Deputy Creed was in possession but I understand he is not resuming. Deputy O'Toole will resume the debate. We will finish the debate on this Supplementary Estimate at 8.35 p.m. and we will allow 25 minutes for debate on the resolution.
Supplementary Estimates, 1980. - Vote 39: Agriculture (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1980, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain subsidies and sundry grants-in-aid.
—(Minister for Agriculture).
A Supplementary Estimate has always been regarded as a parliamentary device to tide us over the last few weeks of a financial period. However, it must be pointed out that an enormous sum — in the range of £450 million — will by tomorrow evening have been put through this House in the past fortnight. I do not think Supplementary Estimates were meant to be used when amounts of this size are involved. They were meant to be used in the event of unforeseen circumstances, where over-expenditure was inevitable because of something outside the control of or unforeseen by a Department.
There has been a considerable abuse of this device during this year. A note of warning should be given because we are not getting adequate time to debate the pros and cons and the reasons for this additional expenditure. It should have been included in the budget this year but because of miscalculation or because of a deliberate cut by the Minister for Finance to give the impression that things were better than they were, we were led to believe that £X million would run the show. Now we are finding it is taking £X million plus £Y million — £Y million being £450 million. The most cynical aspect of all of this is that it was probably a deliberate act on the part of the Minister for Finance and the people who advise him to give a false impression. Now Minister after Minister has trooped into this House seeking amounts that total £450 million.
On the Supplementary Estimate now before the House, it gives us an opportunity, short though it may be, to discuss agriculture and the crisis in that industry. In the recent past we have not seen such an outburst of dissatisfaction, frustration, disappointment and hopelessness as exists among the farming community today. This affects large and small farmers. I have been throughout the country and I can tell the Minister that there is a deep sense of dissatisfaction from County Wexford to County Mayo. It covers the entire spectrum of agricultural activity, from the small fragmented farms to the large and so-called well-off farmers in the east and south-east.
About five weeks ago after making an inquiry with the Minister's office I made a statement in relation to delay in payment of headage grants. Despite the fact that there was an increase in the grants negotiated by the Minister, I pointed out that at the time of negotiating the increases he had failed to get an increase in the ceiling price per acre, which was then £12. At the time I was accused of untruths by some of the Minister's colleagues. They published a statement saying what I had stated was untrue but in the next sentence they said the Minister was in Brussels negotiating a deal that would take note of this ceiling and, hopefully, would increase it. When I made that statement the ceiling was what I said it was. Since then it has been raised to £18 per acre which will give the small farmer some chance of availing of the full grant provided he has the necessary number of qualifying units.
I never thought I would see the degree of dissatisfaction that there is at present. The large meeting which was held in Limerick recently is indicative of that dissatisfaction. A strong Government supporter said to me, in a very naive way, that all the people in Limerick at the meeting were anti-Government people. It is very easy to point the finger and say these demonstrations are motivated by political feelings. They are motivated by economic demands on the people involved who see no light at the end of the tunnel.
The Minister said he would try to relieve the hardship which now faces the agricultural community. Yet he and his party trooped up steps last week to oppose a motion put down by Deputy Bruton and Fine Gael which was specifically tailored to make some effort to relieve the very hardship the Minister says he is seeking relief for, which relief so far has not transpired apart from a few peripheral suggestions and schemes he brought in in the late harvest—£20 per ton for fertiliser for first-time silage makers. In relation to this scheme and the costing of it one wonders what allocation finds its way into the pockets of the producers. A major fault with schemes up to now has been that they have not concentrated on the producer and, to a large degree, do not find their way inside the farm gate. There are people between the producer and the consumer who reap a rich harvest from schemes that are introduced. The only way relief can be seen to be having an impact is when it is directed solely to the producer.
The difficulties which farmers now face were expected by many of them. Ample warnings were given that unless corrective action was taken things would get worse. Yet there was a blatant failure on the part of the Minister to take the kind of corrective action which was obviously necessary if the farming community was to be in a position where they could look to the future with confidence. Confidence has been eroded and they wait for some form of relief from the Minister and the Government who pride themselves on having the problems of the farming community at heart.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to face the Minister for Agriculture.
So am I.
Despite the fact that the Minister has been in constant contact with farming organisations it is obvious that there is no communication between them and the Minister. The Minister can go into a room and have a so-called discussion about the very serious problems facing agriculture but the Minister seems to be turning a deaf ear. He should come down to one of the marts in Fermoy, Midleton or Mallow and there he would hear the true facts which are very disheartening and disappointing.
There is a complete lack of confidence in the agricultural industry and nobody can deny this fact. Farmers are facing very grim problems. There has been a drop of 50 per cent in their real incomes in the past two years. Inflation may be one of the major factors in this because input costs have gone up by 30 per cent. It is unfair to ask anyone, farmers included, to produce goods when they are not getting a fair return for their efforts and time. Nobody wants to produce goods at a loss and this is what farmers are being asked to do at present. It is alright for the Minister for Finance to say to them not to cut down on their use of fertiliser but if the Minister had to buy fertilisers he would know the necessity for cutting down on their input.
The banks and lending agencies who were such good friends to farmers when agriculture was better than it is today should play their full part in financing farmers and being more sympathetic to them. They and the agricultural institutions should come together and put some of their profits into the reclamation of all marginal land in the country. It is estimated that half the land is marginal land.
Exporting beef on the hoof is shameful. What we are doing is exporting jobs which we can ill afford when one considers that there are 120,000 unemployed and that 38,000 of these are under the age of 24. Surely the Minister must keep these people in mind and surely they can expect some future in their own country.
That the agricultural industry is so bad at present is a very serious matter especially when one considers that 22 per cent of the population are directly involved in farming and a further 18 per cent are involved in spin-off industries relating to agriculture. The Minister should make every effort to rectify the position and not turn a deaf ear to the farmers' complaints. He turned a deaf ear last week when Deputy Bruton produced a six point plan—the abolition of rates on agricultural land; the abolition and refund of the resource tax; the abolition of the bovine disease levy; an interest subsidy for farmers; a tax free allowance on breeding stock and stamp duty relief for young farmers. It was put on the table for the Minister but we will remember at the next general election that Fianna Fáil said no to all these points and I hope the Minister will remember it also.
I was in the Grand Hotel in Fermoy yesterday and the then Minister for Labour, Deputy Fitzgerald spoke about the future of agriculture. I thought he was referring to one country and that I was thinking of another. The way he saw agriculture and the way I, a rural Deputy, see it are two completely different outlooks. I know there is complete lack of confidence among farmers. The Minister will have to come up with something constructive to help farmers to recover their confidence.
I should like to thank all the Deputies who spoke for their contributions to the debate. It would be too much to expect that I would agree with all that was said, especially from the other side of the House, but I appreciate that the many contributions from all sides of the House indicate great interest in agriculture and its expansion and well-being.
However, I should like to deal with some of the more detailed matters that were raised in this, the budget debate on any Supplementary Estimate so far. It has extended over four weeks.
First of all, I want to point out that in recent months the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and I have had a number of meetings with leaders of the farming organisations to consider what could be done to improve farm incomes through national and EEC measures. When introducing the Supplementary Estimate I outlined to the House the series of measures the Government have taken to help farmers. Some Deputies opposite described these measures as useless and inadequate. Far from being anything of the kind, they represent a real effort in the present difficult financial situation to help the agricultural industry and to do so in ways that would best assist those most in need of assistance. The size of the Supplementary Estimate, almost £40 million, clearly reflects the extent of the Government's effort, and it should be remembered that this sum does not include the £6 million or so represented by the concession on rates to farmers in the £40 to £60 rateable valuation category.
The discussions with the farming organisations are continuing, and I want to assure the agricultural community of the Government's concern about the agricultural situation and of their determination to do what they can to help farmers to overcome current difficulties and to bring about the expansion in agricultural production which is so important not only to farmers but also to the entire national economy.
One suggestion made by the farming organisations — namely, the devaluation of the Irish green £ — would, to say the least, present considerable difficulties. At present there is no scope for any significant alteration of the green £ without a change in the central exchange rate for our currency. The latter, of course, cannot be contemplated. A green £ change by itself would run counter to the whole philosophy of the Community's agri-monetary system and indeed of the common agricultural policy generally.
It is correct, as Deputy Bruton said, that the UK and Ireland have had different green rates for some time past. The reason for this was that, when both pounds floated downwards and substantial MCAs arose, we moved faster than the UK in reducing and subsequently getting rid of the MCAs. At that time we were not creating new and bigger MCAs but were moving in the direction of abolishing them. This was fully in line with the whole theory of MCAs, which are intended to be applied on a temporary basis while green rates are brought into line with foreign exchange market rates after the latter have altered.
The kind of green £ change now being suggested by some interests would, however, go in the opposite direction. It would create artificial new MCAs solely to give Ireland a higher level of prices. Naturally, I would be very happy to secure a price rise for Irish farmers in any way open to me, but one must be realistic. It is necessary to consider how other member states and the Commission would react to something which would be completely contrary to the whole philosophy of the MCA system. Could the Commission propose something which would run counter to the principle of market unity and common prices? Could Ministers from other member states, which also have difficulties in regard to farm income, agree that Ireland would be taken care of in a manner contrary to the Community's agri-monetary system, while nothing would be done for their own farmers?
We are, however, examining various other possibilities, particularly in an EEC context. I have very much in mind in all of this that Article 39 of the Rome Treaty specifically provides that one of the basic objectives of the common agricultural policy shall be to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community. Mainly because of diverging inflation rates this aim is not being achieved in this country at the present time. Neither is it being achieved in some of the other member states. I recently met Commissioner Gundelach and I have put a range of suggestions to him aimed at dealing with the present income situation of our farmers. As I have already told the House, the Commissioner was receptive and sympathetic, and he undertook to examine forthwith ways and means of relieving the situation. Arising out of our meeting discussions are proceeding at high official level.
In this debate Deputies opposite painted a picture of deep gloom and depression. They could foresee nothing in the future of agriculture except worsening conditions and increased problems. Deputy Barry said she could not see any light at the end of the tunnel. I do not deny that agriculture has been passing through a difficult time. Indeed I have been saying so for many months, but the position is not helped by spreading despondency and fear.
Some Deputies opposite referred to sales of livestock by farmers in order to buy food for their families and tended to convey the impression that this was happening on a widespread scale. It is, however, necessary to consider all the circumstances of any individual case in which livestock have been sold. For instance, I myself have heard of cases where farmers with substantial holdings bought further lands on the basis of heavy bank borrowings, and as a result they are now in financial difficulties. I would, however, ask Deputies opposite whether they consider that the taxpayers should be asked to provide money to help those farmers to hold on to the lands which they bought and which might otherwise have enabled small farmers to reach viable levels.
The impression given by Deputies opposite was that there had been widespread sale of breeding stock to help to feed farmers' families. I do not accept that and I do not think the farming community throughout the country would accept it.
The IFA are saying it.
It is necessary to consider the circumstances in which livestock have been sold. I have heard of farmers who own substantial holdings buying further land and who are therefore in financial difficulties.
Is the Minister saying they are the only farmers in difficulties?
I am saying there have been others.
Is the Minister saying that the only farmers in trouble are those who bought land?
I said that some of the farmers who are in trouble had bought land.
Does the Minister consider this to be relevant?
Deputies must allow the Minister to conclude.
It is just as relevant as some of the statements made across the House that willy nilly farmers around the country were selling stock to feed their families.
Deputy Bermingham is another Deputy who said it. It is true.
The Government are much more concerned about the situation of farmers who borrowed to develop their existing holdings and who now find themselves burdened with interest payments and unable to obtain the necessary working capital to run their enterprises efficiently. These are the farmers who deserve sympathy and help, and it is primarily to assist this type of farmer that the Government arranged that money would be borrowed abroad by the banks and the ACC to lend to farmers at attractive rates and also that these financial institutions would do something about re-structuring loans for farmers in the kind of situation I have just outlined.
The loans have not been taken up.
The Deputy will be surprised that they are being taken up. The Government provided these facilities with the banks and the ACC. Some Deputies claimed that Continental interest rates for agricultural purposes were very significantly lower than those payable in this country. Where this happens it is partly the result of a generally lower level of interest rates. Also, in some member states assistance under the Farm Modernisation Scheme is given in the form of an interest subsidy rather than in the form of a capital grant which we provide here. If they so wished, farmers here could get an interest subsidy instead of a capital grant, but I think that the preference of Irish farmers throughout has been for the grant.
On interest rates generally, the Government, as I have said, arranged with the ACC and Associated Banks to make money available from foreign borrowings at attractive interest rates. As much as £100 million is being borrowed and this will be made available to cover a wide range of capital investment including, in particular, the provision of additional working capital where the farmer's own funds are seriously depleted.
How much is taken up?
I am satisfied that it will all be taken up.
But we were told that only £20 million has been taken up.
This shows that the Government have tackled in a very positive manner the problems of capital for investment.
Regarding the exchange risk guarantee on these borrowings, the residual risk is being carried by the Government. Deputy Bruton and others have criticised the arrangement, but I would ask him if he objects to farmers getting money at 13 per cent as compared with a rate here of 18 per cent or so at the time, and with about 16 per cent now.
Similarly with rates, the Deputy seems to regret that the Government gave relief to farmers in the £40 to £60 R.V. category. The farmers concerned have no such regret and certainly would not describe the relief as useless, as some of the Opposition Deputies did.
We certainly did not regret the relief being given.
Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
I am prepared to leave the judgement to Irish farmers and I know they are accepting them as such.
A number of Deputies referred to matters relating to the Land Commission and to the price of land. These matters do not arise on the Vote for agriculture. I should like to say, however, that I was rather surprised at the suggestion that taxpayers' money should be used to help people who had bought land at £3,500 per acre. It seems to me that the purchasers concerned and the financial institutions who provided money so readily to finance such extravagant purchases should work out their own salvation. In so far as State assistance can be made available for agriculture, it should be allocated to more deserving borrowers and for the development of agricultural production.
Reference was made to boosting the national cow herd. Deputy Callanan made quite a number of suggestions for the development of agriculture. This was in sharp contrast to the absence of practical ideas from the other side of the House. I agree with Deputy Callanan that putting a stop to the export of young cattle is no remedy for the destocking problem and that a far better solution is to provide a direct and positive incentive to producers by way of increased headage and suckler cow payments as we have already done. In the ongoing discussion with farm leaders and with the EEC I will be seeking other means to assist the livestock industry.
That has changed from the time the Minister jailed them and when the present Taoiseach jailed them.
Whatever might be said about the suckler schemes, farmers who increased their suckler herds will get £57 for each extra cow in the disadvantaged areas and over £25 for each extra cow in the rest of the country. Time will show the results of these worthwhile incentives. All Deputies in the House should hope that the results will be favourable rather than condemn them. Deputy Bruton maintained that other member states were paying the national element as well as the EEC element. In fact France and Ireland are the only member states who are paying any additional suckler cow grants out of national funds.
Regarding the disadvantaged areas, Deputies are aware that the Government have been pressing for an extension in the boundaries for quite some time. This matter has recently been considered by the Standing Committee on Agricultural Structures in Brussels. I expect the final step of a Commission decision to take place very soon and I will then be in a position to make a statement on the detailed changes which have been worked out with the EEC Commission.
I think it was Deputy Kenny who raised the question of the timing of inspections under the various headage schemes. In view of the number of such schemes at this stage and the huge amount of inspection work involved, my Department are at present examining how best to arrange a better spread of inspections over a much longer period of the year. It is, of course, necessary to carry out inspections at times which will not interfere with the marketing of cattle by farmers but I am, in any event, hopeful that it will be possible to have more streamlined inspection arrangements introduced in the coming year.
In relation to what Deputy O'Toole said earlier about the increase in the limit per acre under the headage grant scheme, I want to make it clear to him that the increase in the headage grants and the increase in the limit per acre were negotiated with Brussels at the time of the announcement on 12 September last to enable us to pay to the maximum number of farmers the upper limit of the new increases.
Deputy Bermingham was very critical of the Dairy Herds Conversion Scheme. We in this country have never encouraged farmers to use this scheme but some farmers want to go out of dairying and they are entitled to EEC money if they meet the conditions laid down. This scheme, however, is designed to reduce the milk surplus in the Community and so is very much in our interest and especially in the interest of our milk producers. It has succeeded in having fairly substantial numbers of cows slaughtered in some member states and this will be of benefit to this country in reducing the size of the overall Community milk surplus. Many people are asking for the information so let me say that the closing date for conversion scheme is 31 March next and the non-marketing scheme, the second arm of that scheme, is discontinued since September last.
Deputy Deasy and others were concerned about the fact that our milk price was only 78 or 79 per cent of the target price in the EEC. It was not today nor yesterday that this situation arose. It has been there for quite some time. It is a pity it is there and we will all look for ways to resolve it. Indeed, Bord Bainne, the milk processing industry, the farmers and the Agricultural Institute are co-operating in a study to identify the factors responsible for this gap. I hope they come forward with suitable conclusions and corrections of that situation.
Deputy Taylor raised the question of imports of New Zealand butter to the Community market. The New Zealand economy relies heavily on earnings from butter exports and this fact is widely recognised within the Community. While I would like to see any special arrangements for imports of New Zealand butter coming to an end, political reality makes this impossible at the present time. My main concern then is to ensure that any new import arrangement should be for considerably smaller quantities than provided for previously and that the import arrangements do not undermine the Community market. This has been the main thrust of the stand I have adopted in the Council discussions on the issue. The examination of the problem is continuing and I am hopeful that a satisfactory solution can be agreed.
There were also references to the new Common Market system for sheep. I am satisfied with the way in which the new system has been operating since it began on 20 October. Market prices have been somewhat better than expected. As a result, the amount of the ewe premium could now be somewhat less than anticipated. We originally estimated that the ewe premium would be about £3.50 per ewe for the half year to April next. The premium is to cover any losses to producers arising from changes in market prices as a result of the new system. As prices have been better than expected, the ewe premium may be less, but we shall have to wait and see how prices develop over the coming months.
They are not as good as a year ago.
Still on the subject of the ewe premium, I would like to emphasise that the premium will be paid only on good quality ewes. The premium should be used to promote improvements in both numbers and quality.
Deputy O'Donnell inquired about grants for sheep producers. Grants under the normal farm modernisation scheme are, of course, available to them and, in addition, under the new western package there will be grants of 70 per cent available for the division, fencing and surface treatment of commonage and for the fencing and surface treatment of hill and mountain pasture. Grants of 40 per cent will also be available for buildings and equipment. Grant aid will also be available for group projects for dipping and shearing facilities, and for individual and group projects for accommodation of sheep during winter.
Deputy Bruton raised the question of farmer investment at present and suggested that the high level of payments under the farm modernisation scheme this year represented work which was commenced a long time ago. In fact, approvals of new projects for land improvement and buildings which were issued by my Department in October and November were at roughly the same monthly rate as in the previous quarter and also as in this quarter of last year. This shows that farmers are continuing to make new investment in their enterprises and have confidence in their future.
Deputy D'Arcy claimed that grants were in some cases held up for one, two or, he said, even up to four years. That could not be the case. I am sure he realises that grants cannot be dished out on a kind of slot machine system.
They were, in Donegal.
We have an onus to see that any moneys spent on behalf of the taxpayers are properly used. Grants are subject to certain conditions that must be met before payment can be made. If grants are delayed because specific conditions are not met, then the remedy for those delays rests with the farmer himself. As far as I am concerned, it will always be my aim to have all grants which are properly due paid out within the shortest possible time. The normal period taken for the payment of claims for farm works which have been inspected and passed is four to six weeks, and this is the standard which we seek to observe.
Deputy D'Arcy suggested that there was a note of pessimism in my reference to the disease problem. On the contrary, I am very optimistic, especially about brucellosis. In the case of bovine TB, it is not that I am pessimistic, I am simply impatient as I think any responsible person concerned with farming should be. I want to see both TB and brucellosis cleared quickly. In particular I do not want us to fall into the trap of becoming complacent, as may have happened before when we seemed to be on top of the TB problem. It is now when we are at a critical stage of the programme that we should be going all out to rid ourselves of these diseases once and for all.
The Deputy mentioned the importance of disinfection on farms where disease is found and I agree with him. Farmers are advised about the kind of disinfection that should be carried out in every case. The Deputy will appreciate that it is not possible to stand over every farmer to see that the job is done properly, but I will see what can be done to help generally in this area.
Deputy Donnellan referred to the role of badgers in the spread of bovine TB. As of now, I have no evidence that the badger is a major factor in the spread of this disease. All carcases of badgers received in my Department's laboratories have been, and will continue to be, examined for the presence of TB. Only a small number, however, have been found to be infected with this disease. There is continuing close co-operation on the badger problem between officers of my Department and officers of the Forest and Wildlife Section, as well as with persons experienced in this species in other countries.
Deputy Fox raised the matter of dogs attacking sheep in areas close to towns.
Foxes and badgers.
The enforcement of existing legislation relating to dogs is a function of the Garda Síochána and if any Deputy has any specific complaints or proposals in this matter he should bring them to the attention of the Minister for Justice for consideration. I would not agree with the Deputy's view that the law is always on the side of the owners of marauding dogs. A flock owner has the right to shoot a dog he finds on his land worrying his sheep and he has a good defence in law for so doing. Apart from my Department's function under the Rabies Order, 1976, which relates to controls on dogs in the event of an outbreak of that disease, I have no statutory function in respect of stray dogs.
Deputy Donnellan complained that some sheep dips used in his area were ineffective. This matter is being investigated by my Department. If any Deputy has a specific complaint about any particular sheep dip he or she should inform my Department, indicating among other details whether the dip in question was used for the prevention of sheep scab or the control of maggot fly or other sheep parasites.
Some Deputies referred to the volume of food imports. I certainly share their concern about the extent of imports of food products that we could produce here. Of course, much of the food products imported consist of fruit and other products which we ourselves do not produce but there is, at the same time, a disturbingly high level of imports of products that we are quite capable of producing ourselves. In some of these cases it is possible that the products are being imported in some way under unfair conditions but that is far from being the whole story and much of the answer to the flow of imports is to organise and produce similar products efficiently in this country and market and promote them effectively.
Deputy Hegarty advocated large scale market intervention for horticultural produce. There is already provision for market withdrawals by recognised producer groups of certain fresh fruit and vegetables such as tomatoes and apples to restore the market balance when prices have dropped to a low level. This facility has been availed of on occasions by our producer groups. I would point out, however, that for perishable produce which cannot be stored in intervention for later sale, it would be impracticable and undesirable to have a widespread operation of market intervention.
In the vegetable processing sector, the industry throughout western Europe has been experiencing a phase of economic difficulties in recent years and unfortunately it is not possible for us to insulate ourselves from the effects of these.
The future of the horticultural industry as a whole is at present under detailed examination by the Horticultural Development Group which I have set up under the aegis of my Department and which includes all sections connected with the industry.
Deputy Fox expressed concern about imports of Cyprus potatoes. As he probably knows, since the implementation of the EEC Plant Health Directive in May last we cannot prevent these imports. They are, of course, subject to a duty of 9 per cent and this goes up to 21 per cent if the potatoes are imported directly into Ireland. The proposed common organisation of the market for potatoes should provide better safeguards for our growers against competition from other countries generally, but it will not have any impact on imports from Cyprus.
With regard to improving the presentation of our own early potatoes, my Department will do everything possible to assist producers in this matter and I am hopeful that impending EEC regulations will also be helpful in this respect.
Will the Minister keep the promise he made to set up a potato marketing board?
The Minister without interruption, please.
That organisation is under discussion and we will deal with it when the time arises. Contrary to what has been said on the other side of the House, there is no question of a cut-back in the provisions for education and advice. In fact, there is an increase in expenditure on these services. Between the funds provided directly in the main Estimate and in the Supplementary Estimate, the county rates contributions and balances accruing to ACOT from county committee funds, the total this year is well up on 1979 — £15.2 million as compared with £21.7 million. Because of the fact that the transfer of functions to ACOT took place during the year there are a number of savings and deficiencies on various subheads but these are offset in funds made available under subhead B.7 and otherwise. This situation applies in the current year only and, as I said earlier, all ACOT expenditure will be covered in one subhead in future. However, I want to be quite clear on this year's position. Total expenditure on education, advice and training, is well up on 1979 and there is no question of a cut-back.
Deputy Bermingham raised the question of imports of feed from abroad which are affecting the market for Community cereals. I fully agree with his opposition to the imports of third country feed products such as manioc, and I have repeatedly criticised such imports in the discussions in the Council of Ministers. At a recent meeting of the Council Commissioner Gundelach outlined the results of discussions he had had in Thailand which will bring about a reduction in supplies of manioc from that country, which is the main source of supply to the Community.
I have covered a number of the points which were raised in the debate. I readily admit that the agricultural industry has been passing through a very difficult time but the industry is basically sound and the huge investment in it, especially during the past five or six years, puts it in a position where it is better able to cope with the current problems and will be able to expand again as soon as conditions improve.
Live horse and you will get grass.
I have every confidence in the underlying strength of the industry and I assure farmers of the Government's intention and determination to continue to look after their industry, which has made and will continue to make such a huge contribution to our entire national development and progress.
Vote put and agreed to.