Deputy Breeda Moynihan-Cronin has four minutes remaining.
Private Members' Business. - Milk Quota: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Dukes on Tuesday, 14 November 2000:
That Dáil Éireann, conscious of the injustice done to the people involved, as recognised by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, calls on the Government to provide either an appropriate milk quota or financial compensation to each of the members of the Milk Rights Group, based on the outcome of the successful legal proceedings taken by persons in the same situation.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"accepts that the position taken by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in response to the demands of the Milk Rights Group is the appropriate one in the circumstances and supports the Minister in his handling of all aspects of the milk quota regime".
–(Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural
Development).
I would like more time, but I will try to say what I have to say in the little time I have. It is now 16 years since the development farmers were excluded from the additional milk quota. The real failure in addressing this problem lies with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Since the 1997 Supreme Court judgment, the Minister has steadfastly refused to provide compensation to members of the Milk Rights Group who were not party to the Duff case. The current Minister attempted to abandon his responsibility to the nine plaintiffs by fighting them on a case by case basis in the High Court. There is a moral obligation on the Minister to compensate these farmers for past and future losses arising from the mistake of 1984.
I implore the Minister to come out from behind the defence of the case being statute barred and address the mistakes of the past. I also sincerely hope that every Deputy representing a rural constituency will vote for this motion this evening. We now have the economic prosperity to enable us to address the compensation demands of these people in the Milk Rights Group.
A recent report by the Kerry IFA states that an alarming crisis is developing in Kerry because young people are leaving farming in droves. The report also states that if this trend continues, there will be a serious shortage of food in the county in the next five to ten years because the farmers will not be there to produce it. Young people are leaving the farm because they are not making a viable income. This is not just the case in Kerry. The story is the same all over the country.
Why not compensate these farmers and give them a viable income at least? I have met many of the people involved and they are all very hard working genuine people. They are very unfortunate to be in the situation they are in. If they are not compensated, I am concerned that some of them will not be in a position to continue farming and will face a severe crisis in the near future. There should not have been a need for this motion. I hope every TD who has concerns for these unfortunate people will support the motion by voting in favour of it.
I wish to share my time with the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, Deputy Brendan Smith, Deputy Donal Moynihan and Deputy Michael Kitt.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
As long as the Deputy is sure.
Acting Chairman
Please do not interrupt. Deputy Michael Moynihan, without interruption.
As a small dairy farmer, I know the difficulties these people have. However, I fully support my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, on the way in which he has dealt with the issues raised by the Milk Rights Group to date. Although he inherited a situation not of his own making, he and his officials have listened very carefully and taken seriously the concerns of the Milk Rights Groups. He is, however, forced to balance the demands of this group against the needs of the small to medium sized milk producers and younger producers all of whom are anxious to acquire additional quota in order to develop their farm enterprises.
Milk quota is a scarce resource and must be used to the best advantage of the industry in general. The Minister has an excellent record and has always consulted widely prior to making changes to the milk quota regime. The Minister has fought hard to retain the quota system for the benefit the dairy farmers. The system has served the dairy industry well in the past bringing market stability to the sector and maintaining incomes at a reasonable level. It has also avoided the fluctuations that take place in many other sectors of agriculture.
The Minister's efforts in retaining the regime during the Agenda 2000 negotiations last year provided very favourable conditions for Ireland. One of the results of the Agenda 2000 proposals was an increase of 2.86% in our national milk quota and an amendment to the EU regulations in a way which made it possible to make important changes to the management of our milk quota regime. The quota increase amounted to 150 tonnes or 32 million gallons of milk. Some 20.5 million gallons of the increase is available with effect from the current milk marketing year.
The method used for the distribution of this quota shows the concerns of the Minister for the small scale producers. Some 15 million gallons of this has been allocated to producers with a permanent quota of less than 55,000 gallons and who satisfy certain criteria in the utilisation of their existing quota. Approximately, 21,600 farmers or producers benefited from this allocation. A further five million gallons was made available for the young dairy farmers with a quota of less than 35,000 gallons who satisfied similar criteria but who had obtained specific agricultural education qualifications. More than 3,000 eligible applicants received allocations of up to 1,700 gallons under this scheme. The balance of the 11.5 million gallons will be made available from 1 April 2001.
It is important to note that the price reductions linked to these quota increases under Agenda 2000 proposals will not be effective until 2005. The outcome was a huge improvement on the proposals that faced Ireland at the beginning of these negotiations. The category of producer which has benefited most from these initiatives by the Minister is the small to medium sized dairy producer. Many of the people we are discussing tonight who are involved in the Milk Rights Group would fall into that category. The producers have consistently had priority status in the various schemes operated under the milk quota such as restructuring, temporary leasing and milk quota appeals tribunal. Anyone would argue that what they are getting is what they deserve. They should have favourable consideration throughout the milk quota regime.
I strongly support amendment No. 1. The milk quota regime, as we all know, has been a difficult system since its inception. In his contribution last night, Deputy Dukes questioned the wisdom of such a system of production control. We would all agree with him if this was an ideal world. The situation in the milk market in the early 1980s was, however, far from ideal. We have to assume that Deputy Dukes's party, which was in Government at the time the quota regime was introduced in 1984, considered the system to be a more attractive proposition than alternative routes which might have been followed to deal with the difficult budgetary and market situation that existed at that time.
The application of such a rigid supply control system in an industry made of individual producers whose situations varied widely inevitably gave rise to serious problems for individual producers and for groups of producers. The category of producers represented by the Milk Rights Group were one such group. As all of us are well aware, the limited availability of quota and the number of producers who need and deserve an increased allocation has made the regime difficult from the beginning. Deputies across the floor are as aware of this as I am. They are also aware that the situation of people in a similar position to those represented by the Milk Rights Group is not something that has just recently come to light – it is a history going back to when their party was in office.
You were the silent opponents.
No. I assure Deputy Dukes that we will also talk about the £13 million that went astray in the calculations at that time and which were lost forever to Ireland. That was because somebody could not add up the figures.
Look at the huge amount which was obtained since.
Deputy Sheehan never milked a cow in his life, he should shut up.
All of these situations have been difficult in the past – we have all faced them. Until the 1980s, quota had not become an issue or a system. The Deputies across the floor are as well aware of this as me. The quota system did not become an issue until the 1980s. The Deputies across the floor are as aware of this as I am. They are also aware that the situation of people in a similar position to those represented by the milk rights group is not something that has just recently come to light. It has been an issue going back to the time the Deputy's party held office.
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Walsh, and his predecessors in this party have over the years devoted an enormous amount of time and energy in attempting to free up the quota regime in order that producers, particularly smaller scale and less well off producers, could acquire, on a permanent or temporary basis, the additional quota they needed to improve their enterprises. In this they have involved the various organisations which represent the industry at producer, processing and advisory level.
The milk quota restructuring scheme and the temporary leasing scheme are the main mechanisms which were introduced to allow producers to have access to quota without the additional cost of land. These mechanisms, which had first to be negotiated at EU level, have helped many producers over the years, including those following development plans. In addition, the Milk Quota Appeals Tribunal was set up to examine and deal with cases of particular hardship under the regime. The tribunal has done outstanding work over the years, something for which its membership should be commended. It continues to enjoy the confidence of the industry in its work. We may all have disagreements about individual cases but, by and large, it dealt very fairly with the cases that came before it. Many deserving producers, including development plan producers, were helped by the tribunal.
While the quota regime has its limitations as a system and presents continuing difficulties for some individual producers, nonetheless the most independent commendations would admit it has brought a significant degree of stability to the sector. It has helped to maintain a reasonable level of income for producers and has avoided the fluctuations which have characterised markets in other agricultural sectors. For those reasons the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development supports its continuation during the Agenda 2000 negotiations. The result which the Minister achieved in those negotiations was very favourable for Ireland. It resulted in a quota increase of 2.86%, the postponement of price reductions until 2005 and the amendment of the quota regulations in a way which allowed important changes to be made in the management of the quota regime in Ireland.
The objective of these changes was to allow committed active producers access to additional quota at a reasonable cost. This will enable them to plan for the future and continue to operate their enterprises in a competitive manner. While this is important now, it will become more important in the future in an increasingly competitive environment, both within the EU and in world markets. The World Trade Organisation negotiations, the enlargement of the EU to the east and the tight budgetary situation within the Union will all be major factors impinging on the sector in the years ahead.
What bearing does that have on the Milk Quota Review Group?
The changes introduced by the Minister, which followed very wide consultations with all parties involved in the industry and, in particular, the Milk Quota Review Group, should bring considerable benefits to the industry as a whole. As with any worthwhile changes, these were not put in place without a degree of difficulty. This was inevitable in that what was involved was, in reality, a transition from one type of regime to another. It is clear, however, even at this early stage, that the transition has been very satisfactory. This is reflected in the volume of permanent quota transferred to active producers, most of them in the small and medium size categories. The success of the changes has been widely welcomed throughout the industry.
The Minister's record in handling the milk quota regime speaks for itself. It has involved at all stages consultation at the widest level throughout the industry. His commitment to producers, in particular to less well off producers, cannot be questioned. The changes he has introduced have been much more far reaching since the introduction of the milk quota regime. They have taken courage to initiate and see through the changes, but the Minister was prepared to take the decisions involved in the clear knowledge that they served the best interests of the industry, not just for the present but, more particularly, for the future.
In relation to development plan farmers, the position is complex and there are no ready or simple solutions. It is easy for the Opposition to call for solutions about which they might not be so enthusiastic if the decision or any consequences lay with them. The Minister outlined the position in considerable detail here last night and indicated a course of action which he proposed to consider.
By the sound of the Minister of State, he will never do anything.
The Deputy was in office in the 1980s and he did nothing about the issue.
(Interruptions.)
For the information of the Minister of State, I was instrumental in that—
I call on Deputy Dukes to resume his seat.
During that period I was elected to the European Parliament while the Deputy was not elected to the European Parliament.
Acting Chairman
The Minister of State is attracting discussion.
In 1984 the farmers of Munster thought differently.
I increased my vote by 18,000 on that occasion, as did Tom O'Donnell.
How did you lose the All Ireland?
Acting Chairman
Deputy Ring, please.
I compliment the Mayo ladies on their achievement.
What about the camogie team?
I thank the Deputy for the compliment. It is a compliment coming from a Kilkenny man.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister was quite forthcoming in what he said and I have no doubt he will deal with the matter, as he has dealt with other matters arising out of the quota regime, in a manner which is both responsible, equitable and in the best interests of the country. It is in all our interests to serve the farmers and to make sure as many as possible will remain on the land.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Aylward.
As outlined by speakers last night and tonight, this is a very difficult and complex issue. Many of the farmers affected by the regulations were working to an advisory plan drawn up by the then advisory service, ACOT. Most of them were hard working progressive farmers who set about increasing their herd numbers, particularly their dairy herd numbers, improving milk yields and achieving particular targets. Obviously their farm development plans necessitated substantial borrowings but the introduction of the milk quota 1984 limited their expansion plans and, by doing so, limited the income potential of those farms.
I recall speaking at length with one particular farmer in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan who joined the small farm incentive scheme in January 1973. He built up farm acreage and milk quota. In 1979 he changed classification from other high to development category. In the early 1980s, he was participating in the farm modernisation scheme but, subsequently, the potential of his farm plans have never been realised. It has been a struggle since.
I welcome the Minister's statement last night that he is prepared to do all he can to try to achieve extra milk quota, as sought in meetings with his Department officials by members of the milk rights group and many other farmers who are not members of the group but have made their own case to the Department and the Minister. I am well aware of the efforts made by the Minister on behalf of our dairy farmers. The recent launch of the new rural development plan demonstrated clearly the Government's commitment to agriculture with a record level of expenditure of £4 billion over the next few years. We all know the milk quota regime is a difficult system to administer. It has created considerable hardship for producers, many of them my constituents. The problem is simple enough and has existed since the introduction of the regime, namely, a limited amount of quota available and many legitimate demands a system such as the quota was of its nature going to be a relatively crude instrument at the outset which would become more refined over time. Naturally this gave rise to difficulties for some individual producers.
I thank Deputy Smith for sharing his time. The Minister has attempted to direct milk quota towards those most in need and he has been very successful in that regard. We know whose actions in the early 1980s are responsible for the difficulty in which we now find ourselves. It was a Fine Gael Minister for Agriculture and several people have held the position of Minister for Agriculture since that time.
And a lot of extra milk has come into the country since then.
The Government now has enough money to deal with the problem.
A small dedicated group of people, themselves mainly small farmers, represent 1,200 small farmers who lost out badly as a result of a mistake which was made in the early 1980s and which has never been corrected. These producers entered a plan in good faith and should have been compensated in the years 1979 to 1984. The history of this matter is well known and these people have a legitimate grievance. The principle of equality and fairness is involved and there must now be a meeting of minds, if that is possible. The Minister said he is prepared to examine the various options open to him.
There seems to be a divergence between what representatives of the milk rights group are saying and the official facts coming from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. The figure of £500 million has been bandied about but the milk rights group say the matter could be settled for much less. I realise that the Minister has a very difficult task. Nevertheless it should be possible to compile the necessary data in the Department.
I commend the milk rights group. For a long time its members have persisted in trying to have a legitimate claim accepted. There will always be those who will try to jump on a bandwagon but we must accept that effort is needed to keep families on the land. It is difficult, even for those with large milk quotas to stay in business. The efforts of dairy farmers and of the milk rights group should be recognised.
I am pleased to participate in this debate. The most striking aspect of this matter is the blatant and unspeakable hypocrisy of the Fine Gael and Labour parties who have dragged farmers from all over the country to Dublin to see them put on a show with the most obscene cynicism.
The Deputy was a good hand at doing the same thing himself.
These problems were created by the Fine Gael and Labour coalition Government in 1984. Since then those parties have done absolutely nothing to address the problem, despite the fact that they have been in Government on several occasions since that time. Leading the cynical bandwagon is Deputy Dukes who not alone was in Government on a number of occasions during the past 17 years but was leader of the Fine Gael Party. Nowhere is there a statement of support or even a phrase giving some comfort to the farmers in this category.
Following the allocation to Ireland in 1983 we have been dogged by an inadequate quota but the inadequacy of the quota relates to small farmers with between 12 and 17 cows who are desperately trying to eke out a living. The only Minister who has done anything to address those farmers' problem is the present Minister, Deputy Walsh. He fought for additional milk quota under Agenda 2000 and got an allocation for Ireland against all odds. Now Deputy Dukes says he wants to abolish the quota system altogether and leave the big wealthy farmers to mop up the small quota holders. I do not agree with his proposals.
We are all aware of the complex issues involved here but we are also conscious of the Minister's concern for improving the livelihood of the small and medium scale dairy farmer. In all his initiatives he has ensured priority status for the small and medium scale producer and has taken account of the position of other producers who have particular difficulties. Such producers have been dealt with in a sympathetic way in the terms of these schemes because of the Minister's efforts. It must be recognised, however, that the Minister is forced to balance the demands of all groups whether they are small or medium sized producers, young producers or those with particu lar quota difficulties, all of whom are anxious to acquire additional quota in order to develop their enterprises.
As well as allocating the quotas which form part of the Agenda 2000 proposals to small and medium sized producers, the Minister has made some important changes in the management of the quota system in Ireland to benefit those categories of farmers. In the past the medium scale producers, in particular, found difficulty in acquiring additional permanent quota at a reasonable cost. This was mainly because of the rigid land linked quota which, in many cases, meant that in order to acquire the additional quota needed to build up their enterprises, producers had to take and pay for land they did not need. The new regime, under which the main mechanism for transfer of quota is the restructuring scheme operated at co-op level, has allowed active producers to acquire permanent quota at a reasonable cost and considerably improved the situation of individuals who were dependent on leased quota. These changes have already enabled a significant number of small and medium sized producers to increase their permanent quota. The positive approach by the Minister has helped to build and sustain the industry in the past and will continue to do so in the future but this depends on the efficient and effective use of the quota.
I understand officials of the Department have met deputations of the milk rights group on four occasions since last April. If anyone will do anything for these people it will be our Minister. He is ultimately responsible for the operation of the regime and his record on this speaks for itself. The Minister's handling of all aspects of the quota regime has been on the basis of what is in the best interest of the industry as a whole. Milk quota is a scarce resource and must be used for the best advantage of the industry. The Minister has an excellent track record in this regard and I have no doubt he will maintain this high level in future.
I have met the milk rights group, including representatives from my own constituency. When I put their case to the Minister I was told on numerous occasions that no decision has been taken on the allocation of the additional 11.5 million gallons of quota which will be available from 1 April 2001. No commitments have been made. I ask the Minister to continue his consultations with the industry, particularly with the milk quota review group which represents the various interests in the industry, before a decision is made on the allocation of quota.
This is a complex and sensitive issue. We are all aware how difficult the situation is and we are conscious of the Minister's concern to improve the livelihoods of small and medium scale dairy farmers. The Minister has shown his commitment in the various initiatives he has taken over the years, such as the annual restructuring scheme, the temporary leasing schemes and the milk quota appeals tribunals. In all these initiatives the Minister has ensured priority status for the small and medium scale producers and taken account of the position of other producers who had particular difficulties. Such producers have been dealt with in a sympathetic way under the terms of these schemes because of the efforts of the Minister. However, it must be recognised that the Minister is forced to balance the demands of all groups, including small to medium sized producers, young producers and those with particular quota difficulties, all of whom are anxious to acquire additional quota to develop their enterprises. Young farmers in particular have put forward a strong case in that regard.
In addition to allocating quota to small and medium sized producers, which formed part of the Agenda 2000 proposals, the Minister has made some important changes to the management of the quota system to the benefit of these categories of farmer. In the past, small and medium scale producers found difficulty in acquiring additional permanent quota at a reasonable cost. Even at this early stage, it is possible to see the benefits of the new regime. More than 62 million gallons have been made available to active milk producers under this year's restructuring scheme. This is almost equivalent to the total quantity restructured during the first five years.
It is most important to have the support of the Minister for Finance in this. He introduced a provision whereby the purchase price of milk quota can be written off over a seven year period for tax purposes. This has been most helpful. It is clear the outcome of this year's restructuring scheme, together with future schemes, will have a significant impact on the structure of the dairy industry. This can be seen in a preliminary analysis of the details which show a significant increase in the number of producers with quotas in excess of 35,000 gallons compared to last year. The Minister has been most positive in terms of the part he has played in building and sustaining the industry in the past and he will continue to be so. However, this depends on the efficient and effective use of quota.
The Minister's record in relation to the Milk Rights Group has also been positive. He has dealt with the group in a straightforward and open manner. He has not, as suggested, hidden behind the Statute of Limitations. He has correctly operated on the advice of the Attorney General. It is the view that no rights have been established on behalf of the group as it did not bring proceedings—
It could not afford to bring proceedings.
—and any such proceedings would be barred by the passage of time. Due to the far reaching implications of the matter, it was proper that the Minister's decision in relation to this group was based on the best available legal advice.
The Minister accepted that advice and all interested parties who had, or have since, written to the Minister or his Department have been informed that provision had not been made for any arrangements in relation to any other producers who are not a party to the Duff or other parallel proceedings. Officials from the Department met the Milk Rights Group on a number of occasions and I hope the discussions will continue and the Minister will consult the advisory group.
I commend the Minister on his work to date and hope he will be able to find a resolution to this issue. The milk quota review group has been successful in the past and I hope the Minister will consult it in an effort to find a resolution to this complex issue.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Burke, Hogan, Deenihan, Bradford, Finucane and Browne.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
It would be fantastic if the Minister decided not to divide the House and supported the motion tabled by the Fine Gael Party. It is an open motion which recognises the injustice that was done in the past and that continues to this day. This injustice was done to smaller farmers who were encouraged by the Department to spend money. They did so and many of them could not afford to take court action later. The people in the Visitors Gallery were not dragged here this evening; they came of their own accord to listen to the debate. Thankfully, they can hear what the Members on that side are saying this evening unlike last night when the Minister was mumbling.
I urge the Minister not to divide the House. He should let the people know that this Parliament cares about them and that he will do something positive for them. The Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine asked the Minister to do something positive. It said that the members of the Milk Rights Group who are current farmers and who can demonstrate that they, like the plaintiffs in the Duff case – which only arose in 1997 – suffered loss or damage as a consequence of a mistake in law made by the Minister for Agriculture are morally entitled to compensation for past and future losses or damages. This compensation should be awarded on an ex gratia basis and the Department should not shrink in its moral responsibility by sheltering behind the “statute barred” defence. This was stated by an all-party committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Members of the Fianna Fáil Party were part of that committee and signed up to that statement. It would be wrong and unjust of them to vote against the motion. I call on the Government not to divide the House. The committee also said that members of the Milk Rights Group should not be further penalised because they did not have the financial resources at the time to sue the State for damages or because they were unwilling to incur further potential monetary losses by pursuing the State through the courts. The Minister would do much for democracy tonight if he backed the Fine Gael Party's motion instead of dividing the House. The House should send out a signal that we care for people.
When Deputy Fleming wrote to the Minister in 1998, he said these farmers have a valid case in law and he urged the Minister not to use the Statute of Limitations as a defence in the case. Will Deputy Fleming vote against the motion tonight and enable the Minister to continue to use that statute? On his first day in the House, Deputy Healy-Rae said he was on a mission to work for the people of south Kerry. He has a chance to work for them tonight by persuading the Government not to divide the House on this matter or by voting for this motion on an issue that is morally just. The Government knows that is the case as do the Government Deputies.
Writing in the Irish Independent in 1995, when he was the Opposition spokesperson, the Minister alluded to the injustice that was done. However, he now says that he intends to divide the House on the issue. The Minister said last night that there were between 15,000 and 16,000 cases. However, there is no evidence to back up that claim. I understand the number of full-time milk farmers is 29,000. Where is the evidence to back up the Minister's suggestion? Surely it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Minister and the Department to devise a system under which justice can be done. This is all the motion seeks.
Advice I received from a senior counsel states that the Minister does not have to hide behind the Statute of Limitations in this case. The motion does not suggest any time limit because we want it recognised that an injustice was done and that it must be corrected. Why can the Minister not agree to something that is straightforward and morally right?
The IFA backs the point made by the Milk Rights Group. It wrote to the Minister and pointed to the Supreme Court decision in March 1997. It stated that it supported the efforts of the Milk Rights Group in that objective. It said it believed all farmers who had suffered the same disadvantages as recognised by the Supreme Court and who could substantiate their claim should receive the same treatment and compensation granted to the first group. This is all the motion seeks. What is wrong with it? Why must the Minister divide the House on the issue?
The Minister's colleague, the former Minister for Education and Science, faced a similar dilemma last year. However, at the last moment, he decided not to divide the House on a Bill put forward by Deputy Shatter and I on the smoking issue on Ash Wednesday. I ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to do the same this evening. I ask him to decide not to divide the House on this matter. Many of these farmers are small holders and they need the Government to show them justice and mercy. It is up to the Minister to give a positive signal.
I support the motion tabled by Deputy Dukes on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. Is the Minister acting according to his own wishes or is he once again acting at the behest of the officials in his Department? It is important to know this because I cannot believe his wish is to continue to deny people justice. It has been established by the Supreme Court in the Duff case that these people are entitled to quota and compensation.
It is unbelievable that the Minister, coming from an agricultural constituency, is denying that justice has already been established by the courts. He has set himself up as judge, jury and now executioner in so far as he has abandoned these people who have toiled for 18 years to receive justice in this case. It is a life sentence at this stage and he is still denying them justice. In his amendment, the Minister wants the House to accept the position taken by him. If we knew what his position was, truthfully in this case, perhaps it would be easier for us or there would have been no necessity for the Milk Rights Group to request all public representatives to put a case for them when the Minister has continued to deny them that case. There are 1,200 people who, as far back as 1983, simply brought forward a plan to guarantee them a continuance in agriculture off their own initiative. They brought that plan forward under ACOT, now Teagasc. They wanted to invest money in agriculture and as a result of the introduction of the quota they were denied the opportunity of allowing the continuation to develop. Obviously their investment was lost. It is important that it is a simple matter for the Minister because he has at his disposal 12.5 million gallons with which he can adequately satisfy the Milk Rights Group and these 1,200 people, their entitlements and just rights having already been established by the courts.
It is unclear what support the Minister has even within his own parliamentary party. They were very scarce on the ground last night and there are few here tonight. Did he have to drag them screaming in here to support him and the various other issues, spuriously related to this case, that they have introduced tonight? Will the Minister clearly indicate to the House before we walk up those steps that it is his intention to satisfy the needs of this small group? Furthermore, if the majority of these people were in his constituency in Cork, would we be here or would they have been satisfied before this by a declaration that he would support them and grant them what they were entitled to?
A number of his own constituents are here.
Will the Minister give an undertaking to those people who have a just demand that he will, in the near future, allow them to receive their just entitlements by a reasonable allocation and proper compensation for his past misdeeds?
I support the Fine Gael motion that calls on the Government to provide either the appropriate milk quota or financial compensation to each of the members of the Milk Rights Group based on the outcome of the successful legal proceedings taken by persons in the same situation as far back as 1997. Given the fact that over 100 individual cases have been brought to the courts, it is unacceptable at this stage that the Government and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development should hide behind the Statute of Limitations in order to do nothing for those farmers who have been deprived of milk quota. It is equally unacceptable that he should scaremonger members of his party and the Dáil into believing that there are as many as 15,000 to 16,000 farmers in this category when that has not been clearly established by his Department or by the facts from his Department. It can be estimated by the Milk Rights Group themselves and by farm organisations that up to about 1,200 people are directly affected. The members of the Milk Rights Group have been denied justice since 1997 and it is dishonest and dishonourable not to address this injustice simply because too much time has elapsed since that court case and others have been heard.
Fine Gael, through this broad motion which has the support of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, provides the Government backbenchers and Independent Deputies with a way to resolve this milk quota issue once and for all. Those same Deputies have been giving verbal assurances to their constituents that everything would be all right on the day. Now is the time for those Members to make up their minds and to support the Fine Gael motion rather than hiding behind an amendment that the Minister introduced last night.
We all know that whenever a deadline is imposed on any scheme, there will always be unforeseen difficulties. These farmers in the Milk Rights Group have found an unforeseen difficulty through no fault of theirs. Many farmers and their families have suffered adversely, financially and in human terms, over the past 20 years because they did not have a milk quota of their own as a base to develop their farm enterprise. We all know how difficult it is to get young potential farmers interested in farming, particularly if they do not have a milk quota and how difficult it is to retain farm viability if a milk quota is not attached. I know a number of farmers adversely affected by animal health regulations around the time of the introduction of the milk quota. One farmer, in particular, had the necessary milk quota and cows at the time but because of disease breakdown in 1981, 1982 and 1983, was not in a position to avail to his advantage of the milk quota regime introduced in 1984. Half his milk production was cut due to the disease breakdown in his herd. He was in compliance with the Department regulations of the time with respect to disease but he disqualified himself from an enormous amount of quota because of the obligations he had to the Department of Agriculture. That is not justice either.
Not enough has been achieved for the category of farmers whose case we are debating. Their sense of injustice has never been addressed. The case of the Milk Rights Group is much different from farmers involved in Mulder cases, for example, because at least those farmers knew they were receiving some money to get out of milk at the time and through the Mulder case, they were able to get back in again and obtain quota. The Milk Rights Group have never received either quota or financial compensation. All they have received to date is a mixture of soft talk and inaction. I call on the Fianna Fáil Deputies and the Independent Deputies, in particular, to take their chance tonight to resolve this by voting for the Fine Gael motion. It is a chance to get them off the political hook in view of the commitments they made since the court case of 1997 in the highest court in the land.
The Milk Rights Group are possibly the last remaining group that have been affected by the introduction of the milk quota regime back in 1983 and they have probably one of the few outstanding claims that remain to be fulfilled. I appeal to the Minister to use his commonsense to look on these people as probably the last remaining victims of that system. Whereas the milk quota system perhaps preserved prices, kept the market up and saved it from collapsing at that time, nevertheless, some people whom we represent were victimised by the introduction of the system.
The precedents in law and otherwise have been laid down both in the Mulder case and in the Duff and others versus the Minister for Agriculture and the Attorney General back in 1997. Also the all-party committee, comprised of members from the Minister's own party, came out very strongly in favour of this group. No doubt they never thought they would be asked to come to the House and vote with their feet. They were obviously playing to the audience and their constituents who were affected. Nevertheless, I am sure they were genuine in what they said at the various meetings of the joint committee on the subject.
Perhaps it would be difficult for the Minister to provide extra milk quota but these people would be very happy if they were adequately compensated financially. No one in this House would oppose that. There may be difficulties because the Minister might not have the flexibility with milk quota because of the tight regime but he should examine the financial aspect. I appeal to the Minister to take cognisance of all the views expressed in favour of this group over the past three years and not to take their protests and demands lightly. They are a genuine group of people who are trying to survive in farming. They are not here to receive soft treatment. They are here just to survive in farming, to pass it on to the next generation and to receive their entitlement. Other groups have been adequately compensated. These people were not able to take their case through the law courts. If they had I am convinced that any court would have ruled in their favour.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion which I support. I regret the Minister's response did not offer any solace to this group. Towards the end of his lengthy speech he offered some vague aspirational hope but the substance of his response was he would not do anything for it. I also regret that, over the past few days, Government backbenchers have been explaining to their constituents and members of this group that they will not support the motion as to do so would take the milk quota from someone else. That might appear to be a cute political tactic but it is rather sad and pathetic. These are the same backbenchers who, in advance of the last general election, were the first to sign the Milk Rights Group's petition and make all kinds of commitments. Now that they have an opportunity to do something they will not take it.
Colour RGB 255,0,0 I am disappointed at the lack of support for this group by the main farming organisations. Perhaps it is not politically correct to say that but in farming as in politics, there is a choice regarding the spending and allocation of resources. Unfortunately, the main farming organisations are ignoring this group and that is a disgrace. Some of those farming organisations may be represented in the House and I hope they take note of my comments. Members of the group feel very let down by the farming organisations.
This problem has been with us for some time. Although the Minister's speech last night drifted aimlessly back and forth and did not offer a solution, he is in the unique position of having the money and power to resolve the problem and I hope he will do so. It is pathetic looking at the benches where the so-called power brokers of the Government, the Independent Deputies, sit. Where are they? They had a choice to support this group of farmers but instead they are acting like sheep being led to the slaughter. The fact that they are unwilling to defend their stance is indefensible and I hope it will be recalled by those who depend on them for support.
I am pleased to speak on this motion because since last September when I was first approached by the Milk Quota Rights Group I could see the validity of its case. I attended every committee meeting and was in constant communication with 100 members in County Limerick. As a result, I met many people and heard heartrending stories regarding the loss of quota. Many of them will not recover financially and some of them have gone out of milk production. I hope the ICMSA and IFA will take up and continue the crusade on their behalf.
The Duff case occurred in 1997. The Supreme Court found that they had a rightful case. Surely it is wrong for the Department to exclude the other people and, as the Chairman of the committee, Deputy Browne, said, hide behind the statute barred limitation. Just as originally it was found proper, is it not now proper to ensure these people are looked after? Deputy Browne had the unanimous support of the all-party committee, which includes members of the Government party, and, as I listened to the speeches last night, I wondered how they could reconcile them with the statements they made at that committee.
Deputy Browne stated in a letter: "As the Department is responsible for the original error it is a matter for it, in consultation with the damaged parties, to assess which of the above options are most appropriate".
Various options were mentioned in the letter and I am sure the Minister has a copy. The letter pointed out it is not acceptable to the committee that this obligation should, in any way, be shirked by the employment of legal stratagems, including the defence of statute barred. Such a strategy, applied to those farmers who are in the same position as the plaintiffs in the Duff case, who were eventually vindicated by the Supreme Court, can only lead to further public cynicism concerning the practice of politics. This was written by a member of the Minister's party, the Chairman of the committee, Deputy Browne, in support of the committee's sentiments.
I have spoken to the chairman and secretary of the Milk Quota Rights Group on this issue on many occasions in the past year. I have also spoken to many constituents who have been affected. This is a genuine case. With the allocation of quota coming up, the Minister has an excellent opportunity. Another suggestion in the letter was that the Minister should ring-fence a section of that quota for members of the group. The Department has stated that over 13,000 members may be affected. It is interesting to note that the group has publicised the matter on many occasions and the number has remained consistent. The Department had since last September to trawl through its records if it wanted to positively establish the number of farmers affected but it did not do so.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I compliment Deputy Dukes on raising this issue and I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on it. It is strange that the matter has dragged on for so long. Without repeating what has been said, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs had a legitimate expectation that the Minister would honour his commitment to them to develop their holdings by exercising his discretion in granting them quota. They had a formula and, based on it, the claims of seven of the eight plaintiffs in the Duff case have since been assessed. The Department has received all the modernisation plans from the local offices and it should be simple to work out a formula for those who are in almost the same position, except they were not involved in a court case, without putting them to more expense. They have suffered enough. The plans they had to develop their farms have gone astray and there were costs involved in going to court.
I do not know if the Minister can hear me as he is talking but will he say why he is making it more difficult for those farmers who have been told by the Supreme Court they are entitled to compensation? I ask the Minister to resolve this matter and devise a formula whereby legitimate claims, which are there to be seen, can be settled.
I urge the Minister to support the well-intentioned motion tabled by Deputy Dukes and members of Fine Gael. The reason for it is to redress a serious wrong, an injustice that is being perpetrated on over 1,000 of these farmers and countless others across the country. On 31 March 1998 there were 36 farming families in the Milk Rights Group in Laois and 34 farming families in the same group in Offaly. A serious injustice has been done to those families by the Government and that is wrong.
This situation arose when the milk quota system was established. At that time a number of farmers had development plans but because of animal disease problems on farms, they were not engaged in milk production when the quotas were being considered and they were excluded. Quota systems can be unfair. Many farmers suffered adversely because of what happened in the allocation of milk quotas. Fair play and common sense are required. The Government has a responsibility to be fair and an obligation to protect the rights of individuals.
Farmers were compelled to go to court in the Mulder and Duff cases. However, many farmers did not have the finance to bring a case to court. The group which brought the cases to court felt that once it had established its rights, the Government would be fair and reasonable, would recognise that an injustice had been done and would give compensation or milk quotas to these farmers.
I have a letter from an eminent senior counsel, Gerard W. Hogan, which I will give to the Minister. It states:
The position regarding development farmers is that they are, in principle, entitled to damages in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Duff v. Minister for Agriculture & Food [1997] 2 IR 22. The Minister is, of course, entitled to rely on the Statute of Limitations, 1957 and if the Statute is applicable on the facts of any given case, this would amount to a complete defence.
It is quite clear, however, that an action of this kind may be maintained even if otherwise out of time, so that (all other things being equal) a court could – and would – proceed to give judgment against the Minister unless he elected to raise the Statute of Limitations defence by means of a positive plea in his defence. Accordingly, as a matter of strict law, the Minister need not plead the Statue and should he not do so, the action would proceed in the ordinary way. Indeed, having regard to the undeniable merits of the development farmers cases, it might be argued from the standpoint of abstract fairness, morality, etc., the Minister ought not to plead the Statute. However, this is solely a decision for the Minister to make. Should he elect to plead the Statue and should the courts rule that the action was statute-barred, that would be the end of the matter.
It is essential that the Minister listens to the people who travelled here tonight from across the country. He must ensure they are given fair play. Otherwise, this House will go against what has been sought and what a committee recommended should be paid. The Minister should ensure these farmers are paid.
In closing this debate I will focus attention on the outstanding record of the Minister in his management of the milk quota regime to date and support his handling of this case involving the Milk Rights Group.
It is the same hymn sheet.
I was interested in the perception Deputy Bradford has of the farming organisations. During his time in office the Minister has brought a dynamic to the milk quota regime which has raised and continues to raise the standard of living of dairy farmers, particularly those with small and medium sized enterprises. Although he is constrained by a rigid quota regime, a point accepted by the Deputies opposite last night, he has made impressive progress because his strategy for the development of the industry is built on his concern for the smaller scale committed producer and a partnership with all the actors involved in the industry.
His initiatives in the past year alone show his capacity for making the industry succeed within the constraints of the quota regime. This view is shared by the industry and was recognised as recently as yesterday by the Milk Quota Review Group which is representative of all the actors within the milk industry, including the farming organisations. His success has been built on recognition that significant progress is made through partnership with the industry and so ensuring that the scarce resource, milk quota, is used to the optimal advantage of the industry.
He is also concerned with the need to put the industry on a firm footing for the future. The key to future success must be that the industry remains competitive. His strategy for this is sim ple but extremely effective. He wants to put the quota in the hands of those who want to make a future in dairying and who are hungry for success in agriculture.
They are hungry.
Has the Deputy the mart closed yet?
The Minister of State wants it shut.
The farmers are on my side, not on the Deputy's side.
If the Minister of State is offering, he should do it and sit down.
Please allow the Minister of State to make his contribution.
I am sorry for hurting the Deputy.
The farmers are hurting.
The Minister's actions over the years have raised the standard of living of the small scale committed dairy farmers by giving them priority access to quota. He has done this by giving priority access to additional quota to small and medium scale producers in the restructuring schemes and the temporary leasing schemes and with allocations from the milk quota appeals tribunal.
In the past 12 months alone his success has been outstanding. Two examples will be sufficient to illustrate this. First, he has overseen the allocation of 20 million gallons of the 32 million gallons which he secured under the Agenda 2000 negotiations. This was targeted at the small to medium scale committed producers and younger farmers. Many of these would have received 2,390 gallons as successful applicants under the 15 million gallon scheme and the five million gallon scheme.
What about the quota for the Milk Rights Group?
I knew west Cork radio would tune in. Second, the Minister increased the pool of quota available for purchase by producers this year to more than 62 million gallons. This was the result of the changes he introduced in April to the management of the regime in Ireland. His actions in this and other areas have increased the size of the average quota from 32,000 gallons in 1997 to 40,000 gallons today. Approximately 90% of the quota allocated under the restructuring scheme and the temporary leasing scheme this year has gone to small and medium scale producers.
By removing the rigid link with land in the transfer of milk quota, the Minister has made it possible for producers to expand their enterprises now and in the future without the need to purchase additional land. This increases significantly their competitive edge. It is clear the Minister, while open to look at the concerns of the Milk Rights Group, can only work within the fixed amount of quota allocated to Ireland. As the Minister said last night, the Statute of Limitations must be presumed to have been enacted by the Oireachtas for the common good and the Government in dealing with cases, such as this, must have regard not just to the situation of the persons involved but to that of the general taxpayer on whom the cost of every settlement would ultimately fall.
The Minister already set out the possible costs involved but they bear repeating in view of the possible consequences. The Milk Rights Group estimated compensation of £40 million to £50 million in addition to eight million to 10 million gallons of quota. That refers only to the 1,200 or 1,300 farmers in the group. There are, however, many other farmers who were in the farm modernisation scheme or rescue package in 1984 and who had dairying plans. These could number between 15,000 and 16,000. If all these cases were to come forward, additional quota amounting to 40 million gallons could be involved as well as compensation approaching £500 million, if we take the cases already adjudicated by the court as a model. While these figures may appear to be high, they represent only 23% of active producers at that time. It is impossible, therefore, to say how many other cases would come forward.
As the Minister said last night, a number of meetings have been held over the past 18 months between the Milk Rights Group and Department officials at the request of the group and on a "without prejudice" basis. At the most recent meeting on 27 April the group's representatives confirmed that their objective was to secure extra milk quota for their members and suggested that this might be met out of the additional quota which the Minister secured for this country as an outcome of the Agenda 2000 negotiations.
The amount of milk quota for Ireland is, unfortunately, finite and this means that allocating it to one group means that somebody else loses out. It is also the case that the State cannot take on legal responsibilities where they do not exist. However, the Minister in the spirit of consensus, which has been the hallmark of his stewardship of the milk quota regime, and despite the fact that there is no legal obligation to go further towards meeting the demands similar to those represented by the group in question, is prepared to look at what can be done in the context of the additional quota which will become available on 1 April 2001. As the Minister said, and I must repeat, this possibility is without legal prejudice.
Live horse and you will get grass.
Is the Minister of State sure he wanted to say that?
The Minister of State, without interruption.
The amount of quota available is limited and if quota is allocated to producers in this category, it will mean that there is less to go to other deserving producers who should be helped in whatever way possible. These include smaller, less well off producers who are committed to the industry and who have demonstrated this commitment in the past.
Like this group.
There is also the fact that the potential number of applicants for quota under the development farm category could be very high and much higher than the numbers represented by the Milk Rights Group. If it were possible to allocate quota to such a category it would have to be on a very restricted basis.
As usual, the Minister has consulted widely with the various social partners in the industry and specifically with the Milk Quota Review Group, which is representative of all the main players and which has helped him and previous Ministers. He will have regard to its views on reaching a decision. Given the complex legal issues surrounding this matter, he will also have regard to the views of the Attorney General in his deliberations.
That would be a radical move.
Yes. The House can be assured that the Minister will approach the demands of the Milk Rights Group on the basis of the many implications these may have for the industry.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): What does that mean?
I am surprised that given that Deputy Dukes is so concerned about the economics of agriculture, he does not find something more constructive to debate.
That is an insult to the members of the group in the Visitors Gallery.
As usual, the Opposition is bankrupt of ideas.
The Minister of State does not know what an idea is.
The Opposition is scraping the bottom of the barrel to look for an issue on which to criticise the Government.
That is cold comfort to the Milk Rights Group.
The Minister of State is very insulting. He should apologise to the members of the Milk Rights Group.
The Minister of State, without interruption.
Deputy Sheehan's party was in Government for three and a half years, but it did not do much. I am delighted that the new spokesperson on agriculture in the Fine Gael Party had to travel to north Cork to scrape the bottom of the barrel to get an issue. There was nothing else left. The Opposition is bankrupt of ideas.
I ask Deputies to support the amendment to the motion in the knowledge that the concerns of this group will be carefully looked at, having regard to the legal implications and taking account also of the need for other producers, especially small and medium scale dairy farmers, to continue the development of their enterprises.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Neville and Dukes.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is appalling to hear the Minister of State refer to these farmers as being the bottom of the barrel. I hope he will apologise for the insult he has directed at people not only from my constituency but from his own and other constituencies. The only thing missing from the debate is justice. We have heard repeated excuses, yet there has been no reference to the justness of the cause.
The facts of the case are clear. Under the farm modernisation scheme plans were drawn up by Teagasc to encourage farmers to buy milk quota and improve their farms. These plans were adopted by farmers at considerable expense. The rationale behind this was to bring those with small holdings and a small amount of quota in line with the average industrial wage at the time. Clear promises were made in relation to quota and these were never fulfilled. Many farmers who had borrowed heavily to facilitate these improvements were left high and dry in times of high interest rates and very low margins, profits and income.
At present 1,200 farmers are involved in a 17 year battle to compensate for losses incurred through what was no fault of their own. We heard again what the Minister has said over the past three years. The Government is relying on a technicality to deny compensation to these citizens. The Minister continues to hide behind the Attorney General on this matter. Those farmers who fought the court battle and were successful secured a ruling from the courts to the effect that they had been treated unfairly and that they were entitled to compensation. The only difference between the successful group and their unsuccessful colleagues is that members of the Milk Rights Group are debarred from seeking redress because of the Statute of Limitations. That point is conceded by all Members.
If the Minister was either just or fair he would concede the point and allocate quotas to these farmers. He is better placed to do that than any of his predecessors in that he now has quota and money to distribute. Every day on the national airwaves the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for Finance tell us the country is awash with money. There is money for everybody, but not for these farmers who were encouraged by Government agencies to raise large sums of money through high borrowings in the 1980s.
It is important to appreciate the difficult road travelled by those farmers who were sufficiently lucky to be on the right side of the court judgment and who were able to achieve the compensation. A labyrinth of court actions, both at home and in Europe, ultimately gave rise to a measure of success. Others with the same grievance did not, for one reason or another, have the wherewithal to pay for court action. That compounds the grave injustice they have suffered.
There are many members of the Milk Rights Group in my constituency of Laoighis-Offaly and elsewhere. Others outside the group may have a genuine case. They are entitled not only to a fair hearing but to a just solution. Their case must also be heard.
The kernel of the argument is that farmers who were members of the Milk Rights Group were actively encouraged by Government in the 1980s to fund elaborate infrastructural development on their farms, found only when the work was done and the money borrowed that their source of income was aborted. Livelihoods were damaged, some irreparably. As a democratic assembly of the people, this Dáil can remedy the grievance by instructing the Minister to act in a fair and reasonable manner.
A Cheann Comhairle, you will shortly ask Members to vote on this issue. Deputy Healy-Rae has been loud on this issue in his constituency. He has the opportunity to force the hand of the Minister if he joins Members on this side of the House in instructing him to take appropriate and reasonable action. I hope he does.
The stance taken by the Minister is untenable. Having regard to the decision of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, where members of the Minister's party agreed a process of compensation or quota to be allocated to the farmers, the Minister has failed to acknowledge the views of his party backbenchers. He has also failed to concede the case and compensate the farmers. I ask Deputies opposite from a farming background – Deputies Johnny Brady and Michael Ahern and others – to force the hand of the Minister and ensure a just and equitable resolution to this problem that has been ongoing for far too long.
I commend Deputy Dukes for introducing the motion, which deals with justice for members of the Milk Rights Group who deserve the same treatment from the State as those who had the resources to take the State to court to vindicate their rights. The motion deals with equity. The Constitution provides that all our people should be treated equally. There was elation two weeks ago following the bringing in to force the terms of the Equal Status Act. We are now seeking equality of treatment for farmers deprived of quota by the State which was lawfully due to them. If the Government is serious about justice and equality for the Milk Rights Group, it will provide either an appropriate milk quota or financial compensation to each member of the group, based on the outcome of the successful legal proceedings taken by people in the same circumstances as the members of the group in the case of Duff v. the Minister for Agriculture and Food.
The group's members were encouraged and advised by agents of the Department and acted in good faith on the advice provided by ACOT in regard to the farm modernisation scheme. This resulted in members making substantial financial and personal investments which could only be economically justified where targets under the relevant farm plans were achieved. This has caused financial hardship and stress to the farmers concerned and was neither just nor fair.
The quality of life of these farmers and their families has been severely affected and the discrimination should be ended once and for all by the Minister. The targets outlined in the farm plans could not be realised, through no fault of the farmers concerned. Their plans and ambitions for their enterprises were destroyed and the loss and damage they suffered were directly attributable to the Department because of the system used to introduce and implement the milk quota regulations. The pool of milk which should have been provided to development farmers as a legal right to allow them to meet their plan targets was allocated to other farmers. The Minister now has an opportunity to rectify this and ensure that the members of the group are treated justly as equals.
Farmers have suffered loss, damage, frustration and personal stress for the past 15 years due to the 1984 decision. In 1997, the Supreme Court held that the successful plaintiffs were entitled to more farm compensation from the State in all circumstances and further held that the case should be submitted to the High Court for the assessment of damages. The Milk Rights Group must be treated in an equal fashion. There is a fundamental moral and legal principle that equals should be treated equally. It is unjust, unfair and discriminatory that the Minister, who has indicated his intention to rely on the Statute of Limitations, will not do this, thereby depriving these farmers of their legitimate claims for redress. This is a discriminatory legal defence which the Minister can waive and I call on him to do so. It is not right to use this discretionary approach to deprive the farmers concerned of the compensation to which they are entitled from the State.
The justice of this case requires that appropriate milk quota or financial compensation be provided forthwith to all members of the Milk Rights Group. The Exchequer can afford to do this. I do not accept the Minister's amendment to the effect that his response is appropriate in the circumstances. It is not.
The Minister stated that he had consulted the various social partners, specifically the milk quota review group, in arriving at a decision. It is incumbent on the Minister to provide the House with details of this advice. He also stated that he would have regard to the views of the Attorney General but we can all predict what that will be – the invocation of the "statute barred" defence.
I did not think I would ever see the day when a Minister of State came into this House to sneer from the comfort of his ministerial bench and to describe this issue and these people as "the scrapings of the barrel". Deputy O'Keeffe is a disgrace. He has nothing but contempt for the people concerned. I did not meet any scrapings of the barrel in Dromtarriffe Hall on 13 October. I met 120 people, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, farmers who know beyond any shadow of a doubt that an injustice has been done to them and who now have the misfortune to have to wait for the Minister of State and his ilk, with their sneering contempt, to do something for them. I did not think I would ever see the day when I would use those words to describe a junior Minister in a Fianna Fáil Government. I do not like having to use that kind of language in politics but, by God, the Minister of State deserves it.
Deputy Dukes was merely doing party work for Fine Gael when he met those farmers. He was trying to get a seat back for Fine Gael.
How dare the Minister of State come into this House and tell these people they are the scrapings of the barrel. Is that what he thinks of rural people? He is a disgrace and should leave this House in shame with his head covered. I did not meet any scrapings of the barrel, I met people who have a real grievance.
Fine Gael hacks.
I will outline one incontrovertible fact which cannot be denied by the Minister, the Minister of State or the whinging Fianna Fáil backbenchers who were lashed into the Chamber. The Supreme Court has ruled that people in the same situation as the members of the Milk Rights Group are entitled to compensation and have been for the past 15 years.
The Minister came into the House last night and spoke about schemes and about law. Not once in the course of a 30 minute contribution did he use the words "justice" or "equity". That is a pity and a disgrace in a Government which has money pouring out its ears. If it is law the Minister wants, where better to get it than the Supreme Court? Where better to get an interpretation of law than the Supreme Court? Where better to go to vindicate people's rights? The Minister and everyone on the Fianna Fáil benches know that as well as I do. If there was any possible room for doubt in the Minister's mind, Deputy Enright stated earlier that the only defence on which the Minister relies, namely the principle of an issue being statute barred, is not one which he must plead and is one which he has no reason to hide behind.
There is a way to deal with this problem. The Minister spoke about schemes from 1983 onwards which were introduced to repair various elements of the milk quota system. All of those schemes have one thing in common; not a single one was designed to do anything to rectify the problem which is the subject of this evening's debate. It required an action in the Supreme Court in the not too distant past to establish where right, equity and justice lie in this matter and the Minister should note the outcome.
The Minister stated that this issue could lead to all manner of unforeseen consequences. The Minister has a problem for every solution but it is time he started looking for solutions to problems. It is nonsensical of him to come into this House and state that if he takes the kind of action he has been requested to take to provide compensation for this group of people, whose grievance is well defined, it could create problems. It is nonsensical for the Minister to state that he cannot deal with this issue because it might lead to unforeseen consequences. The Minister is well aware, as is every other agriculture Minister in the EU, that if one wants to deal with a specific problem, one finds a way of ring-fencing it. I invite the Minister to find a way to resolve this problem which will ensure that the solution will be directed at the target group and not attract in other people. Even if that were to happen, it would not be on the scale which the Minister pretended it would.
It is time to start seeking a resolution for this problem. The Minister is well aware that this can be done and if he requires any further evidence of that, he should look back at the various schemes he has introduced and the various modifications he has made to the milk quota system. They also have in common the fact that they have all been ring-fenced and specifically designed to deal with a specific problem encountered by a specific group of people, and that is all we are asking the Minister to do this time. The Minister should do the decent thing and deny the dreadful Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, as he did on the issue of the certificate of farming. We ask the Minister to withdraw the amendment and do the decent thing for people who have waited far too long for justice.
Amendment put.
Ta
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy. |
Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuìv, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Allen, Bernard.Bell, Michael.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Hayes, Brian. |
Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael. |
Níl–continued
|
Ryan, Seán.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet. |
Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Yates, Ivan. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Stagg.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan. |
Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.Martin, Micheál.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Allen, Bernard.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul. |
Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas. Farrelly, John. |
Níl–continued
|
Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis. |
Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Yates, Ivan. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.