I invite the Minister for Finance to think again about the position he will take on this motion, if he means what he says then he actually agrees with our motion. Two paragraphs in the Minister's amendment are directly taken from the Fine Gael motion. They are two important ones:
conscious of the new and greater difficulties for Irish farmers resulting from the detection of BSE in Continental EU member states;
wishing to counter the serious consequences which this could have for farm families, workers in the food processing industry and the fabric of rural society and communities.
The Minister's motion has taken those two paragraphs word for word from the motion I tabled in the names of all the Fine Gael Deputies. If the Minister really means that he should accept the motion before the House. The Minister talked about safeguarding the integrity and the safety of Irish beef. That is perfectly in keeping with the motion. In all the places in the amendment where the Minister speaks about what he will actually do in relation to the difficulties this creates for Irish farmers and for rural communities, the Minister's amendment is weaker than the Fine Gael motion. He does not say we want a compensation scheme. He does not say we want equality of treatment with farmers in other member states. The Minister would do well to listen to what Deputy Deenihan said. The Minister's amendment is weaker than our motion on every one of those important aspects. The Minister even has a paragraph in his amendment similar to ours about the energetic and innovative approach to the promotion of Irish beef and cattle. Even that, unfortunately, is less specific than the terms of the motion before the House.
I invite the Minister, if he really means what he said here last night and in the Government's amendment to the motion, to withdraw the amendment and agree with the Fine Gael motion. Let us proceed on this crucial issue on the basis of agreement. Let us proceed to protect the health of consumers on the basis of agreement in this House. Let us proceed to deal with the consequences of this for farming families, rural communities, our food processing industry and the people who work in that industry on the basis of some agreement in this House.
Let us make no mistake about this. I do not want to dramatise it, but we must face the reality. The crisis we are facing now has the potential to bring about the greatest change in dietary habits across Europe in a generation. That is what we are facing. We must deal with that with credibility and assurance.
Irish farmers and the Irish food processing industry will suffer because other member states of the European Union did not take the action in 1996 that we took. We are about to be caught up in the consequences of that. The Irish rural community and food processing industry will be affected as a result of the laxity and carelessness of other member states four years ago when we took appropriate measures.
It is up to our Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to ensure that damage is limited as much as possible and that we put in place measures that will restore the name, reputation and image of safety and quality of Irish beef. I again ask the Minister, if he means what he said here last night and in the amendment he tabled, to support the motion and not make a political football out of it, rather than coming here with a rag of an amendment, which is what Departments always do at the bidding of Ministers who simply do not want to agree that the Opposition has taken the lead on a matter. The Minister should forget that because this is too important.
There is a very important point here, to which Deputy Deenihan and others referred last night and tonight. We want to ensure there is equality of treatment of farmers throughout the European Union on how this problem is dealt with. We want to ensure Irish farmers do not unfairly have to bear a higher cost than they should because of the negligence of governments of other member states.
For that reason, I am appalled by something in the speech of the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, which he did not have time to say but which I have read in his script. In it, he refers to the difference in prices that will be available to Irish producers, compared to those that will be available to farmers in France. I will quote what he was going to say because, I regret to say, these seem to be the facts of the situation that faces us. The speech states:
The French price under the scheme will be higher than the price in Ireland, only to the extent that it is normally higher than Irish prices. Secondly, it is of major importance to Irish producers that the scheme actually succeeds in removing the surplus. This will happen only if the destruction price is attractive to producers in all member states, which means that it needs to be set at a reasonable level, relative to the market.
That means the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and at least one of his Ministers of State have already thrown in the towel. They are accepting that once again, as has happened time after time, in scheme after scheme, Irish farmers will be less well treated than farmers in other member states of the European Union.
It might be said that the destruction price has to be attractive to producers in all member states, which it has. It also has to be attractive to farmers here. There is no reason any Irish Minister should accept, as a matter of form or practice and without arguing about it, that the price available to Irish producers should be less favourable than that available to producers anywhere else. I call on the Minister to ensure that scheme when it is put into operation gives Irish farmers the same treatment that farmers will get in other member states of the European Union. It is just as important that every aspect of this scheme works as well in Ireland as it does anywhere else.
There is one major point of difference between the Government and the Opposition on this motion, which is the situation of the Minister of State in charge of food quality and safety. Last night the Minister of State delivered a most incoherent rant to the House, a 20 minute speech which he tried to deliver in ten minutes. It avoided all the main issues and was littered with inconsistencies.
The Minister, Deputy Walsh, was interviewed on "Morning Ireland" this morning about the situation of his Minister of State. I do not want to dramatise this, but everyone who heard that interview will know what I mean. His replies about the situation of the Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, were terse. He gave every appearance of being somebody who knew he was on the radio to defend the indefensible. I must confess I felt a bit sorry for him because I knew he wanted to say that the Minister of State should go, especially after his performance here last night.
The Minister of State spoke last night of the fact that he is now writing to the Taoiseach to draw his attention, under the terms of the Ethics in Public Office Act and Cabinet procedure handbooks, to the connections of his family with various businesses, thereby admitting that he has not done so up to now and that he should have done so before now. On that ground alone, he deserves to resign. That is an admission of a serious impropriety on his part. The fact that these matters have been referred by myself and Deputy Howlin to the Public Offices Commission does not, in any way, absolve the Taoiseach of his political responsibility for office holders appointed by him. The Taoiseach should act now without waiting for the Public Offices Commission to act.
Second, the Minister of State admitted that he was a member until yesterday of a committee of Dairygold, membership of which requires that one is a full-time farmer. He was fooling either Dairygold or this House until yesterday evening, when he said he was resigning from that committee.
Third, the Minister of State referred last night early in his speech, after where a paragraph had obviously been deleted by the spin doctors, to this "minimal activity" in relation to his farm. He has not explained what that minimal activity was. I submit that, on the basis of what the Minister of State said here last night and other information that has become available, he has been actively involved since he took office in running the affairs of his family's farming enterprises in contravention of the terms of the Ethics in Public Office Act and the procedures set out in the Cabinet handbook. Having admitted to doing so, he should now resign.
Fourth, the Minister of State admitted last night that his family's farm, which he is clearly involved in managing, decided explicitly not to follow best practice in pig production. They decided explicitly not to do what over 90% of pig producers in the country have done. He is the Minister of State who is supposed to promote food quality and good standards in food production in our country.
The Minister of State also admitted last night that there was an involvement by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in the question of licensing. He tried to pretend that the issuing of licences under statute is a matter for civil servants. We know it comes within the political responsibility of the political heads of the Department, that is, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and his Ministers of State. A Minister of State who does not accept that position has no business staying in his job. He should go now.
I again invite the Minister to withdraw the idiotic Government amendment, support the motion and let us go forward on that basis. I also call on him to tell his Minister of State, who has sullied the name of Irish quality food, to resign before it is too late.