Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Dec 1985

Vol. 362 No. 14

Levy on Slaughtered or Exported Livestock Order, 1985: Motion.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Deasy)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Córas Beostoic agus Feola Act, 1979 (Levy on Slaughtered or Exported Livestock) Order, 1985

a copy of which was laid on draft before Dáil Éireann on the 13th day of December, 1985.

It is proposed in this order to increase the levy payable to CBF in respect of cattle and sheep slaughtered within the State or exported live. The present rates at 70p for cattle and 7p for sheep have remained unchanged since 26 July 1982. The new rates proposed are £1 for cattle and 10p for sheep. Section 28 of the Córas Beostoic agus Feola Act, 1979, provides that orders increasing levies payable to CBF may be made only after a resolution approving the new rates has been passed by each House of the Oireachtas.

Córas Beostoic agus Feola is a statutory body which replaced Córas Beostoic agus Feola Teoranta, a company limited by guarantee, in 1979. Its purposes are, broadly, to promote the export of cattle and sheep and their meats, to provide promotional and marketing support to exporters and to promote beef, mutton and lamb on the home market. Its activities have included intensive promotion of vacuum-packed beef on the German and United Kingdom markets, as well as a continuing emphasis on market intelligence work.

CBF have drawn up this year a corporate plan for the period 1986 to 1990. The plan recognises that in those years our livestock and meat producers are likely to find themselves operating in an increasingly competitive market both in the EC and in third countries. The plan stresses greater penetration of EC markets, a broader market base in third countries and greater added value in the products and by-products exported. It envisages an enhanced guidance and leadership role for CBF. In my view, CBF are correct both in their market assessment and in their choice of overall strategy. CBF have two sources of income, an Exchequer grant-in-aid from the Vote for Agriculture and the proceeds of levies on cattle and sheep slaughtered within the State or exported live. It is estimated that in 1985 income from the levies will amount to about £1,300,000 while the grant-in-aid will come to £787,000.

The CBF corporate plan for the years 1986 to 1990 envisages a significant increase in funding to enable them to expand and develop their promotional work. The Estimates for 1986 provide for a grant-in-aid of £1.1 million for CBF which represents an increase of almost 40 per cent over the 1985 level. That increase demonstrates the Government's commitment to the marketing of our meat and livestock and to the activities of CBF in particular. CBF have consulted producer and trade interests and they have agreed to increase the levies as their contribution towards expanded activity by CBF. The draft order now before the House will give statutory effect to this increased contribution. It will raise the levy on cattle from 70p to £1.00 and that on sheep from 7p to 10p. The new rates are expected to yield an income of £1.8 million in 1986, which with the £1.1 million from the Exchequer will give CBF a total of £2.9 million next year, as compared with about £2.1 million this year. I propose to bring these rates into effect on 1 January 1986.

This is probably the most progressive step that could be taken regarding the marketing of Irish beef and lamb abroad. CBF have come in for a fair amount of criticism in recent years. A great deal of this criticism is unfounded. They have been doing an excellent job with relatively limited resources and their board are to be commended. I experienced their work at first hand when major contracts were signed in Iran and, more recently, in Egypt. The effort put in by personnel from CBF was quite outstanding and we owe a large amount of our success in those areas to the work of this body. The value of these markets runs into hundreds of millions of pounds and in view of the highly competitive nature of the beef business, particularly in third countries, it is vital that we have a strong State marketing unit.

By its very nature the beef industry in this country is somewhat splintered in its effort. We have a number of private concerns who do very good work. The competition between them is very intense and we need a body to oversee the work of individual traders and processors. CBF do this work admirably.

There are complaints at times of sharp practice by some traders in quoting for contracts abroad. It was difficult to adjudicate on the merits of these complaints but CBF keep people informed and maintain a certain balance where competition might become less than friendly or even quite dangerous. Undercutting can lead to all sorts of problems and people abroad may feel that some of our traders are not being totally fair with them.

The countries to which I have referred, as well as other countries such as Libya and Algeria, are used to dealing on a state-to-state basis. They do not have private enterprise as we know it and like to deal with a company which has State involvement. CBF play a vital role in harmonising and synchronising that type of involvement by a large number of individual processors and traders. The increase of 40 per cent is quite spectacular as it went from £2.1 million to £2.9 million. It arises from the plan which was drawn up by the board of CBF some months ago which was presented to me and to the trade generally. The trade welcomed the proposal with open arms as they did the procedures through their various farming organisations. They all agreed that it is a good idea.

I am particularly impressed that CBF in recent times have tended to send more and more people into the market places throughout the world in a more aggressive marketing fashion which is badly needed. We have not been noted for our ability to market our products although they are the best in the world, especially our beef which is probably the best. However, our marketing skills leave something to be desired. I see an immense improvement in the efforts being made by CBF in this regard and I am sure that as a result of the extra moneys being made available there will be a far greater number of people travelling abroad and selling our beef all over the world. We have tapped a number of markets but there are more which, with additional personnel, could be worked on. This money is intended to help to put more people in the field to exploit markets which we have not been able to do up to now because of the lack of personnel caused by shortage of money.

Some people maintain that CBF, besides marketing beef and lamb, should also market bacon and pork, or pigmeat, as it is generally referred to in the EC. There is a certain amount of relevance in that statement because the State marketing body for pigs and bacon were not a total success and have gone out of existence. There is need for a centralised marketing body for the pigmeat industry. Following the collapse of the State backed body due to certain peculiar circumstances, the pigmeat industry set up a private company to co-ordinate centralised marketing. That body was successful for a short period but they, too, fell by the wayside because of financial problems. Perhaps we should look at the question of including pigmeat in the terms of reference of CBF and I will give it serious consideration over the coming months. With beef and sheepmeat already in train there should not be any great difficulty in taking pigmeat aboard and it is an interesting possibility for 1986.

I strongly recommend that we agree on the proposed new rates. They are necessary in view of developments within the EC. We must sell our beef; we know already that there is a threat to the intervention system as we have known it over the past number of years and if that threat materialised it would cause very serious problems for the beef industry here. I say it is a threat because, contrary to reports and statements, it is not a definite proposal by the Commission but there is some movement within the Commission to reduce the amount of money spent on intervention. There is no smoke without fire. We may know a little more about that suggestion after tomorrow's meeting in Brussels of the Council of Agricultural Ministers and there may be a proposal put before the meeting, although I am not sure. However, people in this country may rest assured that we will oppose any move to eliminate intervention as we know it or even to reduce its impact. Because of the seasonal nature of our beef production the elimination of intervention or any limitation in that regard would cause huge problems for the beef industry. We have enough problems without draconian measures being taken by the Commission. In recent times, particularly in our third country markets, there has been very strong opposition from some countries which have not been able to compete with us because of the value of the export refund system operated by the EC. Certain South American countries are willing to sell beef at almost any price in order to get these lucrative markets. We found on our recent visit to Egypt that there was very strong resistance from the South Americans. They had a very serious drought in the late seventies and early eighties which decimated their beef stocks and, as a result, were not a significant factor in world trade since then. They have now reappeared on the scene and their rates are extremely competitive. Our foreign beef contracts are certainly under threat because of the competitive nature of the South Americans and certain East European countries who can afford to market beef at very low prices. It is imperative that we provide extra finance for CBF so that they can take on these people and also explore new markets because, apart from the Middle East and North Africa, I am confident that there are in other parts of the world further lucrative markets which we have not fully tapped.

With the aid of this money the expanded role of CBF will do a tremendous lot of good for the beef and lamb trade. I have not made much reference to lamb because that market, so far, has been significantly restricted in that France is our largest export market. We sell a certain amount to Belgium and a small amount to Germany but apart from those EC countries the export potential of lamb has been quite limited. It will be interesting to see if we can sell lamb in third countries or other EC countries. We face very strong competition from New Zealand who can produce lamb at a very low price compared to EC countries.

The lamb markets, particularly in France, are very lucrative and with the reduction in the variable premium system operated by the British, those markets will become more attractive to Irish producers as time goes by. The reduction in the variable premium happened only in the last few weeks and we will be demanding its total elimination in the forthcoming price negotiations. That has created an unfair competitive aspect in the French market and when it is eliminated, there will be a very bright future for the sheep trade.

Overall, there is a very bright future for the beef and sheep meat trade with extra money, as is being provided here today, being made available. I strongly recommend that the new rates be adopted by the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Before calling the next speaker I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that proceedings on items Nos. 13 and 14 must be brought to a conclusion not later than 1.30 p.m.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): I hope I will have an opportunity to discuss the motion on disease levies. We welcome these proposals and support them. It is significant that we have co-operation from all parties concerned. The producers through their various organisations are prepared to co-operate in the funding of the scheme and the trade are prepared, through their representation on the CBF, to promote the sale of sheep and sheep meat more vigorously and more positively.

I am willing to support this motion because the Minister is prepared, through the Exchequer, to increase funding by 40 per cent in the 1986 Estimates. I am encouraged by the farming organisations' agreement to increase their share of the funding for CBF from 70p to £1 per bovine animal slaughtered or exported and from 7p to 10p per sheep. We will go a long way to assist CBF in their promotion of Irish beef and lamb. I am glad the Government have shown an equal commitment to this great industry by substantially increasing their share of the funding. It is encouraging to see co-operation between all the parties concerned. I commend this very welcome trend and hope it will progress into many other spheres of Irish life, particularly the agricultural sector. This type of co-operation and agreement will go a long way towards helping us achieve the aims and ideals we wish for. This augurs well for the future.

It is well to remember that this industry is one of our major export earners worth in excess of £540 million annually, a significant sum. It might be said that this industry has been forced to struggle along year after year with a paltry budget and minimal Government support. Compare the total CBF budget, which was less than £1.5 million but which is now being increased to a reasonable level, with the marketing and promotion budget of a typical major dairy co-operative, where it can be upwards of £1 million, and one will clearly see that CBF have done a very good job over the years with very insignificant funding. They are being asked to market and promote Irish beef abroad but they are not being given sufficient funding to do the job.

CBF have done good work in the past and it is important to remember that such an organisation require people with expertise in the marketing field. I want to pay tribute to the former director of CBF who unfortunately had to leave that post and is now working in an area which may not be compatible with the work of CBF. Nevertheless, I welcome the appointment of the new director. Hopefully with the restructuring of CBF and increased funding, he will be able to carry out the work which is so necessary in promoting and marketing our meat products.

I also welcome the increase in the value of our beef exports but we must remember that the industry is grossly under-developed. The value added is very low, our employment levels are also low, and employment in the meat trade generally positive promotion of this worthwhile I is unsatisfactory and the jobs are insecure. That is not conducive to the positive promotion of this worthwhile industry. We are operating in a market where supply exceeds demand, where cheaper options such as pork and poultry are becoming more popular and where financial support for the Common Agricultural Policy is becoming more difficult to guarantee. All of these matters have to be carefully considered and analysed. By meeting these difficulties we should be encouraged to adopt a more vigorous and positive approach in the promotion and marketing of our meat products. We should also ensure that we will have a greater value-added content in respect of our meat exports. This will lead to increased income for the producers and more employment for the workers in the industry.

The major strides in exports in recent years have come as a result of markets being obtained for boneless and processed beef, especially the vacuum-packed variety. The future of our beef industry lies in this area. There is a market of premium retail outlets for boneless beef in the EC. It is a market waiting to be tapped by us and servicing this market could secure a more stable and profitable future for the producers, the factory workers and all engaged in the industry. It will be a difficult role to fill but it will be very rewarding for CBF. Having regard to the restructuring that has taken place in the CBF and in the light of their programmes and their development role in the next five years, I have no doubt that CBF will market and promote our products in the best interests of the industry at all levels.

We must get away from our lazy dependence on commodity production. There is money to be made for producers, processors and for the State if we put a strong emphasis on added-value. We know that high quality boneless beef has a ready market. However, the lower quality cuts from carcases deboned can be further processed into other added-value products such as canned meats, beefburgers, mince meat and even pet foods. Each stage can bring more jobs here, on the farms and in the factories.

The beef industry is no different from any other industry in that it needs an encouraging climate in which to thrive. This puts a considerable onus on the trade unions, the financial institutions, the trade itself and on the State. All must play their part if the massive potential of the industry is to be realised. Emphasis on its development must come in the first instance from the industry itself. The people concerned must recognise the futility of relying on commodity trading. They must be made aware of the major benefits to be obtained by putting increased emphasis on added-value. Those benefits can include job security for people already in the industry and also higher living standards and a higher level of employment. All of this is something worth working for. While the impetus must come from the industry, the State has an important supportive and enabling role to play. CBF must be given an adequate budget to get into the market place and obtain sales. They should know that their funding will be guaranteed for a four or five-year period so that they may plan ahead and sustain the momentum of any marketing campaign. CBF are the main marketing arm of the industry abroad and they should not be denied the tools to do the job.

I wish to reiterate what the Minister said, namely, that it is important to have an organisation like CBF to promote markets on a state-to-state basis. Most of our third country markets will only operate on that basis. Therefore, it is important that the funding of CBF should be guaranteed not only for this year but for the period of their programme. The Department of Finance should not be allowed to dictate on a year-to-year basis how much agencies such as CBF should be given. The Government must make a commitment to the projects in which they believe and make the money available. If they believe in the beef industry, as we do, they should have the courage of their convictions and back the industry to the maximum. The returns will be there in more jobs, more exports and more revenue for the Exchequer in the future.

Again, I commend what has been done by the trade and by the producers. I congratulate everyone concerned for coming together to ensure a worthwhile and positive approach. Now we will come against more competition within the EC and also greater competition in the markets in third countries. However, we have the expertise to combat this competition and the quality of our produce is second to none. Side by side with the promotion of the quality of our produce we must remind potential customers that our produce comes from a country of green fields and unpolluted clean air. Many other countries throughout the world do not have these things and we should be always ready to publicise this. Our promotion programmes should emphasise that our meat is without the residues of antibiotics.

I have referred to the importance of value-added which will continue to be important if our producers are to benefit from better rates. Agencies such as CBF must involve themselves in the promotion of value-added and this will help us to meet the changing needs of customers, which are changing all the time.

It is important also that we employ people with research expertise in all our product development campaigns so that we will always put on the market place produce suitable for and acceptable to consumers. The Minister spoke about the importance of having export personnel in the market place and I agree wholeheartedly with him. In this connection I would throw out some food for thought, that experts employed in marketing and promotion should be given some incentive over and above others because of the unsocial hours they have to work and the amount of travel they must do away from their homes and families. I suggest that the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, should give some tax incentive to our marketing experts in respect of the period they spend away from home.

Another suggestion worth considering is that we should give our embassies abroad a marketing arm, particularly in third countries. I suggest that we have marketing experts attached to our embassies which need all the support they can get to monitor markets which show promise and to report back immediately to CBF so that we will be there with our produce to meet markets as they arise.

We should also have a more positive approach to meat produce displays at press conferences, particularly in our embassies. We should ensure that we will have full displays of Irish food products. I am afraid we are falling down badly on this when we compare our efforts with displays of other countries like Denmark and the Netherlands. They arrange worth while displays of their produce. CBF and other agencies should look at this.

I have been speaking of meat promotion campaigns in new markets. The Minister spoke briefly of pigmeat and said he was looking at its importance. I suggest that CBF should produce a brief for the Minister on it so that we could decide how best to tackle pigmeat promotion.

Last night the Minister spoke of inspired leaks from the EC Commission with regard to possible restrictions on intervention, particularly for beef. Though one would be very slow to talk about inspired leaks because they may not be of any great significance, nevertheless we must monitor the position carefully to ensure that our interests will not come under attack once again as did our dairy produce through the super-levy. It is highly important that although intervention has formed a base for our product development and has given floor prices for our meat, we must look further afield to markets in third countries which can be picked up if we are prepared to involve ourselves more and more in value added. The Minister will have the full support of this party in his efforts to ensure that our interest in meat production will be pushed against any proposals coming from the Commission concerning intervention. He must pursue any proposals that would affect our interests and oppose them with all the resources at his disposal. Our meat trade must be protected.

Perhaps, too, we should promote more vigorously the production and marketing of sheep meat. We must increase our sheep numbers if we are to take advantage of the market prospects. Sheepmeat is one product of which there is not an over-supply in the EC. However, if there should be in the future any restriction on the supply of sheepmeat we should be prepared for that eventuality by keeping our sheep numbers at a maximum. In other words, we should keep our numbers of sheep at sufficiently high levels to ensure that if restrictions or quotas are imposed, we will not lose out.

Again, I commend the producers and CBF as well as the Department for the co-operation that has been achieved in respect of this increased funding. We support the motion.

Mr. Farrelly

I welcome the proposal to increase for 1986 the levies for CBF. Some may say that in the long term the farmer will be the sufferer once again but we must not lose sight of the importance of the increased contribution from the Exchequer which will bring to £2.9 million compared with the 1985 figure of £2.1 million the amount available for the promotion of our beef products and sheepmeat both on the European and world markets.

Recently the Chairman of CBF said that the board were being starved of the finances necessary to undertake the promotion work that is needed but this contribution increased is a recognition of the importance of promoting the sale of our agricultural produce. Indeed, we need only have regard to the overall return to the Exchequer in terms of exports to realise the extent of the contribution that has been made by CBF since their establishment in 1979.

The Minister tells us that we must consider the possibility of the involvement of CBF in the sale of our pigmeat. It has been stated here, too, that the organisation who were involved in that role have failed in the past number of years. This raises the point of different organisations being involved in the sale of similar products. This is a very expensive procedure. Surely the better approach would be to engage more expertise in the pigmeat area for the purpose of promoting the product on the world markets. The same should apply to any of these organisations. Any one structure such as CBF should be capable of promoting and selling a large number of our products.

Since 1974 remarkable success has been achieved by individual entrepreneurs in the beef business in Ireland. A large percentage of the beef processing plants was owned by two or three families but it is good to know that some other entrepreneurs have become involved in the beef business and with a good deal of success in a very short time. They have been helped by CBF in the marketing of the products.

Reference has been made to the markets that are available for boneless beef. For a long time we failed to explore that possibility but it can be said that today our set-up in that regard is as good as any to be found in Europe in terms of the availability and the quality of the cuts we market.

It is regrettable that the farming organisations who own their own plants are not seen to be at the forefront in terms of making a profit from these plants. One thinks of the case, for instance, of one such organisation who had two plants in operation and who were doing very well but who then went into decline. One must ask why those businesses did not continue to prosper as the family businesses had prospered. It must be said, shamefully, that the lack of proper management and of the ability to sell the products in the market place was a major contributing factor to the failure.

A person with a product to sell cannot expect someone on the end of a phone in a foreign country to buy that product. All the business interests involved in pig marketing are out on the job. A recent report showed how the two biggest beef factory owners in the country spent more than 50 per cent of their time in Europe and other countries selling their product with the help of CBF. Private individuals have made great strides in the development of beef factories in the last number of years. I put it down to their ability to market the product and also to CBF, who over the last number of years made a significant contribution in that area. To effectively market our products is the only way in which we can compete with Europe and stop the cutting of intervention, which will badly affect our beef market and the amount of capital coming into this country. I am glad to hear the Minister say that the cutting of intervention is only a possibility and not a certainty.

We all recognise that the big contributors to the CAP — Germany, France and Britain — want the CAP changed and updated. A few weeks ago I represented the chairman of the Committee on Public Expenditure at a meeting in Paris where we talked about financing Europe and the problems countries were having in that area. I do not envy any Minister representing our interests in Europe, when ordinary members are saying that there must be cutbacks in the CAP. Our farming organisations have a forum in Europe in which to defend the value of CAP to this country. It is clear from meetings in Europe that the big powers would rather pay farmers to produce nothing than to put goods into intervention. That is the battle we have on our hands in relation to protecting farm incomes.

The proposals by the Minister to increase the money to CBF in 1986 to £2.9 million is an important step towards helping the beef industry increase markets abroad. The board, under the new chairman, will take very important steps. The chairman has recognised the contribution made by the Government, considering that for the last number of years money was scarce, by increasing the money available by an extra 40 per cent. That must be seen as an important contribution when most people in Europe are saying that intervention and supports for selling beef to the third countries should be reduced. I hope that at the end of 1986 this increase in funds will show an improvement in the ability of the CAP to further beef sales. We need money in order to properly market our products abroad. At the moment there are countries to which we are not exporting because we have not the money to develop the markets.

Some of the Opposition speakers suggested that we could use some of the embassies to help in this area. I am in favour of embassies being used for that purpose. The increase from 70p to £1 and from 7p to 10p looks very small, but we must take into consideration the total increase by the Government of £0.8 million, which will give great benefits. Taking that increase into consideration and the overall European problem, it is vital that all our marketing organisations get the support of the House and the country. It will be interesting to see the return we as a nation will get from the increased amount of money being made available. It will be necessary to monitor that in view of the importance of providing sufficient finance to promote our products.

CBF should also be involved in the marketing of pigmeat. Our pig producers have problems in that at certain times of the year they do not make any money and at other times they make a substantial amount. Farmers would prefer to be assured of a continuous profit than have fluctuating prices. Our ability to sell our meat abroad must be taken into consideration. The addition of a small tier of expertise from the pig producing industry must constitute a step in the right direction. I welcome the motion before the House. I look forward to seeing the benefits of this extra finance emerge.

Mr. J. Leonard

These additional moneys, plus the 40 per cent increase in grant aid demonstrates the importance at present being attached to marketing and the export of meat. The people involved in the trade, producers and others, have shown their concern by their willingness to provide additional moneys for this purpose. Indeed it is an area warranting closer scrutiny than we are doing here. Milk production having peaked, one discovers, through discussions with farmers who had set in train extensive programmes for increased production through the better usage of their land, breeding of their early stocks and so on, that they must change over to beef production. I believe this will bring about the long talked of increase in cattle numbers which we had been finding it so difficult to achieve. At present the profitability of beef production, as in other areas, is being seriously eroded. Therefore, it will be necessary to grant all possible aid in the marketing of products and in the breeding and improvement of our cattle herds. Marketing is the key to our future as a producing country, especially in agriculture and in agriculture based products.

Here I agree with other speakers who expressed the view that there would have to be greater use made of our embassies. With regard to pigmeat there will have to be a greater spread effected through agencies such as the CBF who have the marketing capacity, as has been proved, and who have received a vote of confidence from the Government, the Department, producers and others in the trade by their willingness to substantially increase their contribution. The pigmeat industry is continuously experiencing difficulties. It is an industry with great potential as far as jobs are concerned with regard to their usage of grain. We will have to increase our production of grain in order to render ourselves self-sufficient if we are also to increase our beef and pig production.

The Minister and the Department should examine the potential of poultry meat. My constituency is a leader in regard to broiler, turkey and duck production, where production has been revitalised. They have become very skilled in that they are now producing superior quality meat. Certainly that applies to the turkey meat they are producing at present. The export market for poultry meat has remained untapped. Scientific advances made in production in that field should be examined because there is great potential there. We must now produce a quality product and we are not entitled to a good price for anything less.

Over the past couple of years producers experienced great fears about the monopoly situation which appeared to be developing through our meat plants being in the hands of a few operators which could have serious repercussions on price in periods of over-supply of animals. CBF, with the proper marketing structure, should ensure that small, efficient producers with a quality product would have their produce marketed under their umbrella so that they need not experience any further fears with regard to such a monopoly situation.

In the beef production area I know the Minister of State is deeply concerned about these western measures, a few of which are of the utmost importance. Heretofore beef and cattle production tended to be relegated to second position; it was treated as the poor relation. That will no longer be the case because there is now no allowance for entrants into milk production and existing producers, with increasing costs, are finding it difficult to maintain the level of income from their existing herds. Housing for cattle is also of the utmost importance. At present 50 per cent of our cattle rather than increasing weight over the winter months deteriorate, especially in a year when winter feeding is scarce.

There are a number of priority areas warranting the attention of the Department as far as agriculture is concerned. There is much fear at present among people who undertook serious financial commitments to purchase additional land, to extend their holdings and who now find there are so many areas in which there are restrictions on production. As another speaker said, we must look beyond the EC. We must examine every possible market and area in which we can hope to sell our produce because marketing does constitute the key. The provision of these extra moneys constitutes a positive contribution to the industry.

Mrs. A. Doyle

It is commendable indeed that the board of CBF have obtained the agreement of all the various trade and producer interests represented for the proposed increases in the levies on cattle and sheep, from 70p to £1, and 7p to 10p respectively from 1 January 1986. Were we always in a position to proceed on such issues in this manner it would remove much of the contention and heat from debate in this House. The very commendable principle is being established that producers and various interests should contribute to the marketing of their product. That marketing be upgraded here is in the interests of all of us. Generally right across the spectrum in industry, agriculture and so on, marketing is the Cinderella of business here and in this area we need to strengthen our teams and forces so that we can get out into Europe, the Third World, the Americas and the Far East and sell our goods, particularly our agricultural goods. We should be able to stand in any part of the world with our agricultural produce with our heads held high. Alas, far too many countries have not had the benefit of our produce, either our dairy produce which has become synonymous with excellent quality or meat products of one kind or another.

CBF are essentially a marketing board and generally are to be commended for much of the work they have done. Only recently I had occasion to criticise the extent of their display on their stands at the ANUGA trade fair. I was quickly, and to be fair, justly reminded that their income for this year was somewhat down on their income last year. They had £770,000 from the 1985 budget compared with £793,000 from the 1984 budget. Therefore, it is easy for those of us hurling from the ditch or sitting on the fence to criticise because we felt that the display on the stands was not up to the prominence we felt it should have, when we do not take into account the figures involved and the cost of marketing. What we are doing here today will improve this situation tremendously. The income from levies alone will go to approximately £1.8 million in 1986 as a result of today's move compared with £1.3 million in 1985, which is the figure they assessed they would receive from the cattle and sheep levies generally.

I am delighted to hear from the Minister that the Estimates for 1986 contain a substantial increase for CBF. We have gone from £787,000 up to £1.1 million for 1986, an approximate increase of 40 per cent for CBF. This shows that the Government recognise the tremendous importance of marketing and the tremendous value that CBF could be to this country over the years.

Previous speakers mentioned the necessity to breed quality, particularly in the beef industry. I would like to prove that I have been consistent on this line for some time by quoting what I said on 10 May this year on the Vote for Agriculture. At the time I made the point which I make again today, that we entered the EC in 1973 on the basic premise that production would be held in areas of greatest natural resource. This was the essential principle for us as an agricultural country, a net exporting country, in joining Europe. I feel that more and more, sight of this principle is being lost in the CAP generally. We must stand our ground, and I know our Minister will stand our ground, and it behoves all of us on all sides of the House to support the Minister in his battle in Europe to ensure that as we are an agricultural country our production is kept in the areas of greatest natural resource. Apart from a few clichés which we throw around now and again, what greater natural resource have we than our grassland? Basically all our agricultural production comes back to that. Our tradition in agriculture has been based on our excellent grasslands and our temperate climate which has contributed towards them. I reiterate that we must stand firm in Europe to keep production in areas of greatest natural resource. If that is not done there was little point in us joining with our European colleagues in 1973, particularly from an agricultural point of view. I said also when I spoke on the Vote on Agriculture on 10 May last:

A national breeding programme for cattle is essential. Agriculture accounts for 25 per cent of our total exports. We are a net exporting country and cattle exports represent 19 per cent of the total. It is of vital interest to ensure that the quality of cattle produced meets the demand of the market and rewards the producer. The need to breed a specific product for a specific market is now recognised.

The Control of Bulls for Breeding contributes to this argument and I welcome it heartily. I said then:

Bearing in mind that eight out of every ten of our beef animals are exported, we must use the best genetic material available and continually select the superior bulls for breeding purposes.

The advent of the super-levy will bring about greater specialisation. We are unique in that 80 per cent of our beef is produced from dairy herds. To date that specialisation has not been evident but we will be very careful about our breeding stocks in the future. An increase in the quality of the product, namely beef, will bring about a greater return to the producer which in turn will allow for an overall decrease in subsidisation due to the independence and viability of the operation.

CBF specialise in the area of market intelligence and they have been extremely successful in that. We have had promotion teams in Egypt, Libya, Iran, Iraq, especially the UK, and Germany. Their marketing intelligence forces have been a tremendous asset to the producer and there has been a tremendous feedback to the agricultural community from the work done by CBF abroad in these areas. They produce a weekly bulletin, and they feed the Farmers' Journal on a weekly basis with up-to-date information on market interests and market reports from all round. This tremendous service is much appreciated by all in the trade from the producer at the farm gate to the middleman to the man in the factory.

Mr. Wilson

The Anglo Celt as well as the Farmers' Journal.

Mrs. A. Doyle

I thank Deputy Wilson. While we clamour for an increase in the value-added products and production from the factories to keep more of our beef at home and add value to it, and increase employment in that area, we must not lose sight of the importance of our live export trade. All we have to do is remind ourselves of the advantage the factories took of the farmers in the seventies. Indeed, that came against some of the factories in the long run, but a great many farmers were left in their stockinged feet as their stock was slaughtered for little more than nothing at the time, all due to the fact that the export trade was not operating. When some people criticise — I do not — the number of cattle exported on the hoof, we must remind ourselves that healthy competition is essential to keep production to ensure a reasonable return at the factory gate and to maintain and, we hope, increase employment in our factories.

I am conscious that many more people want to speak in this debate. I would like to make a few short points in conclusion. I hope that the increases in the levy we are allowing today and the increase in the Estimate that the Minister has announced will allow CBF to have promotions on a par with the importance of our beef and livestock industry both at the ANUGA fair next year and at the Green Week in Berlin shortly. Our across-the-counter product at these fairs is excellent, but the prominence of our stand is not sufficient and not in keeping with the importance of our production and our products in this area. Therefore, I appeal to CBF. The only criticism of an otherwise extremely good year of promotion that I heard was that we were lost on the scope of our stand in the overall scheme of things at the fair. As I said, they had a reduction in their budget this year. That has been taken care of. We have recognised the importance of CBF, but I urge all in the trade, particularly CBF, to keep our products in the meat and sheep industry out front so that we can penetrate the markets, particularly in Europe and the Middle East, to an extent even greater than we have achieved at the moment.

Since the Pigs and Bacon Commission were abolished there has been no concerted effort in the marketing of pigs. It has been left very much to the producers. I welcome heartily the consideration that pigs be included in the brief of the CBF as soon as possible. They are, after all, livestock. One has only to look at the tremendous success of the Danes in the marketing of their bacon and pork, particularly in the UK and Europe, to realise the potential of the Irish interests in those markets. The sooner we bring pigs into the brief we have here today and get our pig industry on the same platform as our beef and our increasing sheep industry in Europe and the Middle East, the better.

The sheep industry, particularly the export of live sheep, becomes increasingly important. In the last 12 months we have managed to decrease the live weight of sheep exported by three kilos, which is in the right direction.

For too long a sufficiently strict control was not kept on the type of sheep we were breeding and, in particular, the type of sheep we were exporting. Fatty sheep were being exported under the guise of lambs and that virtually destroyed our trade. Luckily that has been taken in hand and, hopefully, is being turned around. We will have to produce for the market what it demands. We have the resources, the climate and the grass to keep Europe fed when it comes to sheep and pigmeat and beef.

We should all support the motion before us and look forward to an excellent year's trading for CBF next year. I note that the latest annual report of CBF that is available is that for 1983. As we are two weeks away from 1986 I wonder why the shyness. I understand that the 1984 CBF report is with the Comptroller and Auditor General and that we will have it shortly but we should be talking in terms of the 1985 report. I support the motion before us.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Before I call on the next speaker I should like to remind Deputies that item Nos. 13, which we are debating, and 14 must conclude by 1.30 leaving 40 minutes to conclude those items. I am making a general appeal to the House in regard to the duration of contributions.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): Will the House agree to set aside a period of time to discuss No. 14?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a matter for Members; the Chair has no control over it.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): We would like to have an opportunity of contributing to that item and we would like to hear what the Minister has to say in regard to it. It would be wrong if that item was pased by the House without discussion.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture (Mr. Connaughton)

I understand that in the Order of Business the two items were taken together. I cannot interfere with that arrangement. It is a matter for the Whips.

Mr. N. Treacy

Can we agree on a 1 o'clock start for No. 14?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. N. Treacy

It appears that there will not be any Government co-operation on this matter.

Mr. Connaughton

I do not have any objection to that procedure but it is a matter for the Whips.

Mr. J. Walsh

I support the motion which proposes to give increased funding to CBF but the amount involved is ridiculously low. A total of £2.9 million Government grant-in-aid for a £1,000 million industry is ludicrous. The farming community contribute £1.8 million. In the last 12 months the bickering, ministerial interference and boardroom gymnastics in CBF were not very edifying or of any great benefit to the industry. In 1986 I will be monitoring the performance of CBF and if they do not do a better job I will be suggesting that they be subsumed into CTT so that a decent job can be done for a great industry. For a £1 billion industry to have a budget of 0.1 per cent for marketing and promotion is an indication that the Government are not serious about the industry. The sooner we get serious about farming the better. At present six or seven different levies, a form of taxation, are collected from the farming community and we have been told that it is used to promote our greatest industry, the cornerstone of the economy. Manufacturing industry gets at least 30 times that funding to promote general industry through CTT. Those involved in such industries do not have to contribute anything. The Government should look into that anomaly.

There is a need for a more professional approach in promoting our beef products. There is little hope of getting that if the budget for that work is as low as £2.8 million. Our promoters will not get anywhere at the various international trade fairs with that amount of money. That will not be of great help to them in their efforts to cover North African countries, the Middle East and the domestic market.

For our products to be successful on the foreign and home markets they must be produced and processed to a high standard. We all accept that our country is ideal for producing top quality meat products but in the market place we do not offer top quality products. Our products are not processed efficiently. Our meat plants should be allowed qualify for FEOGA grants to help them modernise and bring their facilities up to date. If that is not done there is little point in us seeking new markets. We cannot hope to succeed if the industry is inefficient and badly equipped.

It is unfortunate that in many of our hotels and restaurants meat products are not properly presented. In some cases they are destroyed. Restaurant owners, chefs and CERT could do a better job in trying to have food served up in a more palatable manner. I suggest that a national food centre be established in Dublin for the purpose of entertaining foreign delegations. In some cases it is an embarrassment to bring such people to hotels and restaurants because the meat served up on some occasions is inedible.

With the increased funding, small as it is, I expect CBF to perform better in 1986. The massive advertising campaign in the Farmers Journal is not a good way to spend farmers' money. I wonder if CBF are more interested in promoting themselves than in promoting meat products.

Mr. Sheehan

I welcome the motion and the decision to increase the levy payable to CBF from 70p to £1 on cattle and from 7p to 10p on sheep. I was amazed to hear a Member say that this would mean extra constraints on farm incomes. The increase could be described as peanuts when one takes into consideration the advantages that will accrue. The increase of 30p is a small amount when one considers the advantages that will be gained by the trade. We must realise that the future of agriculture, our most important industry, depends on our ability to sell our products, particularly on world markets. The competition on those markets is very keen and for that reason I welcome the immense improvement in the performance of CBF on behalf of our meat trade. The marketing skills of those involved in the beef, mutton and bacon trade are most important and we must bear in mind that consumers seek the best products available.

The cattle and beef sector is of vital importance to our economy, representing 40 per cent of our gross agricultural exports. It is the best sector of Irish agriculture.

Mr. McGahon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Sheehan

Nearly every farmer here produces cattle and the strength of our external trade balance depends largely on beef production and export. Technological support is vital for the meat industry, particularly beef. Any threat to it would have serious consequences as far as the incomes of farmers are concerned. I agree with the Minister that it is of vital importance for farmers that the beef production intervention scheme be continued. We differ from several of our European partners in that our beef production is seasonal. Therefore it is important when the glut comes on our market-that we should have access to intervention, otherwise there will be serious consequences. I wish the Minister the best of luck in his efforts to retain that access to the intervention scheme operating under EC rules.

Mr. McGahon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Sheehan

I want to draw the attention of CBF to the fact that Spain, which country will become a member of the EC on 1 January next, imports all her beef, as do the Canary Islands, from Argentina and Brazil. It is important that Spain's EC counterparts, in particular Ireland, insist that this situation change dramatically.

We should now have access to the lucrative Canary Islands beef trade of millions of tonnes of South American beef each year. There are hundreds of thousands of our tourists taking holidays every year in these areas and it is most important that each of these be an ambassador as far as our beef industry is concerned from this day on.

Mr. N. Treacy

What about Barley Cove?

Mr. Sheehan

We are catering for that area as well. It does not import Brazilian or Argentinian beef. We give that area the best quality products produced in west Cork.

Mr. McGahon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Sheehan

It is most important that we break into that very valuable market for beef export, especially in the forthcoming year. We must increase beef productivity if at all possible in the future. That could be dramatically brought about by a reduction in our calf mortality rate —including the abortion rate — which is presently running at 15 per cent. With good management this could be reduced to 5 per cent, giving an extra 200,000 calves per year at no extra cost or, in another context, 200,000 extra cattle per year. That would represent an extra £100 million of agricultural exports. Surely it is not too much to ask our farmers to bring about this improvement? We must keep up our beef export numbers because we rely mainly on agricultural products for our export trade.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): On a point of order, I do not want to interrupt the Deputy because he is giving a very interesting contribution, but if this continues we will not be able to reach the other motion.

An Leas-Chean Comhairle

I have no control over that.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): I know that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but perhaps we could reach agreement. I want to hear what the Minister has to say about the continuation of the doubling of the levies. Our attitude on this side of the House would be guided by what he has to say. I am totally in the hands of the Chair. I feel that the Minister would like to express his views on this.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Sheehan

It is a pity that Deputy Noonan did not think of that when he was so long-winded himself this morning.

Mr. Leyden

On a point of order, it is only fair that we should have an opportunity to debate the next motion, which is very important.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has no control over that.

Mr. Leyden

The Chair should have control.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Leyden, before you came into the House I had already made an appeal to the Members offering, because we had to deal with items 13 and 14, and I wished, with their co-operation, to conclude on items 13.

Mr. Leyden

The next item with regard to levies is very important and I want the Minister to have an opportunity to reply. I appeal to my colleague, Deputy Sheehan, to give us an opportunity to discuss this very important issue in relation to the severely handicapped areas and assistance for the people in those areas.

Mr. Sheehan

It was a pity that the Deputy did not request that of his spokesman on Agriculture, who as libbed for half an hour, if not longer.

Mr. N. Treacy

He is the Front Bench Opposition spokesman on Agriculture. It would be a pity if Deputy Sheehan were not to allow us to get to the next item, but perhaps there is an agreement between the Chair and the Deputy.

Mr. Sheehan

It is most important that I get in my contribution here, because I represent the farmers of County Cork.

Mr. N. Treacy

Some of them.

Mr. McGahon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Sheehan

That represents one-eighth of the total population on the land.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): On a point of order, is the Chair putting each motion to the House separately?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Separately, one after the other, at 1.30 p.m.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): That is grand. We shall deal with it.

Mr. Sheehan

I congratulate the CBF for the manner in which they have carried out their duties during the past year in promoting the export of Irish meat and meat products throughout the world. However, there is room for improvement and the Minister should insist on this improvement being brought about by the performance of CBF in the coming 12 months, if possible. It is most important that they discover all the market outlets available worldwide today. If we have not such a back up system for our main agricultural products, beef and cattle exports, we will be courting disaster. Competition is so keen on the world market today that we must keep up our end of the fight to capture the largest possible percentage of that market. Irish beef is superior to that of any other country. Our products can stand up against the best opposition.

We should not forget also the bacon industry, which has a vast potential, especially since a startling change has occurred in that industry. Pig production has structurally changed from being a small sideline, subject to frequent cycles in output on almost 100,000 farms, to being a highly intensive business on almost 1,000 farms. These today produce 95 per cent of all our finished pigs. It is far easier for the Department of Agriculture to streamline our pig industry now than it was a decade ago. They are now dealing with only 1,000 major pig producers instead of 100,000.

It is most important that CBF should exploit the lucrative markets in Japan and the Far East. In Hawaii and the United States our bacon products are regarded as second to none. I appeal to CBF to make every possible effort to promote and expand our bacon exports. We are only skimming the surface of the world market and a greater effort by CBF would bring rich rewards.

I come from a sheep producing area and I agree with Deputy Avril Doyle that we must concentrate on producing premium grade mutton and lamb for export. This will involve upgrading the breed of sheep produced in our mountain ranges. We must explore the possibilities of a major breakthrough into foreign markets through the production of the right type of lamb. The housewife will not be content with second best.

CBF are deserving of this increase which will give them a total of £2.9 million in 1986. I hope this money will be spent to the best advantage of the meat export trade and that we will get good value for every penny. The taxpayer is providing £1.1 million of the total, while the rest will come from the producer. It would be unfair to ask the taxpayer to foot the entire bill. I congratulate the Minister on his foresight in increasing the rates. The increase is small and could only be described as "peanuts"— 30p would not even buy an ice cream for a child. Yet the return to the farming community and to the meat export trade will be colossal in comparison with the results of previous years. I appeal to Deputies opposite not to moan and groan but to face up to the facts. The truth is bitter at times. The Minister has the initiative, drive and confidence which the beef trade needs and he has done his best to instil that confidence in the beef trade and the farming community generally.

Mr. N. Treacy

Can we now move on to the next motion?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

An order was made this morning by the House. We must conclude Item No. 13 and then take Item No. 14.

Mr. N. Treacy

I want to speak on the disease levies. There is an order from the Minister increasing these levies and while I welcome the developments which have taken place in the eradication of TB——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not relevant to this motion. We are dealing with Item No. 13.

Mr. Leyden

Would the Minister conclude Item No. 13?

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): On a point of order, are we not entitled to speak on either of the motions? The order of the House was that Nos. 13 and 14 would be taken at 12.30 p.m.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

They were taken separately from the start. Both of them must be concluded in 13 minutes' time. No. 13 must be concluded before No. 14 is commenced.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): By an order of the House both items were to be before us at 12.30 p.m. and we are entitled to discuss them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

They are to conclude at 1.30 p.m.

Mr. Leyden

I appeal to the Minister to conclude on Item No. 13.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If nobody else offers, the Minister can conclude.

Mr. Carey

I was offering but Deputy Treacy was entitled to offer before me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Treacy had offered to speak on Item No. 13 before Deputy Carey but he must confine himself to Item No. 13.

Mr. N. Treacy

In the interests of discussing Item No. 14 I will give way to Deputy Carey if he will give a commitment to wind up quickly.

Mr. Carey

I will do so in the interests of good order. I understand the Whips made this arrangement. I wanted to make a few points about CBF which have not already been mentioned but I will confine myself to saying that under the vigorous chairmanship of Mr. Denis Brosnan, CBF will do a good job.

Question put and agreed to.