I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian O'Shea, and his officials who will deal with queries today. As members are aware, the Glackin report was referred to this Committee for consideration. To date we have had five meetings on the subject and we adopted an interim report on it outlining the limitations imposed by our terms of reference and the lack of the appropriate expertise available to us. Subsequently, a position paper was prepared by an official in the Department of Enterprise and Employment and a further paper is imminent from the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. In addition we have been promised assistance from the Department of Finance on taxation aspects and the issue of freedom of information generally. I propose to hold further meetings on this matter in September. In our interim report we reserve the right to engage independent consultants. I now request the formal agreement of the Committee to seek specialist legal advice to assist us in our consideration of the information we will have received from the Government Departments. I will need your approval before we can engage a legal consultant, which will have to be a senior counsel.
Glackin Report
Was this discussed at an earlier meeting?
We had five meetings.
Was the appointment of a legal adviser discussed?
No. We have the right to seek such advice if we so wish but I will need the approval of the committee before doing so. We feel that it is desirable that we do so.
Who is the "we" to whom you refer if it is not the Committee?
As Chairman I have to take the initiative on this and I am now formally putting the proposal to the Committee and it can reject it if it so desires.
I am not a permanent member of the Committee but am a substitute. I am just seeking information as to whether the Committee discussed the question of appointing a legal adviser prior to this.
Yes, we have discussed it but we have not made a decision on it. It is up to the Committee to decide whether we seek this advice. I am seeking its approval to appoint a legal consultant to examine the reports we have received to date so that I in turn can present them to the Committee for consideration.
I propose that we appoint a consultant.
Who will pay the costs involved in employing this person?
This office.
Do you feel it is necessary that we must appoint somebody?
Yes.
We continue to go down the road of report after report and investigations.
In our consideration of the matter during the five meetings we had we could only go so far. We could not compel witnesses as they would not enjoy privilege at meetings of the Committee. We requested from various Departments the secondment of people with expertise in a particular area to examine the Glackin report and present reports to us. Before we present a final report we need legal opinion to see that what we are presenting is within the law. It is in everybody's interest for us to engage a legal consultant. Have we a seconder for Deputy Molloy's proposal?
I second the proposal.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Can any State office, such as that of the Attorney General, provide advice without us having to bring in outside consultants?
The Attorney General's office advises the Government. The appropriate office is that of the Ceann Comhairle but he does not have legal advice available to work on our behalf.
Surely it behoves the Government to look at the question of legal advice so that we could minimise our costs and give the best service possible. The policy of the Government is not consistent on this issue. There are no hard and fast rules laid down for committees like this to get advice. This is a deficiency in the work of the Committee.
I agree, but the committee system is just evolving and we will discover many shortcomings. Early on it was obvious that we could not summon witnesses and this presented a problem for us. People other than elected representatives do not enjoy privilege. We are learning on a daily basis. The committee system is the first major change in the procedures of the Dáil in over 70 years and we will come across problems like this from time to time. The Glackin report was referred to this committee for consideration and we were given very little direction beyond that. We are now trying to report back to the House and we feel that in order to ensure that everybody's interest is best served, it will be necessary for us to employ a senior counsel to advise us on that.
Before we commence consideration of the Bill we should agree on a timetable for today and tomorrow. I understand that we will have to complete our deliberations by tomorrow as Report Stage is being taken in the Dáil next week. I have reason to believe that there is agreement among the Whips in that regard. In addition, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry is taking questions tomorrow afternoon and in order to facilitate spokespersons, it is desirable that we finish by midday tomorrow. I suggest that we extend this session this evening, if necessary, to ensure that we will finish by midday tomorrow. Does anybody have any ideas about when we should finish this evening?
I suggest that we break for one hour for an evening meal at a time to be determined by you — say 5.30 p.m. or 6 p.m. — and then come back for as long as we can. There is a chance that we might complete the debate tonight. I do not know how contentious some of the amendments will be, it is very hard to say how long it will take.
Amendments have been tabled by Deputies Doyle, McManus, Molloy and Dukes. Do any of those Deputies have a prior commitment — for example, on Private Members' Time — which would compel them to leave here at any stage?
I would prefer if Committee Stage could be concluded today and support Deputy Doyle's proposal.
That we would have an open ended debate this evening and continue until we conclude?
If that is possible.
I suggest that we break from 6 p.m. until 7 p.m. and then continue on. We all have to be here until midnight anyhow. Is that agreeable to the Minister and his officials?
That is agreeable to me.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
An Bord Bia Bill, 1994: Committee Stage.
The Bill provides for the establishment of a single food promotion agency, known as An Bord Bia. Its functions will be those currently exercised by Córas Beostoic agus Feola, CBF, the food marketing and promotion functions of An Bord Tráchtála, ABT, and the export market development functions in relation to edible horticultural products of An Bord Glas. The Bill also provides for the dissolution of CBF and there is a provision in section 9 which could accommodate the transfer at a later date of the export market development functions of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, as recommended by the expert group on the food industry.
Part I of the Bill contains fairly standard provisions relating to the short title, interpretation of the main terms used, the making of ministerial orders and provision for expenses incurred in the administering of the legislation to be made from voted moneys. Part II deals with matters relating to the establishment, organisation, procedures and functions of the new agency.
Part III deals with levies on livestock and agricultural products. This Part is largely based on existing legislation relating to CBF which will become inoperative once An Bord Bia is established and CBF dissolved. Part IV of the Bill deals with transitional provisions. The Schedule of the Bill deals with the form of adhesive stamps to be used to show that levies on livestock exported live have been paid. It also deals with the documents to which these stamps should be affixed. The Bill contains 54 sections and one Schedule.
Before we commence consideration of the Committee Stage of the Bill, it should be noted for the record that, in addition to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, the following Deputies have tabled amendments: Deputies Doyle, McManus, Molloy and Dukes.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 16, after "fish" to insert ", poultry, rabbits, deer".
This amendment is necessary to provide for the charging of levies, if required, for the products mentioned, namely poultry, rabbits and deer. This relates to the levies as per section 45 of the Bill.
I have one general question. The Minister feels that it is necessary — and I do not disagree with him — to specifically mention poultry, rabbits and deer. Would that exclude other meat or livestock products on which a levy might be imposed later? Does this definition have to be very explicit? Surely the word "meat" would cover a range of meat products.
My advice is that in the context of agricultural products as distinct from meat products, it is necessary to specifically include the reference to poultry, rabbits and deer so that section 45 could apply to them for levy purposes if necessary. It is possible that in this context we might want to charge the levy on the live animal rather than on the dead meat. It is an agricultural product in that context.
I have an amendment — I do not know if the Minister will accept it — which deals with horse meat. The Minister might feel I am being provocative or going down a dangerous avenue here, but I feel very strongly about the interests of the welfare of culled horses. If he accepts my amendment, horses will also have to be mentioned in this amendment if he feels it is necessary to mention every type of livestock or meat product.
There is a great deal of cruelty in this area. There is a huge outcry against the live export of horses, which I fully support. We need to slaughter animals humanely nearest the point of production when they reach the end of their useful life. The meat will not be eaten here; it will be exported. This is an area which is in need of immediate development. I have mentioned this to CBF. If the Minster accepts my amendment No. 4, would it be necessary to include a reference to horses in the amendment we are discussing now?
I would have a difficulty with that because there are other agencies involved with horses, as distinct from the animals about which we are speaking here. Our general trade in horses, whether it be thoroughbreds, show jumpers or whatever——
I am not talking about eating our show jumpers.
We have to get back to this amendment.
With respect, Chairman——
I hope we are not going to start off on a note of discord. I am in order. We are dealing with amendment No. 1. I assure the Deputy that she will have ample opportunity to discuss amendment No. 4 when we reach it.
I understand what the Minister is saying, he has obviously been advised that there is a need to specifically name all the produce or livestock. I ask him between now and Report Stage — when we will have dealt with my amendment No. 4 — to consider whether it will be necessary to specifically mention horses. I am talking about the humane killing of horses which are being abused in this country at the moment or are being exported live, which is unacceptable. If that is to be encouraged we will quickly be in a situation of levying horse meat. It would have been the responsibility of CBF which is now being abolished. Horses will become a marketing matter because chilled horse can be exported to France and Brussels. There is not a market for it here and there will not be one in the foreseeable future. I ask the Minister to examine this point between now and Report Stage and come back with an opinion on it.
I have no problem looking at it between now and Report Stage. We can develop this issue in the general context of a later discussion.
While horse meat would not rate too highly on a list of food in Ireland, it is eaten in other countries where I have seen horse meat shops. Deputy Doyle's point is that it might be as well to include it in the Bill rather than have a case taken against the Minister later. While I accept the Minister's point, it is important to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Deputy Doyle made a good point. I have seen these shops in other countries. While it might sound strange to us where we have a choice of food, horse meat is considered to be part of a staple diet in other countries. I support her view.
I ask the Deputies to take their fences one at a time rather than jumping ahead. Is the amendment agreed to?
Yes, subject to the Minister coming back on Report Stage on the point we have just discussed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, subsection (1), lines 21 and 22, to delete the definition of "edible horticultural produce" and substitute the following:
"‘edible horticultural produce' means fruit and vegetables, whether fresh or processed, including potatoes, herbs, edible fungi and nuts, and also includes honey;".
This amendment is necessary to ensure that the interpretation or definition of edible horticultural produce corresponds to the interpretation or definition in An Bord Glas Act, 1990. The difference effectively is whether produce is fresh or processed in the context of fruit and vegetables.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 29, after "state," to insert "inedible food ingredients".
The definitions in this Bill are precise and specific and exclude certain categories. I proposed this amendment to ascertain whether the Minister accepts that it might be necessary to make this specification in the context of inedible food ingredients which largely relate to the dairy industry and may increasingly do so in the future. I would be interested to hear the Minister's views.
I take it that the definition of inedible food products means something one could not eat. Essentially the food products emanating from milk can be eaten but may not be consumed until they are added to another product later. However, when I examined the section in the context of the Deputy's amendment it occurred to me that there should be a comma after "drink" in line 28. If it were included the Deputy might be happier with the definition as it would then read: ""food" means edible products, including drink, whether in an unprocessed, processed or composed state..." I will introduce that change on Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 3, after "deer," to insert "horses,".
This amendment asks the Minister — at the risk of going over ground we have discussed — to include a reference to horses with bovine animals, sheep, pigs, deer, poultry, rabbits and goats in the definition of livestock. There is a major problem in Ireland because of a glut of poor quality horses and no markets. There are slaughter facilities in this country which humanely kill animals which are, to use the vernacular, well past their sell by date.
There is a market for horse meat abroad although not in this country. Chilled horse meat commands a significant amount of money. If we had a quality produce here it would also take care of the problem of the humane slaughter and neglect of unhealthy animals. It is possible to open up markets and reduce the unwanted emphasis on live export of animals.
Our policy must, from the point of view of the welfare of animals, be to concentrate the slaughter of all animals as close as possible to the point of production. That is not the responsibility of An Bord Bia. However, it would be the responsibility of An Bord Bia to market, promote or help develop the export of chilled horse meat to countries where there is a demand from the consumer — God help us; everyone to their own.
There is a demand in certain countries and by helping to promote the market for chilled horse meat, we would be taking an enormous stride in terms of the welfare and neglect of horses who because of age or injury, are of no use in this country. They are being abused through sales in urban areas and are being sold for next to nothing to people who do not know how to look after them.
There is a serious possibility of developing an export market for chilled meat. It was an issue that CBF could have taken on board and An Bord Bia should not treat it lightly. The commodity is not in demand in this country, therefore there may not have been enough research into the possibility of serving the markets abroad.
Serving markets abroad would immediately increase the through put in the slaughter facility that exists in this country. We only have one slaughter facility and we need another to ensure that those who are having animals slaughtered get a reasonable return for the cull value of their animal. We should encourage the humane killing of animals.
Horse owners find it difficult to even humanely kill them. Horses are left suffering in fields or neglected because their owners do not like the concept of humane killing. It is in the interest of our horses to humanely end their days rather than have them suffer. We could simultaneously develop a real market abroad by offering a quality Irish product. I ask the Minister to consider this in the interests of animal welfare and developing markets abroad. We have not even researched the possibilities presented by the chilled horse meat market. The meat processing industry would also benefit if horses were included in the livestock definition.
I have given considerable thought to this area, particularly in the context of this amendment. The mandate of An Bord Bia will be a generic type of marketing based on a clean, green environment, an excellent product and so on. I have some personal reservations about including horses. Would we have a premium and excellent product? There are certain aesthetic arguments in terms of the general attitude of Irish people to horses. I accept the welfare arguments advanced by Deputy Doyle. In the context of the undertaking I gave in the context of the first amendment I will examine the issue further and come back to the Deputy on Report Stage.
I will withdraw the amendment with leave to re-enter it on Report Stage.
If the amendment was accepted by the Minister on Report Stage would it not also require a change in the definition of "meat"?
Obviously if we decide to go down that road provision will be made for any consequential amendments.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 10 and 11, to delete "Agriculture, Food and Forestry" and substitute "Tourism and Trade".
This amendment is slightly provocative and there is little chance that the Minister will entertain the possibility of accepting it. Certain sectors of the food industry argue strongly that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry is the wrong person to have authority over a food board. They hold that one cannot serve two masters and that the interest of the agricultural producer is not always the same as the interest of the consumer or processor.
I tabled the amendment to elicit the Minister's views on why he as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry is the best person to promote An Bord Bia. A convincing case was made to me recently which outlines the dilemma. It would not suit our poultry producers if a food processor established a facility in Ireland which produced, for example, chicken pies and which wished to source its raw material from abroad instead of from this country. The suggestion is that there would be a conflict of interest for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry between serving the best interest of the food processor who seeks advice from An Bord Bia and the agricultural producer or, in this case, the poultry producer. Is there not a serious danger of such a conflict of interest? Why should the Minister for Trade and Tourism not be the Minister to promote a marketing board such as An Bord Bia?
I support this amendment although I do not expect it to be accepted by the Minister. However, he has a strong case to answer.
Many of us awaited the publication of this Bill with anticipation. We hoped the Minister would prove the critics wrong. There was a sense of disappointment to see in the Bill that lessons had not been learned. We need a board that will understand the necessity for a market driven food industry so that the industry can emerge from under the domination of agricultural producer interest. It is indicative of the problem that the Minister is Minister for Agriculture and Food, food being the secondary aspect of his responsibility.
This board should be the responsibility of the Department of Tourism and Trade. Apart from the question of the existing imbalance in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, there would be less chance of duplication. Two bodies under two Departments operating on common ground in certain areas, particularly abroad, does not encourage good practice and almost inevitably means duplication. The Minister must indicate how he will prevent duplication occurring between An Bord Bia and Bord Tráchtála.
It is logical that the Department of Tourism and Trade should be responsible for this board. If we are to market our exports in a way that will compete with tremendously powerful interests abroad, that would appear to be the way to do so.
Deputy Clohessy made the same point on Second Stage. The Bill was introduced by the wrong Minister and the Minister referred to in the Bill is the wrong Minister. The Minister for Tourism and Trade should be charged with responsibility for An Bord Bia instead of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
We support the minority report of the expert group on the food industry. The report was submitted by Senator Feargal Quinn. He said:
Except in one fundamental respect, I agree with the thrust and the detail of the group's recommendations. However, I must disagree with the proposal to keep responsibility for food within the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
The structure would make it impossible ever to develop the food industry from a perspective that is market driven. Indeed, I believe that the main reason why our consumer food industry is still so underdeveloped — less than 5 per cent of overall food exports — is because our entire thinking about it has been from a production rather than a market perspective. Our starting point should be to accept that in the consumer food area we have failed. .........
So long as food is a function of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, food will remain subordinate to agriculture. At best, our vision for food will be restricted to the agricultural horizon. At worst, food will be allowed to develop only to the extent that it serves the needs of agriculture. This, I suggest, is what has been happening up to now.
The chairperson of the expert group was the secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and it is a long standing practice among senior civil servants not to relinquish any of their Departments' responsiblities. It was to be expected that Mr. Dowling would recommend that the function would remain the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. However, it is the wrong approach. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. It is critical to the success of An Bord Bia that it be removed from a production Department such as the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and be given to the Department of Tourism and Trade which is a marketing Department. The best interests of the food industry are not being served by the Minister's proposal to retain this marketing function within the remit of his Department.
It was reported that there were internal Cabinet battles about this issue and that they were won by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. That might be a pyrrhic victory. The Minister might have won a political battle but the food industry has lost out. The Minister should reconsider his attitude and re-allocate the responsibility for implementing the otherwise commendable provisions in this Bill.
We should not consider this issue in the context of battles. We should consider it in the context of how we can best serve the food industry in the creation of wealth and, most importantly, in the context of job creation in that industry.
The Culliton report and the expert group report on the food industry, both of which were endorsed by the Government, recommended that close links should be maintained between the producer and the processor. This matter was discussed at great length by the expert group when it was preparing its report. In the end there was one dissenting voice about what Department should have responsibility for An Bord Bia. The amount of work that has been accomplished by the department of food since it was established in the Department of Agriculture in 1987 has been important and has helped to develop the Department in general. We can easily belittle that achievement. However, tremendous progress has been made.
The food industry is different from other industries in the nature of its raw materials and the supply of such materials. One can look at the recommendation in the expert group report relating to beef and the seasonality problem in that sector. It recommends a target of a 20 per cent kill in each of the first three quarters of the year in order to create more stability in the supply of raw material to the processors. This development will also make employment more secure in the meat industry because that is not always the case. It ebbs and flows in terms of the supply of the raw material of cattle. This type of link in the food industry does not apply to other industries. Deputy Doyle gave us an analogy about someone coming here to get involved in processed chicken. It is not in the interests of the economy to import raw material. It is better that the raw material——
Now the truth is out. The Minister has taken my bait.
The Minister is in order.
He has just proven my case.
It is not in the interests of the economy to go outside it for raw materials, although it is necessary in some cases. For example, certain food ingredients, which are necessary for some products, are not produced in this country. The nature of the food industry means that the necessary linkage between the processor and the consumer is important.
The thrust of the expert group report relates to the consumer-led industry. Any industry which does not respond to the quality and the price which consumers want will not succeed. The necessary link, in terms of the supply of raw material, continuity of supply and the nature of the product we are dealing with, makes the food industry different from other industries.
The Minister has inadvertently proven the case I was trying to make. There is a conflict of interest between serving the best interests of farmers and farm producers, in terms of the raw materials they supply, and serving the consumer, food manufacturer or food processor with cheap raw materials so that the product can be as competitive as possible on the market from the consumer point of view. I want farmers to get as much as they can and consumers to get the best value.
I recognise the conflict of interest in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, which is the authority over An Bord Bia. It is not a farm production board, it is a food board and must be consumer or market driven. If food processors can source their raw material abroad more cheaply to have a cheaper product for the consumer's disposable income, they will not be encouraged to do so by a food board which is the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, whose prime responsibility is to farmer producers. I ask the Minister to recognise the conflict of interest, although I do not know how it will be resolved. It will not be resolved in the interests of food processors or consumers.
An Bord Bia is being set up to service the farmer producers supplying the raw materials. I understand their need, but we should be honest about what we are doing. We are not setting up a food board. One cannot serve two masters and, therefore, there is a conflict of interest. If a chicken pie manufacturer can produce chicken pies more cheaply by sourcing its raw materials outside Ireland, An Bord Bia will not encourage him to buy his raw material abroad. It will encourage him to buy from the poultry suppliers here. How can it serve two masters? I ask the Minister to consider my point, which has been made more eloquently in other Chambers. The success of An Bord Bia will depend on the resolution of that conflict and I do not know how it can be resolved. It will not be resolved in the interests of the food producers and consumers.
The achievements of the food section of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry since 1987 are not visible. This Bill is the most tangible evidence of what has been achieved and is a missed opportunity.
Is Deputy Doyle suggesting that the poultry industry should not be protected? At present, products cheaply produced are being dumped on the Irish market, to the detriment of the people employed in the industry and of those producing for the industry. The consumer is not getting a good deal because most of the products are not fresh. They are already chilled because it is cheaper to put such goods on the market. However, this does not benefit anyone and the Deputy's colleague should know about the difficulties in his part of the country where these products are being dumped on the market. As a result, a number of producers and growers are suffering greatly. While there may appear to be a conflict of interest, we must look at the overall situation and if the producer, the grower and the people employed in the industry need protection, that should take precedence over other considerations.
I agree with everything Deputy Fitzgerald said. He supports the case I made about the difficult conflict of interests for An Bord Bia. This board cannot serve the best interests of the farmer producer in the poultry or any other sector, while at the same time, serve the best interests of the food processor or food manufacturer. Perhaps there is a case for two different bodies, one to look after the interests of the farmers producers, who need looking after, particularly in the poultry sector, and the other to promote food processing and the consumer market. I cannot see how the one master, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, can do right by our farmers, while at the same time do right by our processors who want raw materials at the cheapest price. With the Single European Act and the free movement of goods and services, processors are entitled to bring in their raw materials, subject to the import regulations, from their own sources. Deputy Fitzgerald supports my case by pointing to the difficulties experienced by those in the poultry sector. The Minister cannot serve both masters.
There is a difficulty in this area and the establishment of An Bord Bia, as described in this Bill, will not resolve it. There is a fundamental weakness in the Bill in the description of the functions of the board, which seems to operate like an overgrown advertising agency. It does not set out a policy for the development of the food industry so that we could avail of the opportunities and protect the existing jobs in the industry which are and will be under threat. A development policy is missing and this is central to the requirements of the board. This is a weakness in the Department.
In my limited experience, although I learned a lot since I came into this House, the Department's policy seems to be to look after the farmer and implement EU directives. No serious thought has been given to this Bill as regards a policy for the development of the food industry. If there had been, it would have been easier for the Minister to defend himself against the criticism of such people as Senator Quinn, who made powerful arguments. The answers are not in the Bill. We are merely getting a limited response which deals solely with marketing, promotion, better quality publications, etc. It does not deal with the central issues raised today. Part of the difficulty is that the Bill is insufficient. It would still be insufficient if it had been introduced under the other Minister. I will discuss this point in one of my amendments.
We need to define what we are talking about. An Bord Bia will be a promotion and marketing board for the Irish food industry and as a State board, will not be able to sell, that will be done by the companies concerned. An Bord Bia will do what CBF has done in the beef area, it will open up markets, develop market intelligence and do promotions. An Bord Bia, as developed by the expert group and, indeed, by the Culliton report has a specific purpose. It is not a developmental agency, there are other developmental agencies for the food industry and, indeed, Forbairt is there for all industry. There will be links with the Department and Forbairt, which was part of the IDA until recently, in terms of developing the industry.
An operational sub-programme has been submitted to Brussels for the food industry, broken up into a number of sections in the context of an overall policy for the industry. The development role involves Feoga and Forbairt funding. Money would also be available for commissioned or in-company research. As we tended to be commodity producers, we face a problem as a result of CAP reform and because intervention will no longer be available as a market outlet. We must now sell our produce and to do this, must develop a wider portfolio of value added products.
On the developmental side and in terms of the private sector, moneys will be available in the operational programme for in-company and commissioned research and development in the context of developing new products. Recently I announced that £7 million will be available this year for research for the public good, which will be carried out by institutions such as the National Food Centre, Moorepark and the universities. The value of that research will be available to industry at large, but we must rapidly become value added competitors on the European market and sell our product.
There is now a limitation on the amount we may produce because of quotas. We must maximise the value of the product as it is and get into the market. I reject any insinuation that there is not an overall policy for the food industry in the Department. However, we must not confuse things, An Bord Bia has a specific developmental and marketing role. The most important aspect of which will be in the markets, identifying products which our food manufacturers can manufacture and supply at the quality and the price which will sell to the multiple and, indeed, the independents in Europe. Our peripheral location and the fact that we are an island nation adds to transport costs. Therefore, not alone must we be as good as the others, we must be better.
Deputy Doyle spoke about existing tensions. I am talking about a board which does generic type promotion, which opens up markets for quality Irish produce and which gets that image across in important markets in Europe — the markets we will pursue. We must open up the ground for the manufacturing sector to take up those markets with the support of An Bord Bia. We need to be clear in our appraisal of the situation. In areas like the food industry where there are many links, I believe - this is not because the expert group almost unanimously decided this — it is proper and appropriate that both should reside in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
Deputy Doyle put her finger on it when she said the European consumer will decide. If we do not produce the quality and the price acceptable to the European consumer, we - or the producer - will not make progress in the industry. We should look with confidence at our producers and their excellent produce, including dairy and beef products. Manufacturers have made tremendous progress in the markets and this needs to be restated with support, financial and otherwise, from the Department and CBF. There was tremendous progress last year in getting our product on to commercial markets in Europe. We must push other people to do that because the market outlet which had been available, intervention, is no longer available.