and in 1998 we will have a four year high in terms of cattle exports to the EU. I assure the House that the question of maintaining and increasing our exports of cattle and other food producing animals to continental Europe will continue to be among my foremost priorities as it has been since this Government took office.

The beef sector has suffered and been in economic turmoil since the Russian collapse. In 1997 beef exports to Russia amounted to 70,000 tonnes and were expected to reach similar levels in 1998. The effects of the loss of the market have been compounded by the fact that this was also an important market for other European exporters. We and some other member states have been thrown out of the Russian market. All the extra stock which has resulted from this has to find a home somewhere and we have much competition from other member states.

The renationalisation of the beef market in the European Union following the BSE scares in 1996 has made it extremely difficult to penetrate the European market. This has led to a greater dependence on third country markets for our exports than at any time in the past. Irish beef exports to European markets have recovered significantly from 1996, particularly to France, Italy and the Netherlands. Nevertheless, there is a very substantial gap between cattle prices in Ireland and prices on these markets and I have been pressing the trade to exploit whatever opportunities exist on these markets. An Bord Bia is formulating a strategy aimed at ensuring market recovery. The current difficulties in the beef sector are particularly disappointing because in the absence of the Russian crisis there were very good prospects for cattle prices to remain at the higher levels which prevailed earlier in the year.

From the start of the Russian crisis I put this problem on the agenda of the Council of Ministers and in recent weeks we have seen major concessions given in this context. I would have liked them to have been given sooner, but nonetheless they are now available. It is nothing short of tragic that benefits I negotiated on behalf of the Government and received in Europe are not being passed on to farmers. It is essential that the improved support in terms of export refunds and intervention are immediately passed on to the producers, i.e., farmers. There is no justification for processors to hold prices at current levels. There has been an increase of 9p per lb in export refunds on beef in the past three weeks while third country prices have fallen back somewhat in the aftermath of the Russian crisis. The basis now exists for an improvement in cattle prices over the coming weeks.

There is a long-term problem. We are out of the European retail market and there is a difficulty in terms of lack of competition for which the live trade is necessary. We asked McKinsey Consultants to draw up a report which I have just received. There are structural defects which need addressing and which will be addressed on the basis of that report.

The reopening of the Libyan live trade has been well documented. An agreement was signed on 25 July in Dublin between the Department of Foreign Affairs and representatives of the Libyan Administration and endorsed by the Libyan People's Assembly. Our ambassador, Mr. Joe Small, has been in Tripoli for the past week and is positive about the market opening up. Everybody would have preferred if it had opened up before now, but regrettably this has not happened. I spent some time in Tehran in recent days. Iran has agreed to reopen the market and a technical delegation will come here on Friday to sign the agreement.

The sheep sector was doing quite well up to July this year. However, the collapse of the Russian market caused severe difficulty which is why I have organised early payment of headage and premia and approval for the additional top up. There are also severe difficulties in the pigmeat sector. Every effort has been made to get rid of the backlog, including working over weekends. The use of private storage has been exceptionally helpful. I want the industry to use the EU funding for the storage of up to 70,000 tonnes of pigmeat.

There is no denying that the farming sector has recently gone through a difficult period. The economic difficulties in Russia have had a disproportionate impact on markets in this country which is attributable to our dependence on exports. An added difficulty is the shortage of fodder in certain parts of the country. The Government collectively and I as Minister for Agriculture and Food have recognised and faced up to these difficulties. We have used every means at our disposal to assist. These include tangible results in the reopening of markets in Libya and Iran, a series of technical changes to bring forward direct payments, support measures for beef, pigmeat and sheep and a national scheme to assist with fodder related difficulties. The strategy has been to assess issues and find solutions which will make a real difference. We have concentrated on delivery, not on idle promises.

Collectively, these amount to a formidable array of measures and they provide assistance across a range of sectors. We can all understand farmers' anger and frustration at receiving inadequate prices for their produce. However, comparisons with the situation in 1974 are well wide of the mark; direct payments now account for up to 50 per cent of farm incomes and provide strong and real support, but there were no such payments in l974. It is also important to recognise that the best solution is a restoration of strong and healthy markets and, as Minister, I have been unstinting in my efforts in that regard.

The bottom line is that while others have been courting publicity and making wild allegations, my officials and I have been working hard and effectively for the farmers of Ireland. The measures I outlined are substantial and will be effective in assisting farmers at a difficult time. I intend to continue this work in support of our farming people and I will not be distracted from my task by those who seek political gain from the difficulties of others.

The Minister was good at doing that in the past.

Having listened to the Minister, I appear to be living in a different country. We have different views on the agriculture sector. I will raise a number of important points, which I raised during recent weeks and which I will continue to raise. We must acknowledge that there is a horrendous crisis in farming. Irrespective of how the figures are dressed up or cheques in the post are added up, this has been a bad year for farmers. It was the worst in 25 years. I was a mart manager in 1974, but I saw greater problems this year. The difference between 1974 and now is that everyone could see light at the end of the tunnel in 1975, but they cannot see great light at the end of this tunnel. Because the Libyan market has not been reopened, it is difficult to know at what stage in the storm we are.

The factors that account for the crisis, over which the Government does not have control, were well documented. We all know about the atrocious weather, particularly during June, July and August and the collapse of cattle and sheep prices. It is hard to believe that pig producers are getting £30 less than the cost of production for their pigs. It was also a bad year for corn producers who had low yields. All this has conspired to pull the heart out of farming. I know, as I am sure the Minister knows, some farms are almost beyond economic salvation. Farmers have run into hard times because of what has happened. Others are teetering on the brink of insolvency and others are so weakened financially that it is difficult to know what will happen to them.

The severity of this disaster is not fully recognised. I am surprised at the lack of understanding in non-farming areas. I refer to large towns and villages. Many shopkeepers, service providers, supermarket owners, wholesalers, distributors, builders and many others are about to feel the pinch. The same amount of money is not in circulation and this crisis will also affect them. It is only now that they are beginning to see there is trouble ahead.

The crisis is worse than has been reported. A mart in the west calculated its figures for three months up to end September 1998 last week and compared to its figures for the corresponding period last year the reduction in the price per head going through its rings was £138 for every animal sold. That is the official amount it has lost in respect of every animal sold. The figure for some cattle breeds is £200 per head less than it was this time last year and some cattle breeds do not attract a bid. That will be confirmed by mart managers.

Why is the position so bad and must it be so bad? International trading difficulties, such as the collapse of the Russian economy, upset our market. Other countries with which we trade reduced their prices on foot of that because they know we are in a buyer's market. France and Germany initiated an unofficial "buy French" and "buy German" consumer campaign, or renationalisation policy, and it has worked. Unless I misinterpreted the principles of the Treaty of Rome and subsequent treaties, the principle of free trade and of free movement of good and services throughout the community is broken every day by our EU partners. That is one of the reasons that today a French farmer can get £1.05 per pound for his cattle, a top rate, when our farmers can get only 70p, 78p or as low as 68p per pound for their cattle.

This crisis is partially related to the BSE problem. Our figures are improving and we hope they will continue to improve this year and into next year. Neither the Minister nor the Government handled this crisis with anything like the urgency it deserved. It did not stop raining in June, July and August and anyone with a grasp of agriculture would realise that because there was so much water, particularly in the wetlands, there would be a winter feed shortage this year. Farmers had only half their normal silage yield, there was no hay and the only saving was some straw from the cereal areas. Most farms have only half the required winter fodder.

It appears it only dawned on the Government in the week leading up to the ploughing championship that there was a fodder shortage. Its the first time I have heard a figure — £10 million in this case — given for the cost of a fodder scheme, without the rules and qualifying criteria for the scheme being set out. A decision has not been made on the category of farmers who will qualify under the scheme. The introduction of that scheme was a panic reaction. Unless I have it entirely wrong, I cannot see how £10 million will be of any use to the farmers who have been badly hit because of the low price they are getting for their cattle and the high price they must pay for feed.

It is only peanuts.

I cannot understand why even at this late stage the Minister has not indicated the category of farmers who will qualify under this scheme. I thought he would have indicated that today. Will farmers throughout the country be able to apply under the scheme where circumstances show that because of bad weather they have much less winter feed than they need?

The Minister announced three weeks ago that trade with Libya would reopen, the necessary letters were in order and guarantees had been given and I accepted that. However, many farmers refused to sell cattle on foot of that commitment. Cattle prices were bad at that time, but they are even worse now. I do not know why trade with Libya has not reopened. Does the Minister know why it has not reopened? He should be in a position to tell the House and our farmers why it has not reopened? He is the Minister and he is dealing with the Libyan authorities. Will trade with Libya reopen next week, in a month's time or next spring? Farmers want to know the answer to that question but they have not got it today.

I complimented the Minister on the deal he secured on intervention. If that had not been secured when it was, there would be no bid for any animal. We have a double edged problem on our hands. It appears the factories will do what they have done historically. This has no relationship with those who pay the piper. We are in a buyer's market. There were never more cattle going into meat factories but it appears they will not pay the intervention price. The sanctions decided upon, limited though they may be, must be implemented and applied to meat plants. It is no trouble to calculate the intervention price attained by the Minister in Brussels on behalf of farmers as there is no smokescreen involved. It could be printed on the gates of the meat factories because it is clearcut. They know exactly what they must pay and, while there are many pressures on them, I ask the Minister to use his clout to make sure they pay and turn away from Agriculture House the ones who do not when they come to lobby on other issues.

The Minister referred to trade with Iran and said a veterinary team is to visit Ireland. I want to see that because there is no way out of this crisis unless foreign markets are opened. How can the Minister say to farmers who have cattle out in the fields in the worst possible conditions following the floods of recent days, which puts extra pressure on them to get rid of the cattle, that if trade to Iran does not open, trade to Libya will, given the history of this issue? It is time for honest answers and the Minister should tell us why the Libyan market did not reopen and give us the background to the Iranian market. If the markets were to open in a week or two, farmers would obviously wait but if they do not open until next spring there is an onus on the Minister to outline where they stand in terms of trade to Libya.

We want another ploughing match. If we had one of them every week, we would have more announcements.

Not alone are 80,000 steers to be put into intervention, there is also a scheme for private storage. A huge amount of tonnage is available which the meat factories could use and I am informed they will not use that scheme either. There is a need for a great deal of stern talking.

The Minister referred to direct payments and I acknowledge that the cheques are being sent. However, is that not what the charter of rights proclaimed? Is it not farmers' money? If prices had not reduced, would the cheques not go out anyway? There is a huge deficit either way and the Minister should always remember the sum of £138 that I referred to in terms of the difference in prices between this year and last.

This deficit must be monitored because it is crippling farm families. They do not have a cash flow and when headage cheques were sent out recently, many farmers were grateful. However, unlike 1996 and 1997, they did not go back to the marts and buy smaller cattle as they would normally because they had to use the cheques to pay silage contractors, veterinarians for calls and testing, ACC bank loans and educational institutions for their children's education. They have a long winter ahead of them, with little income for most. If they have to turn to the Minister's fodder scheme, they are in for a rude awakening. We do not know where this will end.

On foreign markets and "renationalisation," I remember the "Buy Irish" campaign upon which various Governments frowned. We were told it was contrary to the Treaty of Rome and we should desist from such a campaign. I find it hard to understand how the French and German Governments can advocate campaigns to buy their own beef. That is all right if one is a French or German farmer because those countries are net importers of food but where does Ireland, which exports nine out of every ten animals it produces, stand in terms of the Treaty? This matter must be taken up at the highest level, particularly during the Agenda 2000 negotiations, but if this problem becomes Community wide it will leave Ireland in a serious position. It breaks every rule and principle for which Ireland stands.

Marketing is the only way out of this crisis. Cattle must be exported and competition created. I accept it is a difficult time to market because of the problems I mentioned but I hope Bord Bia will be given resources and will be focused on what it must do. The EU labeling system has upset our markets everywhere and unless a brand image is built, similar to the dairy industry, we will always be second best even in internal EU markets. It is time to get whatever grip we can on third country markets before the next GATT negotiations and it is extremely bad news for farmers that we cannot break into the Libyan and Iranian markets more quickly.

There are certain actions the Minister can and must take to help the farming community in its hour of greatest need. On the first day of this session there was a three hour debate on agriculture during Private Member's Business and many Opposition and backbench Government Deputies, including myself, suggested that one way to financially aid the agricultural community would be to open up the family income supplement scheme to farmers and the self-employed generally.

A row broke out about its cost but we are told it would cost approximately £50 million. If this means the farming community is £50 million worse off because it cannot participate in the scheme it speaks volumes about the low incomes of farmers currently. There is discrimination involved. Low income PAYE families are supplemented and supported by the FIS and I agree with the principle involved. However, why are small farming families not supplemented in a similar manner? What is the difference given the everybody is in the tax net? All families are subject to three or four different assessments for income tax, social welfare payments, medical card, etc. It is a national habit and, therefore, it is not a problem to determine a farmer's income at any time.

The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs came into the House with all guns blazing and said that under no circumstances would the Government accede to our request. It is one of the best ways of diverting funds to farmers with cash flow problems. Officers of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs are not in a position to react. I am talking about the farmer who does not want to receive the dole or family income supplement. Through no fault of his or her own, he or she has no money as another dreary winter approaches. The Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs do not seem to have grasped this.

On the fodder shortage, unlike the fodder voucher scheme introduced in 1986, the headage top-up scheme introduced in the same year was a great success. It was well targeted at those in the eye of the storm, those in disadvantaged areas. It is my information that certain district electoral divisions have been identified by Teagasc as areas in which there is a fodder shortage. Where do farmers who have been unable to sell their cattle stand on the £10 million? Payments are to be capped at between £300 and £400. For those with between 50 and 60 cattle, this is peanuts. I suspect the reason the Minister did not announce the details of the scheme is that he is looking for more money or perhaps he is hoping something will happen in the meantime. That is a bad strategy. He should identify clearly who will benefit and there should be no discrimination. Small milk producers should be facilitated.

The area aid unit has been closed to the public. One cannot get through on the telephone. The staff are working extremely hard to resolve what is an intractable problem. I do not know what the figure is in respect of the number of files in hand but I understand it is sizeable. Because of the problems being experienced the Minister should again seek the permission of the European Commission to issue payments based on last year's figures. If penalties have to be imposed, the moneys due can be recouped from next year's payment. This should be done quickly.

On brucellosis blood testing, I understand it is now possible in certain circumstances to have results returned within six to ten days in respect of cattle for sale. Given the problems encountered in Cork during the summer, this is a remarkable turnaround. I congratulate the staff concerned.

I share the Minister's view that the rural environment protection scheme is an excellent one but why does it take the agricultural officers involved up to six months to carry out inspections? I understand, because the sum available for mileage expenses is exhausted, agricultural officers in a certain county in the west have been grounded. This is unacceptable. Everybody has to stretch the extra yard to ensure payments are made on time. Payments under the scheme should be made on the due date. If penalties have to be imposed following an inspection, the moneys due can be recouped from the next payment.

Anything that can be done to relieve the problems of hill sheep farmers should be done. Hill sheep farmers have invested heavily in sheep housing on lowlands and foothills in respect of which they were required to maintain a certain stocking density. I appreciate the need to promote regeneration of habitat but I hope, in relation to the framework plans, hill sheep farmers will not find themselves in a position where they have only one quarter of the sheep they started with. When a connection is made with the number of culled sheep an eye should be kept on the viability of the holdings of hill sheep farmers who are of importance to the economy. They are the custodians of the environment. If this is left to the Department of Agriculture and Food, they might be given a little more sympathy. It is important that this situation is monitored.

It is a difficult time for pig farmers. I accept that the problem is cyclical but must also mention what the Minister could, but did not, do. Why has he not removed the slaughter-health levy of £1.05? What an income boost it would be to small pig farmers who are selling between 200 and 300 pigs a week. That is within the remit of the Minister but it has not been done.

The House has not given answers today. What the Minister had to say has been heard a thousand times before. As a result no farmer will feel assured that his future is secure for the next few months. Unless the Libyan and Iranian markets open, there will be serious trouble and the Minister does not appear to have a solution.

I am glad to contribute to this debate on one of our most important industries. I wish to share my time with Deputy Ferris.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Agriculture remains one of our most important economic sectors. It is especially critical to the wellbeing of the rural economy. I do not wish to engage in a negative political point scoring exercise against the Minister in this debate. The issue is too important for that. When I was a Member of a Government party I discovered that the present Minister's colleagues were good at such negative activity but I did not place credence in it. The people, particularly the 150,000 farmers, are not fooled by such gibberish. I do not engage in it and the Minister will always find me constructive and anxious to put forward proposals for the improvement of the rural community.

I will not blame the Minister for the weather and the absence of markets. The latter is the result of global economic problems. Agriculture, food and forestry account for almost 14.2 per cent of our GDP and about one of every seven people employed, approximately 175,000, are employed in that sector. It also accounts for about 13 per cent of our exports and generates substantial foreign exchange earnings for Ireland.

To ensure the continuance of this important sector it is vital that we support it as an essential and central component of rural development policy. It is clear that market forces and economic trends in conjunction with, even encouraged and fostered by, EU policies have had the effect of concentrating agricultural output, resources and incomes among a declining number of farmers. That was clear in the "Léargas" programme on television last night. Incidentally, "Ear to the Ground" is due to carry a report on Mullingar mart and the problems of beef farmers, which I have highlighted in the House for a number of months. Those problems were highlighted in last night's edition of "Léargas".

These policies increase rather than reduce the gulf between larger and smaller farmers. If they continue, the viability and survival of small farm families will be threatened. Eventually those families will face extinction. We must be honest and unambiguous about what will happen. The number of farms and of people engaged in agriculture will continue to decline. Agriculture is an important generator of ancillary industries and unless there is a radical shift in policy those industries will also decline.

The Minister said that 48 per cent of farm income derives from direct income supports. We should examine these aids, subsidies, premia and supports which cost almost £1 billion. Why should they be allocated in such a way that factory owners can position themselves to grab a decisive share? Why should the factories refuse to operate the intervention mechanism fully unless changes which benefit them are implemented? Furthermore, is it fair that less than 30 per cent of our farmers receive more than 70 per cent of the support payments while the other 70 per cent get less than 30 per cent? These questions go to the heart of this crisis and they must be addressed sooner rather than later.

The Minister is a wily campaigner but the first lesson he must have learned is that the factories do not care tuppence for farmers. His exhortations to the owners to utilise all available supports, for which the Minister fought hard and won in Europe, and to take due account of the serious difficulties in the finished cattle sector have fallen on deaf ears. The Minister was wasting his breath. I agree with Deputy Connaughton that those people only understand one language.

The Minister invited them to a meeting and secured what he believed to be an agreement. However, the following day the factory owners started to shift away from what was agreed. They are aware that more than 100,000 cattle must be removed from the system between now and early January. What have they done? They are receiving a 40 per cent increase in margins, from 10 to 14 ECU per 100kgs, to encourage them to tender. However, even the Minister was disappointed with the tendering process, as was every farmer.

The factory owners should spell out the efforts they are making to secure market outlets for themselves. We heard a great deal of talk about the Libyan market. What is causing the delay there? Can anything more be done? What about the Iranian market? Saying these markets are open sends an optimistic psychological message to producers but it also creates a problem. Farmers hold on to their cattle and feed them more while they wait with bated breath for the markets to open. When they do not open the result is a glut on the home market.

Deputy Spring told me a few hours ago that a man in his constituency brought 19 cattle to Listowel mart a few days ago and accepted £2,300 for them. He could not bring them home and had to sell them. I do not blame the Minister for that; it is market forces. However, if a signal is sent that there will be a development in a market, that development should take place. The signal should not be a stop-gap measure to relieve pressure for a short time, after which it is forgotten.

The Minister referred to benefits such as the 9p per pound refund increases. One would have expected that to act as a strong basis for an improvement in cattle prices. One would also expect those benefits to filter down through the beef sector and to be reflected in cattle prices at about 80p or 80.5p for R3 grades.

A farmer asked me about these measures yesterday. He is one of the winter finishers who, as I have repeatedly warned the Minister, face extinction. He asked me to find out what percentage of cattle are R3s. It is a relevant question. Is it 3 or 4 per cent? He said: "It is only a store animal. Either they are pure breds — Continentals — or store animals or Holsteins, which cannot be fattened anyway." This benefit is no use for farmers such as him. It stabilises the situation but does not improve it.

This farmer told me that most people would accept 76p per pound. The factories can still make a profit but the farmer cannot. The farmer has a perishable commodity which he must dispose of. He cannot wait forever. This farmer said it was unbelievable to hear the factory owners arguing on their own behalf. They claim to have stopped the fall in cattle prices. Their line is that they have done well. They make a virtue of having prevented something in which they were involved. No matter how hard the Minister is working, this is a slap in the face for him. Beef processors operate independently of each other and under different managers, yet they are at one on the prices they pay. Is that not a strange coincidence? We will support the Minister to try to ensure there is genuine competition and that the price secured by him at intervention level in terms of export refunds is conveyed to farmers. Profit margins must be evenly spread. The consumer must be treated fairly as he or she is still paying an exorbitant price for beef.

The crisis is so severe that thousands are leaving the land. There are insufficient markets, crises in global economies and a lack of an emergency intervention strategy. The poor harvest and fodder shortage have all culminated in making this an extremely difficult year, and the implementation of the Agenda 2000 proposals will only serve to deepen the crisis. I call on the Minister to convene a national conference immediately to devise a strategy to revive farming and to protect it from the destructive effects of Agenda 2000.

It is no good acting on a fire brigade basis. The Department of Agriculture and Food is devising action on a day to day basis to cope with emerging crises, but there is no long-term strategy for agriculture, and a national conference would help to initiate such a strategy. It would involve all the interest groups in our agricultural industry, including farmers, their representatives, rural representative groups, politicians, processors, retailers, traders, exporters and, most importantly, consumers. Our approach to agriculture is completely fragmented. At one end of the scale farmers are getting less than 76p or 77p per pound for beef, while consumers are paying up to £5 per pound. Beef processors have failed to reflect the recent increase in export refunds in the price they are paying to farmers.

The appeal system is the reason I have called for a simplification process. One need only look at a Roscommon household survey done by the rural development group in that area. The survey shows clearly that the current system of allocation is not working, as 50 per cent of people there have less than £5,000 in family farm income. That is less than social welfare, as Deputy Connaughton said. I have received letters from farmers who applied for the special beef premium, who sent in the relevant cards and who complied with the two month retention period. One had an inspection six months later when an animal had lost an ear tag, though the same bullock would have been gone to the factory if it were not for the prices offered. The inspector said payment would not be made on the animal and there would be a reduced payment for the other animals.

Why does an inspection have to take place six months later when the animal could have been sold in the four intervening months? The farmer could have sold the animal to the factory but held on hoping for a better price; he is then penalised for having lost a tag. Common sense must be brought into this system. Let us have an appeal system that is relevant, independent and that does not have an eight month delay, which is a chronic length of time for anyone to have to wait. I am not criticising people for doing their best; some of those dealing with applicants are people I went to university with and they are doing their best under tough conditions. However, farmers are waiting for appeals to be heard.

I know a sheep farmer who bought land and was waiting for his premium. A serious situation developed with 140 of his ewes and he has been deprived of his premium. The case is now under appeal and the Minister replied to a parliamentary question I put down on this matter to the effect that it would be dealt with as soon as possible, but that is no use. This farmer has loan repayments to make and is depending on that premium. I hope it comes through, as I do not know why it was taken from him in the first place. Deputy Connaughton has referred to the area aid scheme, but the Department of Agriculture and Food staff dealing with this matter are doing their best. That unit needs extra staff and resources. The Minister seems to have made a decision that an area aid form must be cleared before any premium for headage or tillage will be made, which is a significant change from previous years, as Deputy Connaughton said. An amnesty allowed some payments to be made without the area aid clearance, but the Minister has not agreed to do that again this year. Will the Minister reconsider this? Many farmers are still trying to get through to the area aid unit in the Department, and they are also contacting us to get through to that unit.

Renationalisation is rampant throughout Europe. There is nothing common about the Common Agricultural Policy or the Common Trading Bloc apart from the word "common". All countries utilised crises to promulgate and support their own products. As Deputy Connaughton said, a "Buy Irish" campaign was struck down by the European Court of Justice on the basis that it was unfair, but labelling requirements were used to promote renationalisation programmes. The Minister indicated that he supported shipping facilities in Ireland, but Europe tried to tackle us on this issue also. We have a very strong case in favour of using whatever methods we can to get our cattle out in the live export trade, and I support the Minister's stand on this issue.

There are other matters the Minister must act on, such as installation aid. If 500 or 1,000 people are leaving farming every week, the Minister must take positive policy measures to stem that drift. Installation aid is very important though the amount is small and criteria must be satisfied, such as being under 35, eligible for certification and possessing agricultural college qualifications. Approximately 94 young people per month qualified for it. That is a significant number, amounting to approximately 1,100 farmers per year. It was an effort to stem the flight from the land. A farmer with 200 acres in North Westmeath which has suffered a 30 per cent drop in population, gave me three files that belonged to his three sons. He had gone to Teagasc, had qualified in every way and had started the process of legal transfer of lands. He then received letters telling him he could not go on. The land transference money cost him £17,000. This scheme would have helped his sons to perhaps purchase extra stock or to develop land.

A number of young farmers have already applied for this scheme. They are in limbo, and will have to be helped. Young people must be given an opportunity to participate in farming. I will continue to harass the Government into giving the Minister the necessary money. The Minister for Finance is from a rural area and his brother is involved in the agricultural advisory service. He knows well how important this matter is, as I am sure Hugh McCreevy has told him. A modern scheme was to be reintroduced, but nothing has been done. There is no point in the Minister scraping around other areas of his Department for some money; this is a serious problem.

The scheme would cost approximately £6 million to implement in full and a number of farmers have to be included. The Minister made an application to the Commission in September, and I am disappointed because last May I was told here in the Chamber that everything was hunky-dory and that the Minister was going ahead with it. That is why I was so angry. I believe I was misled, either intentionally or unintentionally, and I was angry because I had told young farmers that it would be reintroduced, but it was not.

I do not know what is happening at Government level. I remember the Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, telling me on one occasion that I did not know anything about agriculture but, unlike him, I did not have somebody to write a script for me. I intend to harass the Taoiseach about this matter because as late as yesterday, young people were telling me that it is a disgrace the scheme has not been reintroduced.

Improvements have been made in the areas of pollution control and environmental protection and enhancement, with an additional allocation being made in the mid-term review. Since the introduction of the land project scheme in 1949 there has been a scheme of State grants of one type or another available for on-farm investment. The absence of the control of farmyard pollution and the control of dairy hygiene schemes, and the unfavourable tax treatment of on-farm investment, has impacted adversely on farmers' morale and dampened self-initiation for farmers' dwindling resources.

In recent years significant levels of investment were made by farmers, particularly in farm buildings. Most of the investment now required is related to environmental protection and new standards. The focus will be on measures to protect the environment which will not yield an increase in the income of farm families. Farm investment as a percentage of income has increased to approximately 28 per cent in 1997.

In An Action Programme for the Millennium, the Government undertook to restore the control of farmyard pollution scheme and implement a scheme to encourage on-farm investment. It is essential that the CFP and the control of dairy hygiene schemes are reintroduced as a matter of priority and that they are properly funded.

The Minister should impress upon the Government the necessity of dealing with the way capital allowances for pollution control investment and animal welfare are treated under the taxation code. The farm pollution control allowance could be increased to 100 per cent and be made available in the first or any subsequent year or in a free depreciation model, with a writing down period of over seven years. Commitments have been given in regard to these areas.

Farmers, building contractors, concrete and steel suppliers and the rural economy, given the propensity of farmers to spend money locally, all benefit from these important on-farm schemes. The Exchequer benefits also through VAT, income tax, etc. and also the environment. As one person put it succinctly to me lately, it is a winwin situation for everybody involved. Education will be important in the years ahead. With new areas of trade and additional courses in agricultural colleges, we must ensure that young people in farming acquire other skills. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, opened up the agricultural college in Multyfarnham where a major investment has been made in the dairy unit there. I attended the opening also and some of the young people I met told me they were doing a farm buildings course at the college. Such courses could be upgraded to include plumbing or carpentry because young people now must have a wealth of skills to work on the farm. If their incomes are affected, they should be in a position to acquire additional off-farm income. I appeal to the Minister to liaise with FÁS in this regard who might encourage colleges to introduce certificate courses in these areas.

I welcome the scheme that is to be introduced to deal with the problem of the 200,000 hill ewes which have to be disposed of. The Minister is obviously aware of the problem in the pig industry for the past five months. It arose because of the absence of the necessary slaughter facilities as well as the turbulence on the Asian markets. This has resulted in a build-up of approximately 10,000 pigs, many of which are now overweight, and farmers are losing up to £30 per head, as Deputy Connaughton said. All farmers cannot be blamed for the problem which is a regional one. I am aware it is not as severe in the south but it is very severe north of the midlands as well as in the north west. Every effort should be made by processors to utilise private storage and the export refunds that have been made.

I thank Deputy Penrose for sharing time with me. I have been on the hustings in recent weeks with Deputy Penrose and Deputy Connaughton and regardless of what is said about this crisis, there are many angry farmers in Cork, Tipperary, as the Minister of State will confirm, and elsewhere. Those of us who regularly attend meetings to hear the problems farmers face know how those problems change from year to year, but I have been in public life a long time and I have no doubt this crisis is one of the worst any of us have experienced.

We do not want to criticise the Minister. We support him when he takes action to, for instance, improve the supports mechanism in the European Union. However, we are critical of the fact that the processors have taken advantage of those improvements and set themselves up as a type of banking system for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the primary producers. Any benefits the Minister may have obtained have not been reaped by the farmers.

The Minister and his colleagues are the people who made many promises to farmers; the farmers now want those promises to be met. The Libyan trade has become a debacle. I know the Minister acted in regard to the political contacts that were made, and that the principle has been accepted, but that created an anticipation that the market would reopen. It has not reopened and that has caused other problems such as farmers holding on to animals.

The same position obtains in relation to the Iranian trade. I visited Iran two years ago and met many of the main political figures, as well as veterinary representatives. I am pleased the Minister has made further progress and I hope the visit of certain technical people next week will result in that market being reopened, but it will reopen at a level that will not have a significant impact on the current crisis in exports. Iran will not take £100 million worth of animals as it did in the past. The Iranian Ambassador told me last night that Iran was almost self-sufficient in cattle and, therefore, we should not raise our hopes too high. The reopening of this market will not be the panacea for all the problems that currently exist.

A promise was made in regard to the installation scheme. It has not been fulfilled and all of us in this House are being accused of breaking promises.

The Department of Agriculture and Food is an excellent Department with dedicated staff from the Secretary General down. It is a huge Department which touches on the livelihoods of many people every week whether for headage payments, direct payments or cheques in the post. We have a major responsibility to tidy up any inadequacies. The Minister has addressed some of these in his speech.

I wish to share time with Deputies Brendan Smith, John Browne and Cooper-Flynn.

The Minister has made every effort in recent months to deal with the crisis. The question of installation aid has been raised for some time and the Minister has received Government approval for the reintroduction of an installation aid package. It is awaiting approval in Brussels and we hope to have the support of all sides in our endeavours to have it reintroduced. The Commission has raised a number of queries but I hope in the not too distant future the Minister will be in a position to deal with them. Given that he inherited many problems, his efforts in the crisis should be complimented.

Farmers should be complimented for producing the highest number of livestock ever in the State. The other arm which is necessary to deal with the crisis, namely, the processors and the marketers, has failed in its duty to producers in regard to market access. We heard much about the beef sector last week. There was agreement that 81p would be paid for grade R beef while today the price being offered is around 75p and producers are forced to accept it. The weather conditions of the past 24 hours will force people to accept even lower prices. Why is a kilo of steer beef, grade R, worth 167p in Ireland and 254p in France? These figures cannot be denied. The meat processors have a question to answer. When McKinsey has completed his review there may be a need to look at the possibility of dividing the slaughterers and the processors and forcing those in the slaughter business out of processing. It is a cartel and let nobody have any illusions about it.

That is correct.

I suffered very severely from it on a personal level many years ago. I am not afraid to say so in the House.

There is a need for new markets and to determine what can be done for processors and those who are seeking new markets. The Russian market was fine. Some 70,000 tonnes of frozen beef was exported to Russia. The profit margin was accepted but nobody looked further than the following week's kill. Nobody tried to determine what would happen if anything went wrong in Russia. When that market failed our beef industry was destroyed at all levels. Were it not for the considerable amount of live shipping from Ireland there would be utter chaos. The Minister is to be complimented on ensuring that walk-on boats and ferries for roll-on roll-off were put in place although there is still insufficient capacity to handle the number of livestock that could be exported. This has other consequences. The top range of the market is being exported and there will be problems down the road.

The Minister referred to the grading system. The quality of livestock will be diminished given that farmers have to accept the best price. The best price is available from the shippers and farmers should accept it. There is a need for the system to be examined. If the price of the grade R3 steer is 167p per kilogram in Ireland and 254p in France he will seek naturalisation in France very soon. The reason French, Spanish, Italian and Dutch farmers want to buy Irish cattle is that they are much cheaper than the cattle in their own countries. The factories should be told that an intervention price is acceptable. They have had an increase in their processing costs and they have no excuse for trying to take it from the farmer. The farmer should be paid the relevant rates for the various grades instead of being cut by 4p and 5p.

Third countries have been mentioned. In regard to the opening of the Libyan markets nothing more can be done by the Government than has already been done. We should look back at all the efforts that have been made by the Government to try to restore the markets in Libya and Iran. Other countries in eastern Europe and western Asia are crying out for cattle and could take some of these cattle. There should be a concerted effort to have more shipping available. We hope the Libyan situation will be resolved without delay.

The Minister should be complimented on speeding up the payments system. It will not solve the problem but will help to alleviate the shortterm cash flow problems of farmers. If the other returns from the processing side and the sale of livestock are not increased there will be a major crisis in the spring.

The Minister hopes to be in a position to announce the necessary fodder package in the near future. Something will have to be done to ensure fodder is provided and the livestock maintained. Livestock has no value to the economy if allowed die or deteriorate due to lack of feed. Some parts of the country do not have a problem but in the west and in my constituency there is an acute problem which has been added to by the downpour in the past 48 hours.

The culling of mountain ewes is welcomed by everybody, including sheep farmers. The lambs of 1998 are left because they could not be sold. If the old culled ewes are removed at a reasonable price it will help farmers maintain stock and the breeding base.

The APS scheme referred to by the Minister has not been taken up by the pigmeat factories. Given the increase of 33 per cent in export refunds for pigmeat something must be done on that front. If the scheme is properly implemented it could be of major assistance to pig farmers.

The fodder scheme will have to be targeted at those most in need of assistance — the small farmers who have suffered most. I hope the maximum amount will be paid. The Minister will endeavour to have it paid as quickly as possible. It will give farmers an opportunity to plan their winter feed and what concentrates they may wish to buy. I hope there will not be profiteering by those who control the import of grain and certain other proteins because there have been problems in the past and at times the market has been distorted.

The family income supplement was mentioned earlier. It will have to be looked at in the context of other social welfare schemes. I am pleased it is the Minister's intention to try to persuade the Government to introduce a graduated pension scheme. It is important to give some type of pension to those who paid contributions over the years and probably remain in farming. That is to be appreciated.

I compliment the Minister and the Ministers of State on their efforts to tackle the serious difficulties facing a number of sectors in agriculture. The Minister, Deputy Walsh, has succeeded in introducing a number of measures which are very helpful in trying to tackle the difficulties and improving the prices paid to primary producers. He has succeeded in increasing shipping capacity, intervention, export refunds and the aids to private storage, both for sheep and pigmeat. Other measures have been introduced in respect of beef.

On a number of occasions I have highlighted in this House the very serious difficulties facing pig producers. I want to see the small scale pig producer protected. A totally inadequate range of slaughtering capacity has been available since the fire in the Lovell and Christmas plant in Ballymoney last June. As Deputy Penrose said, pig producers in the north midlands and Border regions are finding it very difficult to get an outlet to which they can send pigs. There is a huge differential in the prices paid to pig producers in the northern and southern parts of the country.

We have said on numerous occasions that efforts must be made to protect small scale producers because we do not want that industry to be left in the hands of a small number of large producers. Similarly, the pig slaughtering and processing capacity must not be confined to a small number of big processing companies.

McCarrens and Company bacon curers were established in my county in 1860 and traded successfully until early 1996 when, unfortunately, the plant closed. There were industrial relations problems but fortunately they have been solved. The Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, and his officials have made every effort to get that plant reopened. We expected it to reopen last Monday week but, unfortunately, that has not happened. The Minister stated today that he hoped it would open at an early date. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, and the officials have given every encouragement and made every possible facility available to promoters interested in the plant. Will he ensure that every effort is made to have that modern facility reopened. It gave employment to generations of Cavan families and provided an outlet for the pig producers in that region.

It is time to review the entire pigmeat industry. There is not adequate licensed processing capacity in this country. Pig output per annum has increased from 2.5 million in the mid-1980s to 4 million at present, which is considerable growth. It is time for the Department and the Government to review the level of assistance available to set up new pig processing facilities.

We will not have competition or an adequate number of outlets for pig producers until we have a number of medium sized processing plants. A dangerous trend in the pigmeat industry is confining processing to a small number of large companies.

Members on both sides of the House tonight rightly highlighted the disgraceful conduct of the factories in regard to the prices recently paid to farmers for beef. The Minister stated this evening:

It is essential that the improved support in terms of export refunds and intervention are immediately passed on to the producers, i.e., farmers. There is no justification for processors to hold prices at current levels.

I fully support the Minister's sentiments and the Government must take whatever action it can immediately. The farmer deserves a just price but that price is not being paid by the factories today.

Deputy Kirk and I tabled a matter on the Adjournment two weeks ago in which we raised with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the concern of farmers and consumers about the huge differentials between the prices paid at the farm gate and those charged in retail outlets. We said that a limited number of multiples are exercising a disproportionate degree of power and control over the production chain. It is time for the Government to refer this issue to the Competition Authority to examine the very serious differential between the price paid to the primary producer and that charged to the consumer. Both primary producers and consumers deserve fair play, which they are not getting at the moment.

(Wexford): The last three speakers spoke about the west and the midlands. However, there is also a farming problem in the south-east, despite the fact that many people are of the opinion that all the rich farmers live there.

I compliment the Minister on his actions to date in trying to resolve the difficulties in farming. I concur with my colleague, Deputy Brendan Smith, that the Minister is getting very little support from the meat factories. What Deputy Penrose said is true — we are all in this together and we must try together to resolve the difficulties in farming.

The Deputy was not saying that 18 months ago.

It depends on who is paying the piper.

(Wexford): Deputy Penrose was the only Member on that side of the House to talk any sense in the past hour, on which I compliment him. He comes from a very strong farming background.

Deputy Browne's violin is stuck.

(Wexford): The meat factories are operating as a cartel and are ripping off farmers, which is amazing considering that the majority of meat factories are made up of farming groups. I welcomed the farmers who took up residence in the Department of Agriculture and Food last week, for which they came in for a great deal of criticism. I heard on the radio today that they have also been picketing outside the meat factories, which is also welcome.

The factories are not offering the farming community any support at the moment — they move prices up and down, operate as a cartel and their entire operations leave a great deal to be desired. I appreciate what the Minister has done to date, but it is time for him, in conjunction with the farming organisations and the Opposition spokespersons, to put severe pressure on the meat factories to pay a fair and reasonable price to farmers.

I appreciate the commitment made by the Minister on the issue of farm installation aid. It baffles me why Brussels continues to intervene in this area. Officials from Brussels seem to be sticking their noses into every national issue which arises — we heard today that they have reservations about the urban and rural renewal scheme and they are also blocking payment of the farm installation aid. I ask the Minister to put severe pressure on Brussels to ensure young people are encouraged into farming and not denied the opportunity to take up their places in agriculture by bureaucrats in Brussels.

Deputy Brendan Smith spoke about the pig industry, which is undoubtedly in crisis due to the worldwide surplus of pigmeat and structural problems in our processing industry which have had a severe effect on producers. The Minister for Agriculture and Food should look seriously at the operations of the pig industry.

The plan introduced 15 years ago is nowhere near adequate to meet the needs of pig producers and to get a decent price for pig farmers. We need a complete review of the pig processing industry and I ask the Minister to look seriously at that.

I also ask him to give the go-ahead immediately to Enterprise Ireland to bring extra capacity on stream without delay. He has the power to do this and, from discussions which farm organisations and others have had with Brussels, it will not stand in the way of this happening. He must put pressure on the factories to take pigmeat off the market using the APS system which he announced recently and of which they have not made use to date.

Will the Minister bring forward proposals for an export credit insurance scheme for a limited volume of pigmeat to restart export trade with Russia? I understand the French Government did so recently and there is no reason our Minister and Department cannot do the same. I implore the Minister to listen to the pig producers and to do what he can to help them stay in business. He knows of my interest in the pig industry and that of Deputies from all sides of the House. Dramatic action is needed and I ask him to immediately intervene on their behalf.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Creed and Deputy Farrelly. I am delighted to speak in this important debate but disagree with my good friend and colleague, Deputy Penrose, someone I respect and admire. He said he wanted to be constructive and not be negative. I am afraid when one is in politics, one must be positive and negative and tell it as it is.

I remember being in Westport and Castlebar with his former party leader, Deputy Spring. Fianna Fáil was wonderful at bringing people out. Even when marchers came to Dublin there would be one thousand from the IFA and five thousand from Fianna Fáil. They wondered what Deputy Spring was doing about agriculture and wanted to know why he was flying all over the world and why was he not opening markets, etc. They said things could not be right with Deputy De Rossa in Government. However, I saw a banner the other day when the farmers were in Dublin which read: "We want De Rossa as Minister for Agriculture". How times have changed. I saw about 2,000 people from my constituency and thousands from all over the country at that march.

The farmers will come again on 28 October. I have not yet seen the Minister face the farmers either in the Shelbourne Hotel, the Davenport Hotel or at any public meeting. He has not appeared but has sent his two deputies. At the ploughing championships, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Seamus Brennan, being an urban and city man, said — as Charlie Haughey once said he did not realise there was a crisis in health — he did not realise there was a crisis in agriculture, although he sits at the Cabinet table every Tuesday morning. Is he asleep at the Cabinet table or is agriculture not discussed there?

When I saw Fianna Fáil Deputies running throughout the House and to the telephones and radio stations I said good news would be announced this evening. I listened to the Minister but did not hear any good news. The same old promises were trotted out again, but nothing will be delivered.

I welcome the culled ewe slaughter scheme and am delighted the Minister has introduced such a scheme. I hope it will not be like the fodder scheme and we will not have to wait weeks to know how it will be implemented. If farmers are allowed to claim for 100, 75 or 50 ewes I hope it will not affect their quotas in the future because that would be very unfair.

I listened to the Minister this evening speak about the farm retirement scheme. He spoke about PRSI and said he hoped there would be an announcement in the budget. I hope he is right because many farmers will not retire of their own free will. As a result of the antics of this Government in the area of agriculture they will have to get out of farming.

A man with 100 acres of land — a mixture of commonage and low lying land both good and bad — came to me on Monday and asked me if I would sell it as I was an auctioneer. I told him to hold on that things could not get any worse. He said that was what I said three months ago and things were still getting worse. We were promised live cattle would be exported to Libya, Iran and elsewhere, but that has not happened.

Last week there was a protest by the IFA in Agriculture House and people slept there. Many people believe Ministers have been asleep in Agriculture House for a long time because nothing has happened in the past 18 months. There was a meeting attended by factory managers, the IFA, the Minister and officials. They shook hands, photographs were taken and it was reported on RTE. Larry was there and although he does not smile that much he was certainly smiling coming out of that meeting, because nothing would change. We were told prices would go up on Monday morning to 82p or 83p. What happened? Larry and the boys got together again on Sunday and rang around. They said, "we have them on the run and we will crucify them", and that is what they did.

Speaking of cartels, I used to watch "Dallas" at one time and JR would not teach these fellows anything. We have many JRs and "Dallas" types running the factories. Will the Minister bring them in tomorrow morning to say "enough is enough". As Deputy Connaughton said, these fellows will be in Agriculture House at a later stage looking for something else and the answer should be "no". There should be justice in this matter. Farmers should get a fair price for their products. In fairness to the Minister, he went to Europe and negotiated a deal. We expected it to be passed on to the farmer but that did not happen and somebody should answer for that. It is time these fellows answered for that.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn will have listened to hill sheep farmers as I have in recent months. I hope she realises there is a crisis and these farmers are suffering. She will know what happens when one goes to meetings. The farmers put pressure on us and it is tough. I had a clinic on Monday in Westport and 70 per cent of people came to discuss area aid. We were promised this situation would never happen again. An announcement was made in May about a revamp in the Department in relation to area aid in Mayo, Donegal and another county. We were told there would be 11 telephone lines in the Department. I rang on Monday but got the answering machine. The message was, "do not contact us, we will contact you if we have a problem." I know of farmers who have been waiting for many months for the postman to come on a Monday or Tuesday with a cheque. However, there has been no sign of the cheques or anyone contacting them from the Department of Agriculture and Food. This is 1998 and not some bygone year when there were no answering machines or telephones, in some cases. It is a disgraceful situation. If the Minister has any control in the Department, this matter should be resolved immediately.

As regards answers to questions, the Department has said it is waiting for replies from the farmers. Some farmers sent in replies six or seven weeks ago and are still waiting for payment. That is not good enough. In times of crisis these people need assistance and payments should be made. Last night I said in the Dáil that the Minister must go to Europe immediately to get a derogation in the payment of headage and premium payments. If there are problems in the future, that money can be recouped. The farmers are not going anywhere.

Senator Chambers made a big announcement in the local newspaper last week about the assistance scheme for farmers known as the farmer's dole. That scheme has existed for the past 50 years. However, I urge the Minister to ask social welfare officers to stay at home. There is nothing to monitor any more. Farmers are going through a difficult time and they should be left alone. They are being crucified by the Department and others.

There is a difficulty in convincing the community at large that there is a crisis in agriculture. One of the reasons for this is probably that over the years, regardless of the circumstances, the IFA and other farming organisations have been masters at crying "wolf".

I recall meeting a delegation from the IFA in one of the party rooms after Deputy Yates was appointed Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. The price of winter fatteners at the time was 101p and we were told there was no way farmers could survive. The price is now 77p or 78p but the Minister's speech did not convey any urgency or recognition of the extent of the crisis. I recall when Deputy Yates was Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and cattle prices were 85p a lb in the factories a payment of £50 a head for heifers was introduced. This type of urgent response is required now to put money in farmers' pockets. However, the response to questions raised by other economic interests in the community is that in the early 1990s, when Mr. Ray MacSharry was Commissioner for Agriculture and the current Minister was also in office, we took the road of Common Agricultural Policy reforms. The main thrust of these was to guarantee farmers' incomes rather than prices.

This is the continuing thrust of the proposals which have been published. Therefore, income crises in agriculture demand a political response because market supports are being dismantled. This is why the type of response introduced by the former Minister, Deputy Yates, and the previous Government of a payment of £50 per heifer is needed now to put income in farmers' pockets.

The Minister made great play about the almost £1 billion in direct income aid. However, that is probably most of the income of farmers at this stage. It equates to approximately 48 per cent on the basis of the figures given by the Minister. However, some farmers bought cattle in the spring with the intention of making money in the fall and they are now faced with a loss. Bringing forward payments to which they are entitled anyway is only giving them tomorrow's dinner today. As Deputy Connaughton said, there is a long dreary winter ahead without the prospect of any payments. An initiative similar to the type introduced by the previous Government of £50 a head for heifers is needed to give the cash injection required by farmers at present.

There have been tax amnesties in the past. Consideration should be given to some form of amnesty in the area aid unit. Some farmers are in difficulty because of simple errors in the completion of application forms. All payments to these farmers are being withheld. Other farmers have mapping problems and are awaiting digitising. They cannot get through to the area aid unit. Replies to parliamentary questions bear no resemblance to the truth because the Department cannot get through to the area aid unit. We are getting two line responses that cases are being processed and payments will be made in due course. No factual information is being conveyed in replies to parliamentary questions at present because the area aid unit is not replying to queries.

In view of the current crisis some type of amnesty should be introduced to allow payments to be made in all areas. If necessary, money can be recouped at a later stage. A similar system operates in the Department if errors in other schemes are discovered subsequently. Due to the current crisis, I urge the Minister, notwithstanding all the other efforts, to bring forward payments in most areas. Payments which are being delayed due to digitising difficulties should be made now. If errors are identified later, the money can be recouped from future payments.

The Minister dealt at length with the issue of live exports. However, nobody is any the wiser in terms of the exact problem or when the boats will sail. The Minster is sending the Irish Ambassador in Rome to Tripoli in Libya to find out the exact situation. However, he did not outline the difficulties. If all the protocols have been agreed and ships are ready to sail, why are they still berthed? Is it the case that Irish cattle can be bought but others have cornered the market and having the markets reopened and protocols signed does not effectively mean that cattle will be bought here? In recent weeks many farmers held off selling cattle because of the promise that the live export trade would resume and that this would put manners on the factories. However, prices have collapsed since those expectations were raised.

The Minister also made great play of the fact that significant numbers of weanlings are being exported. That is the case, but it is a double edged sword. The animals are being exported at the expense of winter fatteners, about whom Deputy Penrose speaks regularly. They will be as scarce as the corncrake in agriculture soon if their livelihood is not addressed. However, another issue is the type and quality of cattle which will be slaughtered this time next year. The best quality cattle are being bought for weanling export. All that is left is what is referred to in the south as racing bullocks, Friesian-Holsteins which cannot be fattened anyway. They will go in for slaughter at the end of next year. Attempts to market that as quality beef will be a horrendous nightmare for Bord Bia.

There are serious structural problems in the beef industry. Too many people are handling cattle between birth and slaughter; on average, there are six or seven movements of cattle. The breeding of cattle for the beef industry is nowhere near as professional and efficient as it should be. It has been looked upon almost as a pastime rather than a serious economic activity for many. When the squeeze happens as in the current crisis as never before, they are not in any way equipped to ride out the storm.

Bord Bia faces two difficulties. First, it does not have a high quality product to market. Ireland has never been able to command a quality price for its produce because we do not have all-yearround quality products to market. The board is also hamstrung because if a brand image for Irish beef, such as the image for dairy products through Kerrygold, is to be developed, a sustained budget over ten years is required. It has been done successfully with Kerrygold and there is a need to do it for beef. This should be done in conjunction with ensuring as few movements of cattle as possible from birth to slaughter. The quality of breeding in the beef industry also needs to be addressed if we are to be equipped to ride out the storms which are inevitable when we are trading as a small country in a global economy and at the mercy of downturns in Russia and Asia.

If this is coupled with events in Europe in terms of the renationalisation of consumers and reorientation towards their own products, Ireland as a country which exports nine out of every ten cattle must be at the cutting edge of marketing. It must have the best quality product and the best equipped agency to sell it. We are falling down in all those areas at present.

Regarding on farm investment schemes, we have heard about installation aid since Deputy Walsh became Minister for Agriculture and Food 18 months ago. I hoped a positive announcement would have been made at the ploughing championships. I am now hoping such an announcement will be made at the annual conference of Macra na Feirme which will take place in the Minister's constituency shortly. Something needs to be done to give people an incentive to remain on the land. It costs the IDA approximately £12,000 to create an industrial job. I do not apologise to the Exchequer or to the taxpayer for suggesting that a similar incentive should be introduced during a crisis in agriculture to make it more attractive to young people to take up a career in farming.

The absence of the dairy hygiene scheme, which would cost only £3 million or £4 million, is driving many small farmers out of dairying as they cannot meet the hygiene standards. Similarly, the absence of the control of farmyard pollution scheme, and its linkage with eligibility for the REP scheme, is crucifying many small farmers because they cannot control their farmyard pollution they cannot enter the REP scheme. These were concrete promises given by the Government before the election. They formed part of the platform which conned the farming community at that election and the Government has failed to deliver on these promises after 18 months in office. I suspect we are waiting for the next round of Structural Funds to be negotiated when something might be put together.

Teagasc has a significant role to play in ensuring that the maximum number of people remain in farming, even if it is part-time farming. The modules used in agricultural colleges could be geared towards ensuring that people have off-farm income skills, such as building, plumbing, plastering and so on. This would supplement their agricultural incomes. It is in the interests of the farming community and the social fabric of rural Ireland that as many people as possible retain an attachment to the land.

It is not inevitable that there will be fewer and bigger farmers if we look creatively at these problems. Teagasc has a significant role to play. I was disappointed its blueprint for the new millennium did not address this issue. There is a disappointing and unhealthy turning inwards among the farming community, which is differentiating between part-time and full-time farmers. Both have a significant role to play in the rural economy.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Johnny Brady, Kirk and Daly.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I compliment most Deputies for the constructive manner in which they have approached this debate. Everyone recognises that farming is at it lowest point since the 1970s. People in my constituency have been going through a difficult time. In light of that fact it is appropriate that we recognise the work done by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, during this difficult period. It is important to acknowledge that £746 million has been paid directly to farmers in 1998. This includes £108 million in REPS payments. It is also important to remember that a record £204 million has been paid in the last week. This is almost twice the £107 million paid up to 22 October 1996. These payments are assisting farmers who are suffering cashflow problems.

This year, £382 million has been paid under the premium and headage payment schemes. This is compared to £107 million at the same stage in 1996. This will be of interest to Deputies on the opposite side, particularly Deputy Ring.

Farmers were getting prices for their cattle and sheep then. They had plenty of money.

The Deputy spoke in generalities during his contribution but gave few facts. I am highlighting almost a 255 per cent increase in headage and premium schemes in 1998 — £382 million as opposed to £170 million when the Deputy's party was in power. The Deputy failed to highlight these points.

The Minister has paid out more than £108 million in REPS payments in 1998. This is more than was paid out in all headage and premium schemes at this stage in 1996. The figure for that year was £107 million.

The Deputy should talk about what is happening now.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy should not interrupt.

Farmers are getting paid earlier this year than ever before. Headage payments have been made three weeks earlier than last year. The charter of rights says that suckler cow and special beef premiums should start on 1 November. This year they started on 6 October and £204 million has been paid so far. The Minister also received approval from the Commission to pay 80 per cent of the payments, as opposed to the 60 per cent previously agreed.

No one is suggesting that farmers are not entitled to these direct payments. We must recognise that the Minister has responded swiftly to the serious cashflow problems being experienced by farmers. I have never seen such problems being experienced by any group as by farmers in County Mayo. People do not have enough money to provide a weekly income.

The Deputy is talking sense now.

While recognising this fact, it is important to state that £47 million has been paid in headage and premium payments in County Mayo in the first ten months of 1998, compared to £46 million for the whole of last year. This illustrates that there have been significant improvements in direct payments to farmers which have eased their lot somehow. I was delighted to be able to tell farmers attending the IFA meeting in Westport that the slaughter premium for cull ewes was on the way. This initiative was also welcomed by Deputy Ring.

The Deputy stated on the radio that farmers were getting Objective One status.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Cooper-Flynn without interruption.

Many people, including the Deputy, said this would not happen.

I did not say that.

I am delighted to welcome this initiative and congratulate the Deputy on doing likewise. I compliment the Minister for this initiative which will assist farmers in the west, particularly those with hill sheep who cannot afford to feed their animals and have nowhere to put them. Something had to be done and the Minister has responded.

Listening to media reports and comments by some Deputies in recent weeks, one would be inclined to blame the Minister for the crisis in Russia and the rain. Why do we never receive plaudits when the weather is fine?

The weather has been bad since the Government took office. The Government has broken the weather.

The Minister is responding to the fodder problems. I hope in the months ahead we will also see the re-introduction of the farmyard pollution scheme which, unfortunately, was done away with by the previous Minister, Deputy Yates.

There will be no farmers left.

I am sure all sides of the House will campaign for such a measure. The same applies to the installation aid. I compliment the Minister on the work he is doing on the Libyan and Iranian markets and the significant increase in live cattle exports, which now results in 6,000 cattle leaving Ireland each week. This compares with 1,000 under the previous Government.

However, the situation with the factories is a disgrace. While everyone in this House is talking about a crisis in farming, unfortunately, the factories do not seem able to recognise that fact. They are not passing on any of the benefits to producers. It is time they recognised that they too have an obligation. The Government is doing everything it can in a time of crisis and the factories should take note. I regret that many farmers are experiencing severe income problems. The Government is doing all it can to alleviate these problems and I compliment the Minister on his work.

The pigmeat, sheepmeat, beef and cereal sectors are experiencing serious difficulties. It has been a difficult year for agriculture. I too compliment the Minister and the Ministers of State for their hard work in the past few months, not just since the crisis erupted but since taking office. The Government's priority was to try to open as many markets as possible, particularly for live trade. The Minister has been working to achieve this and has had some success in Libya and Iran. He has done all he can with regard to Libya. However, there are commercial obstacles which I hope will be overcome in the near future.

Every speaker has referred to the factories. Factories are not living up to their responsibilities to the farming community. It is disgraceful that they are out to screw farmers at a time of crisis. We all know there is a cartel operating but we cannot prove it. The Minister must take whatever action he can against the meat factories and every Member of this House would support him in that. It is essential that improved supports in terms of export refunds and intervention are passed on to the producers immediately so that they can acquire higher prices. There is no justification for processors to maintain prices at current levels.

I compliment the Minister on bringing forward payments under the headage, REPS, premiums and suckler cow schemes as they are of assistance. We are all aware that many farming families are facing a financial crisis at the moment. I know the Minister and Ministers of State will make whatever efforts they can to address that.

The Minister of State, Deputy Davern, is familiar with the situation in regard to the pig industry in the north-east. I thank him for meeting producers in the area. One of the finest factories in County Meath, Dromone Meats in Oldcastle, is in a position to slaughter more pigs but unfortunately it cannot get the necessary veterinary inspection. I have appealed to the Minister of State to address this problem which I hope will be resolved as soon as possible. This constructive debate has shown we are all behind the Minister and Ministers of State in their efforts to take whatever action is necessary in the interest of Irish agriculture.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate although it is difficult to address the range of difficulties confronting Irish agriculture in the space of a few minutes. The contributions so far reflect the difficulties which currently exist within the industry. We must recognise that the agricultural sector has been through a very traumatic time. However, we must also recognise there are a number of enterprises within the industry experiencing reasonable cash flow and returns, specifically the dairy sector. The potato industry is also in a reasonable state following a number of very difficult years.

The structure of Irish agriculture makes it susceptible to the type of difficulties which have come on stream recently. The basic problem at the moment is that there is a serious over supply in the beef, sheep and pigmeat markets. Market outlets are either sluggish or are not in a position to do business.

We are all aware of the importance of exports to Irish agriculture. Due to the collapse of the Russian economy, the market there has essentially collapsed. The Russians' capacity to buy meat from us at this time is clearly questionable. We can hope the EU will be prepared to put an aid package together to see the Russians through the winter. I know the Minister and his officials have made strenuous efforts to open the Libyan market but it has not been possible to do so as of yet even though all the necessary arrangements are in place. Hopefully, the market can be triggered fairly quickly if the Libyan market opens up. The Minister has been successful in making contact with the Iranians and has also achieved success on the intervention front. While the ball is very much in the meat factories' court, we can appeal to them to accept some responsibility and play their part in increasing the price of meat to what would effectively be a break even situation. We are not talking about individual farmers making money, merely escaping from a loss making situation.

The Irish agriculture industry was very badly hit by the BSE crisis which impacted greatly on consumer confidence in Ireland and Britain. While we are making a steady recovery from that, the integrity of meat products remains very important given that consumers are now more conscious than ever of quality.

Another important issue relates to the various agricultural payments. The area aid unit is doing its best to ensure minimum delay in payments. However, there are a whole range of difficulties which can affect applications. I am aware from contacts in the Cooley mountain area that commonages invariably create huge problems. I often wonder whether an arbitrator should be put in place to deal with difficulties which arise in regard to commonage. Where there are seven or eight individual farmers or shareholders, serious difficulties and delays can be experienced. There is no recognised legal formula for the division of commonage shareholding and the procedure varies from one place to another. I am sure it is particularly acute in the west where commonage is very much part of the farming structure.

In the short time at my disposal, I wish to lend my support to the Minister and his colleagues for the important work they are doing to highlight the difficulties facing the Irish agriculture industry and in their endeavours to achieve further progress on meat prices. One of the most serious problems facing farmers in my constituency relates to selling store cattle. Every effort must be made to ensure a mechanism is found to find a genuine market for these cattle.

I have listened carefully to the various contributions made by Deputy Connaughton on this issue but did not hear many constructive proposals to deal with the crisis. I was a member of the Opposition in 1974 when Mark Clinton was Minister in similar circumstances.

That was acknowledged this evening.

A constructive approach was adopted by all sides of the House to deal with the matter at that time. The only proposal put forward by Fine Gael in the numerous debates on this issue relates to the family income supplement. Many farmers in my constituency are in receipt of smallholders' assistance and I am not convinced they would benefit enormously from a further evaluation of their means by undergoing the rigours of the FIS mechanism. Some of those already in receipt of funding might stand to lose it. An over dependence on markets in countries which are economically and politically unstable to the neglect of the European market and of our processing industry is a risk which should not be taken. While the Russian, Libyan and the other markets have been very important, we have seen what can happen in the context of the Russian market. It is not long since the Russian market was not so important to Irish agriculture. That market has now almost collapsed resulting in serious losses.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share