Is it agreed to go into private session to discuss a number of housekeeping matters?
Business of Joint Committee.
I would like the issue I raised at the beginning of the meeting to be discussed in public session.
Deputy Naughten has proposed we continue in public session. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Two letters were received from Deputy Naughten. The first relates to an early retirement scheme and has been circulated to the members of the committee for their information. Is it agreed to note this correspondence? Agreed. The second letter requested the Minister for Agriculture and Food to attend today's meeting of the committee to discuss the collapse of the sugar industry. A reply to this request was received from the Minister's private secretary indicating that the Minister would not be available. This letter has also been circulated. Should I read it out?
It would be no harm to read it out.
It is addressed to the clerk to the Committee on Agriculture and Food, Ms Josephine Briody.
Dear Ms Briody,
I refer to the committee's invitation to the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mary Coughlan's officials to a sitting of the committee on Tuesday 18 July to discuss the restructuring package for the industry. Given the legal and sensitive nature of the ongoing restructuring process the Minister believes it is more appropriate that she attend at this stage before the committee rather than officials. Unfortunately, the Minister, Deputy Coughlan is in Brussels at the Council of Ministers meeting that day and therefore will not be in a position to attend.
Yours sincerely,
Martina Carney,
Private secretary.
I accept that the Minister for Agriculture and Food is not available today. However, I do not believe it is acceptable that her officials could not attend in her absence. We requested that the Minister's officials meet us on 5 July to deal with this issue. That request was well flagged with the Minister in advance of that date. The committee would have facilitated the Minister if today's date was not convenient for her. We gave her a fortnight's notice of our wish to meet her to discuss this issue. It is unacceptable that she will not make herself available to meet us. I accept she has limitations in terms of her diary commitments but the committee would have facilitated her by meeting her later in the week. There is only one date remaining before the end of this month when we could meet, which is next Monday week. I ask the clerk to the committee to contact the Minister to ascertain if she or her officials will be available to meet us on that date to explain the detail of this decision.
I am disappointed the Minister did not furnish us with a copy of the Indecon report, which would have enabled us at least to consider the basis for this decision. There is a great degree of anger and upset in the sector about the way the Minister arrived at the decision she made on the distribution of funds under the restructuring fund, which is being made available from growers throughout the European Union for the closure of the sugar industry here. It is appropriate that the committee would be furnished with an explanation. The Minister commissioned consultants who produced this report. I am sure she is well able to stand over the decision she made. It is only appropriate that she would come before this public forum and explain the basis for that decision. I do not accept that the legal and sensitive nature of this issue would prevent her from doing so. A report was produced and presented to her, on which she made a decision. She should elaborate on the detail here.
I support what Deputy Naughten said. Given the significance of this development for beet farmers, particularly in the south, it is extremely important that we are given the information that will allow us to explain to them the reason such a decision was taken and the basis of the proportionate distribution rates between Greencore and the farmers. If there is only one date remaining this month that is appropriate to the Minister to meet her, we should ask her to attend a meeting of the committee on that date to inform us of the basis of her decision and the reason for the proportionate distribution of the funding between Greencore and the farmers.
I have no problem with the Minister coming before the committee to explain how she reached her decision. I have received mixed reaction to it. I have been contacted by a number of farmers who are deeply concerned at the amount of funding allocated to them. Other farmers have contacted me who are deeply concerned and angry about the IFA taking the route it took and not trying to retain or make a stand to retain the beet crop.
I received many representations prior to the decision being reached. On one occasion when I met the IFA, the delegation was seeking 100% of the money at issue plus the same amount from the Government. I sympathise with issues facing the Minister, the route she had to go and the difficult decisions she had to make. I have no problem with her coming before the committee to explain her decision, but I understand the legal and sensitive issues involved and they would not want to be understated in the interests of farmers. I am looking after the farmers' side; Greencore is well able to look after itself. From the farmers' point of view, the legal and sensitive nature of this issue must be considered.
I compliment the Minister on the great work she did in Geneva on behalf of Irish agricluture in stonewalling the negotiations that took place recently. I am pleased that at the G8 meeting in St. Petersburg the other day there was not another sell out of European agriculture. I suppose they were too taken up with Israel and Hezbollah. By and large, the Minister has done a good job.
We are well aware of the decision the Minister had to make. She came back with €147 million from Europe for the beet industry. Bonus aside, criteria were laid down in Brussels for the distribution of those moneys and she kept within the spirit of what was agreed. Irish farmers will get a single payment, in the region of €960 per tonne for the next seven years. This is a generous single payment for them as they do not have to grow a crop or show any documentation.
Expectations were high with regard to the bonus, but farmers realise they will not get the El Dorado bonanza they expected and will only get in the region of €60 or €65 a tonne. My problem with regard to the €60 or €65 per tonne, is that Greencore and Ireland have not presented their case to the European Union, whereas Italy and other countries have. These moneys must be paid from the fund. The urgency of the situation relates to the payments. Farmers have been asking me when they will get their money, but I have not been able to tell them. I come from a constituency where 22% of the beet crop was grown and from a county which produced 33% of Irish sugar beet.
The situation is not as the Opposition describes. We know the breakdown of the €147 million, that €60 million has been provided for the pensions of the company's workforce and that approximately €47 million will go to farmers. We know pension funds in all sectors are in difficulty. In principle the deal is a good one. The Minister defended the industry well and explained the position as reported in the media. I do not see the need for her to come before the committee because the Opposition demands it. We have all known the black and white of the issue for some time. While farmers expectations were high, they knew the position.
We face a new situation with regard to the oil industry and the price of oil. If we want an alternative crop for beet farmers, we should not talk about growing bushes, etc., for fuel. In Brazil ethanol is produced from sugar cane, in America maize is used to produce fuel and other crops are used in other parts of the world. With all the research and development we have available, why can we not find an alternative crop for farmers to produce ethanol or biofuels to replace the 80,000 acres used for sugar beet? These are the issues involved. Therefore, let us get our case to Brussels and have our farmers paid.
I am taken aback by that outburst from Deputy O'Keeffe. There were many inaccuracies in what he said. He spoke about the amount farmers would get per tonne, but beet growers across Europe get the same. Beet farmers in this country are being compensated for the loss of the industry. There is no longer any point in talking about the sugar beet industry here because it has been wiped out. What beet farmers here are getting in compensation amounts to less than €10 per tonne and averages approximately €10,000 per farmer. At the same time, the property speculators and millionaires in Greencore gain. Their property has been significantly enhanced to put them in the billionaire bracket as a result of the unequal distribution of the compensation.
I once heard Deputy O'Keeffe say that the people running the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Minister and the two Ministers of State, were out of touch with real farmers and farming. None of them is from the region south of the line from Dublin to Galway. They are from north of that line which in the Deputy's words is "not a real farming area". They are out of touch with what is happening. For Deputy O'Keeffe to say that farmers are happy with the compensation and that the Opposition is the only group crying about it, is a clear indication that even he is not in touch with reality.
I do not understand why we have only one day left. This committee could agree to meet the Minister whenever suits her. It could be tomorrow or the day after, or it could be on a Saturday or a Monday. I propose that we meet on whatever day the Minister is available. She should come before the committee and explain the situation. What annoys me about this sham and charade are the red herrings being introduced about legal and sensitive issues. The taxpayers paid for an independent report on how compensation should be distributed. Surely to God we are entitled to see the report. What have Deputy O'Keeffe and the Minister to cover up? If there is a report showing how the compensation should be divided, let us see it, as we, the taxpayers, have paid for it. I support the call for the Minister to give the committee a comprehensive explanation as to what is happening in the former sugar beet industry.
While my constituents use beet, they do not grow it. We have had approximately 150 reports into the health service at a cost of more than €50 million, yet we have no health service. Here is another case where a Minister, instead of making a decision based on her Department's involvement with farm organisations, Greencore, etc., is bringing in an independent body. The Government will then try to blame that body for a decision that goes against farmers' best interests. We are now told that the Minister cannot come here and we cannot even get the report. We should at least have the report and the officials should appear before the committee. I agree with the Senator that we should meet on whatever day and at whatever hour the Minister is available. Let her present the report to us and give her reasons for supporting it.
I support what has been said. I thought there was some reason the Minister was available only on that one day.
She is out of the country this week as stated in her letter. While I cannot be sure, are WTO negotiations taking place next week?
A Member
No.
There was talk that they would take place in the last week of July.
Why do we want the Minister?
I remind Deputy O'Keeffe that the committee is making the decision and that is it.
I support the proposal that we ask the Minister to appear before the committee whenever she is available. I agree that whenever that is, we too can make ourselves available. Greencore is doing very nicely and has significant assets. While I do not want to get into that debate again, we are being left to worry about its pension fund, the environmental impact and the redundancy scheme, for which the company should pay. I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe on one point only. Of course, we should be considering alternatives such as biofuels. However, we should have done so some time ago, when we had opportunities to do so.
The committee has discussed that matter on numerous occasions and we will continue to do so.
As I had been looking at another letter from the Minister which had been circulated to the committee earlier, I had thought the Minister was not available next week. On the first available date this month or next month the Minister needs to appear before the committee. While I do not want to open a debate on the matter, from the executive summary of the Indecon report that the Minister published last week, it is clear that the consultants went through with a fine tooth comb the submission made by growers. However, they relied on Greencore estimates when it came to figures for the company. There seems to be a contradiction and an inequity in the treatment of both those submissions. That is one key question the Minister should answer. The report should be circulated to the members immediately. The Minister and her officials should appear before the committee at the first available date. We will make ourselves available for that meeting.
Is it agreed to write to the Minister to ascertain whether she is available?
It is a question of when she is available.
This was dealt with during Dáil questions to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. There were questions in the Dáil.
The next questions in the Dáil will be in October and the matter needs to be signed off by the end of September.
Is it agreed? Agreed.
The joint committee went into private session at 12.35 p.m. and adjourned at 12.45 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 26 July 2006.