Senator Jim Higgins was in possession.
Report of Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EC—Crisis in Farming, Summer 1985: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of Report No. 21 of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities: Crisis in Farming, Summer 1985.
—(Senator McDonald)
Perhaps he had concluded.
Acting Chairman
Yes, Senator Kiely.
Perhaps it should be put on record that far from Senator J. Higgins not turning up to continue he had in fact concluded his contribution on the last day.
Acting Chairman
Accepted. It was my error. I thought he was still in possession.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on item No. 3. It was mentioned on the last occasion that this item was being debated in this House, that it was a bit late at this stage, early March, to be discussing the crisis in farming during the summer of 1985. I do not think it is too late because there is always a crisis in farming. We had a very bad month in February. The adverse weather conditions of the summer of 1985 are reflecting on farming in the spring of 1986. Fodder is scarce and of poor quality. Because of the bad weather last summer much of it went to waste. A lot of silage was made which had a high water content and this reduced the feeding value of the silage. Cows are calving down and are staying down with milk fever, which is definitely putting extra costs on farmers. It is as critical for them now as it was last summer. I know schemes were introduced to help them but I do not think they were adequate.
There are, in addition, cuts in or the abandonment of schemes by the Government which are also creating problems in farming. There is the farm modernisation scheme, the lime subsidy scheme and, I notice from reading newspapers, that land at present is very deficient in lime. The farm modernisation scheme was abandoned. A lot has to be done to ensure that we have proper housing for our cattle in winter. We always seem to be surprised by a fall in income. Although two years passed without very bad weather any farmer who is not prepared to house his cattle in the winter is in trouble. The abandonment of the farm modernisation scheme was a mistake.
I welcome the introduction of the new farm aid scheme. While there are grants that will be based on present day costings, I do not think they are sufficient, especially the grants for slurry equipment and slurry storage. This is vital because we have complaints from fisheries and other people interested in the preservation of our countryside about the pollution caused by such slurry. With the overheads in farming so great there should be greater grants for the developing of slurry storage and slurry equipment. In the recent budget there was a big cut in grant aid to ACOT, especially for training. I read an extract from the Farmers' Journal of 22 February 1986 in which an ACOT spokesman said it would be impossible to accommodate this reduction in their budget without seriously curtailing the education and advisory service to farmers. Education and advisory services are vital to farmers, especially young farmers. The cut in the grant will probably amount to £1.2 million.
The Youth Employment Agency has also had its budget cut. We have strange priorities because we are reducing the grant-in-aid to training in farming, our major industry and at the same time many young people are taking welding courses with AnCO, which are grant-aided. There should be more aid for the training of young farmers and farm development.
I would like to refer to the new ACOT Bill which provides for charges for advisory services. This is discriminatory legislation. Only farmers who can afford to pay will be able to avail of such advisory services. In an article in The Cork Examiner of 20 February 1986 Tim Cullen stated:
This is the latest in a series of charges which are to be borne by the farming community. As well as paying for disease levies, milk levies and other charges, it is little wonder that many farmers are so despondent. In addition to this new charge the farmer knows that there are no price increases this year which in turn makes increased income almost impossible.
The writing is on the wall for farmers. There will not be any increased income and very little encouragement. An article in The Farmers Journal dated 5 February states:
A new Bill empowering ACOT to charge for its advisory services was circulated to Dáil Deputies this week. This Bill was expected but its timing coming shortly after a £1.2 million cutback in ACOT's budget was unexpected and, more surprising and indeed, most depressing for the farming community.
This legislation is not welcomed by farming organisations, the ICMSA and others. The Farm Press, dated 11 February, had a heading “Farmers Attack ACOT Charges”. The chairman of the ICMSA farming development committee, Mr. Dan McCarthy, said the move was most depressing. He pointed out that the Government's cut in ACOT grant-in-aid, announced in the budget, will deprive the farm service of £1 million. This is disgraceful at a time when the farming service should be supplemented by £100 million.
There was an article in The Farmers Journal, concerning the missing £27 million. It said the Minister, in reply to a question from Deputy Joe Walsh, confirmed that an estimated sum of £27 million in the Department of Agriculture Vote for 1985 financial year was not spent. Taking into consideration that the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture was not sufficient, it is disgraceful that £27 million of that was not spent. This deprived the agriculture industry, a vital industry, of much needed money.
The bovine disease eradication scheme costs a great deal of money and we still have not got rid of TB. Farmers every year have to increase the levy and are paying their share to ensure we have a disease free national herd. With regard to the FEOGA grants for marts, it is important that marts have sufficient cleaning equipment and washing down facilities. It is important that marts are developed and receive whatever grants can be obtained through FEOGA to ensure that our marts are up to date.
Another important event throughout the country for agricultural and community life is the organising and holding of annual shows. The County Limerick Agricultural Committee report lists the amounts given to show committees. It is surprising that the amount granted in 1985 is the same as that granted nearly 20 years ago. Shows are in great financial trouble. The Munster Agricultural Society who organise one of the most important agricultural shows in the south, are in financial trouble. I urge the Minister to examine their position and make some allocation from the Department to help societies like the Munster Agricultural Society, the Limerick Show Society and others to ensure that those great rural events can continue. They are of immense benefit to the social life and business life of towns and cities. They also provide cattle breeders with an opportunity to exhibit their cattle and are essential to producing top quality cattle for export and for dairying.
Farming is so dependent on weather conditions that you can always have a crisis in farming. It is important that the Minister and the Department should be alert to the dependency of farming on weather and also to ensure that agriculture will get the finance needed to develop. If agriculture prospers it will spill out into the whole economy and the whole economy will prosper.
It is a pity that we are talking in 1986 about the crisis in 1985. We learned a good deal from the crisis in 1985. One thing we learned is the dependency on hay for fodder. Over 50 per cent of fodder conserved for winter feeding is hay. Farmers should turn more to silage for fodder. That is being helped by the announcement in the past month of new grant schemes. I know the Minister is addressing himself to that problem.
There were many problems last year but there was a lot of scaremongering and many people panicked when there was no need. We heard that cattle prices had reached the 1974 level. Thank God they did not. I would like to congratulate the Government on the actions they took to alleviate the problems in no small measure. When things started to get bad they recognised there would be a fodder shortage and they started with a nitrogen subsidy of £35 per tonne. There was a restriction on that. It was for farmers with under 30 cows or under 50 head of cattle. About 24,000 farmers applied for that scheme. Even though we were told it was not of any value, we still had a big demand for it and it cost the Exchequer over £600,000.
The second measure was the silage subsidy. That was a great success even though it was so late in the year. There was a subsidy of £4 per tonne for a maximum of 50 tonnes for anyone who made silage before 19 October. That was later extended to November. Up to 30,000 people applied. There is a message there. If those people continue to make silage we will not have a crisis like that in the future. We are told about all the cutbacks. That scheme cost about £6 million.
The next measure, the one that created a lot of hassle, was the feed voucher scheme. That cost £18 million. We hear people complaining about a cutback of £1 million but that is small compared with this kind of money. It was done at the right time. There were 90,000 applicants for the feed voucher scheme and 80,000 of them qualified. We all know that some people will chance their arm — they probably had enough feed. That went a long way with a reasonably good winter. Even though it was cold we did not get too much snow. It took the black market out of trading in feed stuffs. If you read the papers any day you see so much hay and feed advertised. I compliment the Government on taking the initiative in giving out the feed vouchers. It did not leave the farmers who were very badly off at the mercy of the people who were charging two prices for feed. We had a bit of that in September and October when we saw lorry loads of straw and hay at high prices going to the west. That all sorted itself out. We have a reasonably stable situation for feed at this time of the year.
Another advantage given to farmers during the crisis was the 30 day test extended to 60 days. I appeal to the Minister to do what he can to continue with that extension of the 60 day test. That is doing a great deal for the farmers in adding mobility to the time of sale. The time is very limited at 30 days. It would be well worth continuing the 60 day test. We also have the scheme for tillage farmers which cost the Exchequer £2 million. When we add it all up it comes to a fairly sizeable amount. Senator Kiely talked about the cutbacks and about charging for ACOT services. I believe farmers see that they are getting services and are being looked after by the Department of Agriculture and they do not mind paying a limited amount for services.
I would like to compliment the Minister on the work he has put into potato co-operative and the new market he has set up with the sugar company, the fruit importers and the farmers with vegetable crops supplying supermarkets. We can produce some of the best vegetables in the world if our marketing is right. The Opposition party produced a document the other day. I have not read it thoroughly yet but I welcome it. Senator O'Toole had an input into it and I compliment him on that. I am sure they will get co-operation from the Minister of State if they wish to discuss anything with him at any time. One of his strong points is vegetable growing and marketing. I again compliment the Minister and the Minister of State on the good job they did during the crisis last year.
I appreciate the very kind words of Senator Quealy on the production of our farm food and vegetable document the other day. This is the real spirit that we should be adopting regardless of what source a document of this nature comes from. When it is welcomed, as Senator Quealy has done, that is a step in the right direction. For many months we researched this document. It is necessary, with the importation of the amount of vegetables we have, to take some corrective measures to bridge that gap. This is what we hope this document will do. Indeed as Senator Quealy has said, with the co-operation, of both sides of the House, regardless of who is in Government to implement it, these are the lines that we should be adopting and this is the road forward for this type of bridging.
Unlike my colleague, Senator Kiely, I believe this report is outdated. It is unfortunate, with the amount of legislation coming before the Seanad, that it takes so long to bring a document before this House. The crisis this document deals with is in the past. All we can do at this time is to examine the implications of the crisis and how it affected the farmers during the winter months.
The quotas and voucher systems which were introduced did not get around to some farmers because of the lack of inspection, and the system that was put into force. I know many farmers in the west did not apply for the feed vouchers because they felt they had a sufficient amount of silage and fodder. Had they applied they would have qualified easily because no inspections took place. Whatever was on the form was the only guideline they had. They had some spot checks but at the very time that this crisis was in operation, we brought out a document and we put forward various suggestions — as indeed did the IFA and the ICMSA and the co-operatives — but the one that the Minister adhered to was the system of feed vouchers. It did work to the advantage of some farmers but the inspection would have been the ideal thing. That might not have been possible with the number of staff that was available to the Minister. We were looking for increased headage grants to the maximum of 50 per cent at that time. The cost was to be borne by the EC. We also wanted loans at low fixed interest rates for farmers whose crops and fodder had been destroyed and the loans related to the average cost of production per acre. We also looked for realistic financing of farmers severely affected by the disastrous weather particularly in the flooded Shannon area.
The 30-day testing was extended to 60 days. That was put into operation for steers but not for heifers. The reintroduction of the full carcase beef intervention and export refunds immediately to maintain prices encouraged the pooling and distribution of available surplus fodders by the co-operatives and farming organisations. The restoring of and increasing small farmers unemployment assistance, arranging for the banks and the ACC to play an active positive role in helping farmers to bridge their present difficulties and waive any interest were also required. Many of these proposals were not put forward. I want in passing to compliment the ACOT people both on the east coast and on the west coast for their liaison and co-operation in having hay and straw transported to the west to the areas that had lost a lot during the summer flooding. The co-operation of ACOT at that time was very helpful to the farmers and they did locate straw and fodder in the east to be transported to the west. While we were very perturbed here at the beginning of the year about what the outcome might be, at the end of the day the outcome was not as bad as people felt it would be. While the quality of the fodder may have been poor, sufficient food was available as a result.
The report we are dealing with is extremely outdated at this time. Unfortunately, a major crisis is developing at the moment with the suggestion, in the 27th report which is now out, that our milk levy may be cut by 3 per cent and, perhaps, there may be the complete abolition of beef intervention. I want to say that if intervention for beef, as we know it, is going to be abolished, it will mean, according to the economist, Professor Sheehy, from UCD, who has examined this in depth, that we will lose roughly £170 million as a result. That would return us to the 1974 position and the crisis that year. It would be disastrous for over 7,000 of our meat plant workers if that came into operation. Indeed, the crisis is so blatant and of such urgency that my party in the other House have asked for a full debate on it and, indeed, on the introduction of a further reduction of 3 per cent in the super-levy. If it came into operation there would be 700,000 tonnes of unwanted beef now in the EC.
On top of that, the EC countries are importing over 430 tonnes of meat from Third Countries. The same thing happened when they were producing milk only by artificial food which increased the milk production. While milk production in the US, the USSR and countries outside the EC has risen considerably, we are cutting back on our milk production under the cessation policy. Milk production is improving in the countries outside the Third World and in the European Community we are trying to decrease it.
This is something that is going to lead to a serious crisis within our farming community. If intervention is abolished and the levy is reduced by 3 per cent it will have a disastrous effect on our calf numbers. People will be getting out of cows, our calf numbers will drop and our cow slaughterings will increase. I do not like to see young cow slaughterings increase. I would rather see the culled cows increasing. You will have farmers selling off their good cows and less beef going into the meat plants if there is this further decrease of 3 per cent as is suggested by the EC at the moment.
As regards the farm modernisation scheme, we have been waiting for 18 months for the introduction of a new grants system in this scheme. Unless the Minister is releasing something today, or did yesterday, I have not yet seen the full details of the grants that are available under the new farm modernisation scheme. It has been announced for long enough to have the details published but we have not got them as yet. I would welcome any grants that would be spelt out in detail. I understand that some Members have been looking for them over the last few days and that they are not available. I hope they will be available as soon as possible so that we will see exactly what grant aid is necessary.
I want to say in passing that we feel that with our climatic conditions all heavy livestock units — cattle and cows at any rate — should be taken off the land during the winter months. There is great scope for giving substantial grants for slatted houses. In the west where we have the heaviest rainfall, we find that taking cattle off the land at the end of October or the beginning of November until the following March or April, is the only system that can be operated profitably. Poaching of land is disastrous. With earlier grass you have silage and early grazing but, if you poach the land over the winter, as has been traditional, you are unable to carry the same number of livestock units. I would welcome a substantial grant for slatted houses for livestock, especially cattle, and in some cases sheep.
The drainage grant is being reduced from 70 per cent to 40 per cent. That is a cut of 30 per cent. Arterial drainage is at a standstill. There is no grant available and no new schemes coming on stream for arterial drainage. The lime subsidy and the AI subsidy have been abandoned. The establishment grant for young farmers is not easy to get because a farmer must have over 40 livestock units and a knowledge of farming and certificates from the EC, or some other scheme, to qualify. That is a good thing, but it will not be as easy to qualify. I have not read the details of the scheme yet, but I would welcome any improvement in it. It is a lesser scheme than the one that was proposed many years ago but was never put into operation. I have not got the details of that scheme yet, but I would welcome any scheme to establish young farmers with training either inheriting land or buying farms. They should be equipped with knowledge in the same way as a person is qualified to run a business on a proper basis. Young farmers should be educated in modern farming. The best possible young farmers should get holdings to achieve the highest production possible.
The dismantling of our agricultural advisory services has been taken on board by ACOT. In my county we have lost ten agricultural advisers. That is a substantial decrease in our staffing in Mayo and, if we are to implement our horticultural scheme, or any horticultural scheme coming on stream we will have only one horticulturist in Mayo to implement the scheme as a result of the public service embargo on staff. This should be reviewed if we are to increase our vegetable growing.
With regard to the disease eradication scheme, I saw a document from the Irish Veterinary Union in connection with the amount of moneys that have been allocated to disease eradication this year. In 1985 the Minister for Agriculture introduced a planned three year programme to rid the country of bovine TB. This year that three year programme has been stopped and we are back on the stop-go programme which has cost the country dearly for 26 years. We understand and support the general needs for cutbacks in Government spending, but the facts make this cutback a false economic strategy.
The fixed expenditure of 1,021 civil servants costs £15 million per annum. Travelling expenses for public servants cost an extra £5 million. To justify this £20 million fixed expenditure the national herd must be TB tested. It costs £8,500,000 in fees to 850 vets to TB test the full national herd, but only £5 million is being made available this year for this vital work. It is not proper management to spend £20 million on fixed costs and TB test only half the national herd thus allowing TB to spread.
We have been messing about with bovine TB eradication for some time. The three year programme was introduced by the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Deasy, as a crash programme to produce results and give us a disease free herd. The EC are demanding this. It is a crisis. The cutbacks will not help to accelerate the eradication programme. I would welcome a bigger input of capital into this serious scheme. The problem has been with us so long now that it is necessary to have a crash programme to finally eradicate it.
We will have a national brucellosis free herd shortly. We were trying to achieve a national free zone in the Sligo-Donegal-Leitrim - Mayo - Galway - Roscommon region because of the low incidence there. The incidence has been the lowest in Ireland for many years. Because a regulation came into force in Britain whereby we are no longer allowed to export cattle from that traditional region, we are unable to send any heifers across to the north of England. The quicker the national herd is cleared of brucellosis the quicker we will be able to trade with Britain again. It was beneficial to the store people who are only able to provide stores in the west and had that traditional outlet to the northern part of England and Scotland.
We hope that the abolition of intervention beef and the increase of 3 per cent in the super-levy will not have a disastrous effect. The economists are pointing to a very bad year ahead. They have been quoted in the papers over the past few days as saying we could have another 1974 crisis. I hope we do not reach that level again, because that was a very low level and one to which we do not want to return.
I must say that I was quite impressed listening to the Senators here, giving an impressive performance on both sides of the House. There is a great deal in this report, particularly in the chapter giving the views of the joint committee and in the conclusion of this most useful report which I have fully accepted. The committee rightly foresaw that increasing the headage grants to the maximum allowable might not, due to its cost, commend itself to the hard-pressed Exchequer. I have from the very start held the view, also expressed by the committee, that one of the greatest problems in dealing with this disaster situation was to ensure that aid and rescue measures were accurately targeted. I have been totally opposed to the implementation of any blanket aid scheme, such as increasing headage payments, which would result in many farmers who were not faced with a critical fodder problem being provided with assistance. Apart from the fact that this would be intrinsically wrong in itself, it would also have reduced the amount of aid that could be paid to those who had most need of it. The committee also correctly pointed out that there were many farmers outside the disadvantaged areas who were in serious difficulty who would derive no benefit from a beefed-up headage scheme. Clearly, a further measure would be needed to meet their situation.
The Joint Committee also saw quite clearly that no single measure would provide an adequate remedy but that the problem must be attacked on several fronts. This is precisely how I have dealt with the problem. Last July, when we foresaw that as a result of the continuous heavy rain a fodder shortage was very likely in the coming winter, I immediately had the matter examined and on 8 August announced the introduction of the winter fodder scheme, comprising a fertiliser subsidy scheme and a scheme for aiding first-time silage making. These schemes were ridiculed in certain quarters at first but it transpired that those most concerned, the hard-hit farmers, saw them in a different light. In fact, their response to them was well in excess of all expectations. We received almost 60,000 applications under the two schemes and the vast bulk of these have been paid, many of them before the end of December last. By late August flooding on the River Shannon was approaching crisis dimensions; the Government considered the position as a matter of urgency and in early September the introduction of the Shannon Valley flood scheme was announced. Under this scheme some 1,600 farmers have received aid in varying amounts up to the limit of £500 per farmer.
The Government's main response, however, has been the nation-wide feed voucher scheme based on an allocation of £13.25 million from the Exchequer plus 125,000 tonnes of intervention grain made available by the European Economic Community at 75 per cent of the intervention price. Under this scheme we had some 90,000 applicants of whom some 78,000 were found to be eligible and that figure has been updated to nearly 80,000. These were issued with vouchers during January.
In addition to the foregoing specific measures, I also arranged to have brought forward to December last the payment of headage grants which would normally have been issued early this year. More recently, I announced details of a working capital scheme to aid tillage farmers affected by the bad weather, including those seriously affected by the severe hailstorm on 25-26 July last. This scheme will provide a subsidy of 5 per cent per annum on up to £40 million of working capital loans to tillage farmers.
Senator Hussey raised the question of the valuation of the "grain" voucher. The value of the "grain" vouchers is determined by the market, having regard to the prevailing market price for grain and the price at which cheap intervention grain can be purchased with vouchers. In general terms, the value of the discount on one tonne of intervention grain is the difference between 75 per cent of the intervention price and the market price of grain, adjusted by the costs incurred by merchants in buying grain from intervention.
The intervention grain available for the scheme consists of 36,000 tonnes of high quality feed wheat and 89,000 tonnes of feed barley. As the grain is allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, it was to be expected that initial demand would be for the higher quality feed wheat and, accordingly, that the value of "grain" vouchers would be higher at the outset. During the first two weeks after issue the vouchers were valued at between £20 and £26 per tonne but following the allocation of feed wheat, there has been a slight drop in the value. However, with almost 70,000 tonnes of grain allocated, I understand that the situation has stabilised. The value given to farmers for the vouchers is being continuously monitored by my Department having regard to market prices, with a view to ensuring that there is no profiteering.
I would like to remind the House that intervention grain is only a small element of the feed voucher scheme and that the greater part of support is by way of the "cash" voucher. Other forms of assistance such as the winter fodder scheme and accelerated payment of headage grants have also been provided by my Department, as I mentioned earlier, to enable farmers to secure adequate winter fodder for their livestock.
The joint committee quite correctly refers in the report to the over reliance of hay as a winter fodder. There is, indeed, a lesson to be learned from the experience of 1985. Nowadays, with all the experimentation going on with AFT, on the inexpensive ways of making silage, there is no excuse for taking the risk of putting all your eggs in the one basket of haymaking when, with an ordinary mower and a square baler and some silage additive, good silage can be made. There is really no excuse. With a view to encouraging the making of silage I am providing worthwhile grants under the recently announced farm improvement programme for silos and silage bases and also grants in the west of Ireland for basic silage making equipment. In the west, reliance on hay is traditional but this outlook must be changed if we are not to have future fodder problems when summer weather is unfavourable.
In the final analysis the main objective of almost all the measures was to prevent panic selling of livestock by farmers who feared that they would be unable to feed their stock over the winter months. To date there has been no evidence of farmers being forced to dispose of cattle because of insufficient feed. In November-December 1985 cattle slaughterings were only slightly up, 8 per cent on the corresponding levels in 1984 and this increase was largely due to additional demand from meat factories which were filling contracts for aid for private storage. In the first three weeks of this year, slaughterings have been on the same level as in the corresponding period of 1985. Prices for cattle have also remained quite stable throughout the whole period.
I feel sure that this House will agree that the measures adopted were comprehensive and far-ranging and designed to meet the needs of a variety of different types of cases. I believe that the vast majority of farmers are satisfied with the operation of the various schemes and that they have resulted in a substantial improvement in the fodder of the thousands of farmers who qualified for assistance. I feel sure also that they must be regarded as meeting almost in their entirety the views expressed by the joint committee whose work in this matter I must commend.
Next week, for the information of the Senators, the comprehensive announcement on the grants will be made. They will be comprehensive. We welcome any advice or help we can get from the Opposition parties. Everybody, whatever side of the House his is on, is working in the interests of the farming community. I would have to say, however, that in November 1982, when I inherited my responsibilities for the horticultural industry, I was landed with a very difficult scenario. I had, for instance, a situation at that time of Irish farmers dumping Dutch potatoes into the sea. That was the chaos I inherited; that was the chaos which prevailed. I also inherited the situation where, in the previous two or three years, probably one of the finest horticultural processing plants in Europe had been folded, in probably one of the best growing areas in Europe, the Carlow area. That is the sort of scene it was.
I was hardly hot in my chair when my own East Cork Foods factory was closed down. Fortunately, due to my efforts and the help and co-operation of some very willing companies from overseas and at home, we got that factory going again. Within the last six to eight weeks we had another closure on our hands, that of the Erin Foods plant in Mallow. I am happy to be able to announce to the Seanad this evening that, as a result of intensive activities over the last couple of weeks, peas will be growing again in Mallow in this season. We will be re-opening the Erin Foods plant in Mallow. Maybe we are not talking enough about what we are doing but a lot of things are happening. For instance, as Senator Quealy rightly pointed out, we set up the National Potato Co-operative. The National Potato Co-operative is exactly what Fianna Fáil are talking about in their document. It is already set up. But I would like to appeal to the Fianna Fáil people to ask farmers, even at this stage, to become members of the co-operative.
We brought legislation through this House with regard to the registration of potato growers. The response has not been as good as I would like. We would ask people on both sides of the House to appeal to their constituents and colleagues to become registered, because if they are not registered as growers they cannot sell their potatoes. The National Potato Co-operative, as Senator Quealy pointed out, has set up a marketing arm within the last couple of weeks. The marketing arm will be Kinsealy Farms, FII, together with the Sugar Company and the farmers themselves, with a base in Carlow and probably storage and packaging facilities in Carlow as a start.
We also set up a National Horticulture Co-op, funded by the State. We are at present paying for their marketing manager: very shortly we will be paying for their chief executive until such time as they get rolling. They will have to concentrate their efforts on the Dublin area. I regard these things as being like an acorn — perhaps not as slow growing as an acorn — but certainly as a seed planted in the ground and you are not going to have an oak tree next day. Progress is slow but sure. There are other areas in horticulture, for instance the glasshouse industry, to which not enough attention is being paid. It was in a total shambles when I took over, there was hardly any heated glass. Fianna Fáil came up with the suggestion of cheap gas. We explored every angle in Brussels on that suggestion. Apart from the fact that there are very few glasshouses anywhere near a gas line, it is totally against EC policy. The one country that is doing it is at present before the courts on the basis that it is not appropriate and represents unfair trading. We decided that by far the most sensible way to approach this was to grant-aid all glasshouses, existing and new, for conversion to solid fuel. All solid fuel units will be grant-aided this year. That is the correct approach.
There are many other things happening in the horticulture area to which perhaps we are not paying enough attention. What is happening is comprised in a business-like, comprehensive programme. We are already roping in ACOT and An Foras Talúntais. It is not appropriate to set up another semi-State body. We are putting the onus on the farmers to set up their own co-operatives. We will fund-aid them and give them the priming grants.
It may be very misleading when we hear about the imports of vegetables. Our single biggest imports at present — which I am trying very hard to rectify — are potato chips. They are worth about £27 million. I have visited America on two occasions to encourage a multinational to come here. I cannot move any faster than they are prepared to move on this. After that the problem of looking after the import of vegetables will be quite small. It will be basically related to providing vegetables in an off-season period. We will have to look to the peninsula areas of County Kerry and County Cork and forestry areas in order to do that. We do not have the climatic advantages of the Dutch, the Spanish or the Mediterranean nations for growing. We have the advantage of being an island nation. I am confident if we continue along the lines we are going, with the support of the Opposition, progress will be made. We must be very careful in anything we do in horticulture that we do not put existing growers out of business by going headlong into over-production or into wrong types of production.
Question put and agreed to.