Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 13 Dec 1991

Vol. 414 No. 7

Supplementary Estimates, 1991. - Vote 32: Agriculture and Food.

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Dr. Woods)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1991, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, including certain services administered by that Office, and of the Irish Land Commission, and for payment of certain grants, subsidies and sundry grants-in-aid.

As this is my first time in this House to introduce a Supplementary Estimate for my Department I propose to make some introductory remarks on the Common Agricultural Policy reform, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations and the general economic situation before going on to speak on a selection of the subheads covered in the Supplementary Estimate.

There are two issues which have dominated all discussions on agriculture over the past year and these are the Common Agricultural Policy reform negotiations and the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

In so far as the Common Agricultural Policy reform negotiations are concerned, the details of the Commission's proposals have already been outlined on a number of occasions in this House and I do not propose to go into them again. I have also made it clear that I accept that it is necessary to modify some of the mechanisms of the support arrangements so as to tackle underlying market imbalances in some sectors and to sustain farmer incomes, but I do have very serious difficulties with the way the Commission is proposing to achieve those objectives.

The main thrust of the Commission proposals is to partially switch supports away from the traditional approach of guaranteed prices to one with greater emphasis on direct payments. In my view, the proposals go much too far and too fast. I am not happy either with the modalities and scope of the compensatory elements of the proposals. They will have to be significantly adapted if they are to be acceptable to me. I also have major problems in relation to the production control elements of the proposals and in particular the proposed milk quota cuts.

The Agricultural Council began detailed negotiations on the Commission's proposals at the November Council. These were continued at the Council over the past two days. The negotiations will resume under the Portuguese Presidency in the New Year.

These negotiations will be long and difficult. Farmers and all associated with the agri-food sector can be assured that I am determined to secure the most favourable possible result for Irish agriculture. My aim in these negotiations is to ensure that the reformed Common Agricultural Policy continues to adequately support market prices and that the main element of producers' incomes continues to be derived from the market. I am insisting that the compensatory measures cater for our needs, that they are permanent and sustained by durable and adequate Community financial resources. This matter of financing is a precondition to any agreement on reform and I have made this very clear to my colleagues in the Council and to Commissioner MacSharry. It is essential that the compensatory payments fall into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade "green box" of subsidies which are to be exempted from General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade discipline. The needs of economies such as our own with its high dependence on agriculture must be recognised in the reforms. This is an essential point in our position.

In reality the Common Agricultural Policy reform discussions are very much in their infancy. There is a long hard road ahead but I am prepared to go every step of the way to ensure a fair deal for Irish agriculture.

It is expected that the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations should conclude this year or early next year. Agreement was not reached last year because of differences mainly between the US and the EC on a number of issues including agriculture. Negotiations at technical level throughout the year have clarified some aspects but the major political matters are still unresolved. The recent EC/US high level contacts have narrowed the differences on some aspects. The US now seem willing to consider levels of reductions which are more in line with the EC position. However, significant differences remain on aspects such as the choice of base year, modalities for tariffication, minimum access, the treatment of direct aids, export supports and rebalancing. Negotiations are continuing between both parties to see if some accommodation can be achieved on these as well as on the more fundamental question of the level of reductions to be made.

My priorities in the negotiations are to ensure that any commitments are realistic, coherent and balanced so that the supports provided by the Common Agricultural Policy are not undermined. I want to ensure that the Community's conditions for the acceptance of tariffication are adhered to so that adequate Community preference can be maintained.

On export refunds, I cannot accept restrictions which are not coherent with internal support or protection mechanisms or which would limit the Community's ability to take part in the anticipated expansion of world trade following the end of the round. I will also be seeking to ensure that credit is obtained for reform measures taken since 1986. It is also vitally important to me to ensure that the various compensatory mechanisms which may flow from Common Agricultural Policy reform are contained in the "green box" of support policies to be continued without further discipline.

It is in all our interests to conclude an agreement and so avoid costly and damaging trade wars. However, it cannot be an agreement at any cost. The Community has made a reasonable and balanced offer. It is also undertaking the most fundamental reform of its internal support policies to date. I cannot accept that the Community alone should bear the burden of reforms. Other countries have also contributed to world trade problems and all parties must bear their share of the burden if global problems are to be resolved.

In summary, there is no doubt but that the Commission's Common Agricultural Policy reform proposals represent a definite shift from price income support. Neither can there be any doubt but that, compared to the present situation, these proposals, if adopted, would represent a loss for Irish farming and the agriculture industry.

It is also the case that the GATT negotiations would, if concluded on lines close to those now emerging, result in a substantial cut in Community support for agriculture. This would also, of course, mean losses, at least in the short to medium term, for the Irish agricultural sector.

In the context of the action which may be required after a GATT agreement, the Commission proposals could be seen as a factor which defines and limits the fall out for agriculture and the food industry. This would certainly be the case if many of our negotiating aims were achieved, but, even so, the overall result will inevitably involve some cost to the industry and the economy. What we are engaged in now is trying to create the basis of a viable and more market oriented industry while minimising the cost in the short term.

We can best achieve this by more gradual and less extreme price adjustments allied to production control; providing adequate and permanent compensation to include commercial farmers and with full recognition of the position of grass based extensive livestock producers; effective support mechanisms to maintain the new price levels; and assuring a guaranteed and permanent financial framework for the new regime.

It now seems likely that GNP will increase by about 0.5-1 per cent in 1991, although some estimates have it as high as 2 per cent. This compares quite favourably with growth in most other European countries and especially with the 2 per cent decline expected in the UK. The Central Bank projects a surplus in the balance of payments of around £879 million or roughly 3.75 per cent of GNP in 1991. Inflation was again very low by international standards during 1991 with the rate for the year as a whole being 3.1 per cent. An even lower rate of inflation is now being forecast for 1992.

Interest rates have again tended downwards during 1991. During the year the short term rate, which tends to govern interest rates in the retail banks, was reduced by two steps of 0.5 per cent to reach 10.25 per cent.

The agri-food sector continues to be of vital importance in the Irish economy, much greater proportionally than for the average EC Twelve. In 1990, agriculture accounted for 10.1 per cent of GDP, 14.8 per cent of employment and 14 per cent of exports. If goods and drinks are included, these account for about 19 per cent of employment and 23 per cent of exports.

The £1.1 million provided in this Supplementary Estimate is to cover the initial costs of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry. The Estimate otherwise would have balanced out for the year. Deputies will see that Vote expenditure is up by £55 million compared to the original provision. This arose from extra expenditure on farm investment and intervention activity which is, of course, designed to support producer prices. This additional expenditure is mainly offset by increased EC intervention receipts.

I propose to focus my remarks on four subheads in particular. Before doing so, I would like to say a few words on the subject of headage payments in the disadvantaged areas. I am happy to tell the House that the number of such payments made will be well in line with previous years. Some £80 million in all will be paid in 1991. This is the highest amount ever paid on headage payments in Ireland. The balance will be paid early in the new year. In addition to the headage payments, which are confined to the disadvantaged areas, a further £185 million will be paid this year to farmers throughout the country under the cattle and sheep premium schemes which are fully funded by the EC. I am aware that the rules laid down by the EC for the operation of these schemes continue to cause difficulties for some farmers. Deputies have brought this to my attention through questions, particularly written questions. I have communicated with the Commission as to the possibility of having the rules amended for future years.

As indicated in the Taoiseach's speech of 24 May 1991 the expenses arising in the work of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry were to be the subject of a Supplementary Estimate for my Department. As of now, it is not possible to give an accurate estimate of when the tribunal is likely to complete their work nor of the final outturn of costs. At this time the Supplementary Estimate for 1991 is in respect of initial startup costs of the tribunal and payments which have been made to date. There will, of course, be further costs arising in 1992. I do not propose to refer at this time to the work of the tribunal. As this House established this legal forum to examine these matters, let us allow the tribunal conduct their inquiries and make their report before any conclusions are drawn or debated.

As regards the financial costs and receipts of market intervention measures, Deputies will note that with the high level of intervention activity this year, expenditure in this area has increased from last year. Most of this increased expenditure will be financed by increased intervention receipts.

My Department recently completed, with the help of outside consultants, an information techonology strategy study which led to the production of a three to five year plan for further development of computerisation to support the business and broad objectives of the Department. The cost of this study accounts for the additional expenditure on the consultancy services — subhead A8. The plan envisages a major development in the computerisation of my Department. The major area to be tackled is the design and development of a cattle movement permit-headage system to support the work of ERAD and headage payments. It will be a major advance on the existing disease testing system in the district veterinary offices. Selection of outside consultants to work with Department staff on the project is nearing completion.

The second area to be developed is a client database. This will integrate scheme data; do away with duplication; provide a common registration point for all of the Department's clients; give greater control to analyse financial and other information and pave the way for the delivery of services in various parts of the country. The selection of a more powerful mainframe to support all these developments is being considered by my Department. The enhanced hardware will be installed in the new year.

Provision is being made for an additional £2.9 million under subhead L.1 on farm investment. This is to cover the cost of grant payments to farmers in respect of works undertaken under the various farm development schemes. The original provision under this heading was £45.6 million. The demand has been greater than expected and the indications are that expenditure this year will be in the region of £48.5 million. The increased demand for grant aid is a reflection of the high level of on-farm investment. It is estimated that this will exceed £100 million this year. Such a level of activity is an indication that despite the temporary difficulties they are facing, Irish farmers still have confidence in the future of the industry.

Much of this investment is in relation to the control of farmyard pollution. Judging by the response it is obvious that our farmers know their responsibilities and are taking steps to ensure that the environment is not damaged by off farm waste. This is a welcome development and one which I am glad to encourage. In general this type of investment does not produce an immediate economic return. It is important, therefore, that there is sufficient funding available to enable grants to be paid as soon as projects are completed. I am, therefore, seeking an additional £2.9 million for this purpose.

I urge the House to support this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Deasy

We will be opposing this Supplementary Estimate because we are very concerned about the lack of planning and of a policy on the future of the agricultural industry. As the Minister pointed out, we are now in the midst of negotiations on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. I see this as a process of disintegration of the Common Agricultural Policy, as we have known it over the years. I do not see any attempt being made here to formulate a national policy to make up for the grave deficiencies that will arise as a result of the disintegration of the Common Agricultural Policy. What we are about to see is a policy of renationalisation by the wealthier states in the Community. The day is fast approaching when the Germans, the British, the French, the Italians, the Dutch and the Danes will subsidise their farmers very heavily and leave the farmers in the poor countries of the Community such as Ireland to paddle their own canoe. In the light of this scenario we should be busily engaged in drawing up an agricultural policy solely designed to protect the future of the agricultural industry here. That is not being done. We should have embarked on this course several years ago when the indications were first given of a major reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. We are not talking about reform but dismantlement of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Commissioner MacSharry tried to appease us over the past year by saying that farmers would be compensated for the loss of income arising from cutbacks in production or prices. Yesterday, however, a most frightening message emanated from the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels — and I am sure the Minister, who attended, was just as alarmed as were all of us at home. Indications were given that irrespective of the compensation that may be allowed under the terms of the reform proposals of the Common Agricultural Policy, these compensatory measures may be removed in subsequent GATT negotiations. The Minister made an explicit reference to that proposal today. This is a highly undesirable proposal which will shatter farmers' confidence in the future of their industry. I would like the Minister to refer to that at greater length in his reply. The EC may grant reasonable compensatory measures but they are under threat because they may be removed in subsequent GATT negotiations. We do not have a guarantee that the compensatory measures will continue indefinitely. This must be the greatest cause for alarm.

We need to be alarmed in any event because the renationalisation I spoke of does not suit this country. We do not have the natural resources to subsidise our farmers, as would be the case in Britain, Germany and France. It appears the tendency is that the Germans will spread their money around Europe in a more general fashion than is presently the case. Naturally, they will spend a great deal on protecting their own farmers and the farmers of former East Germany who have been assimilated into the German system over the past year. They will feel obliged to help countries such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and even Yugoslavia where they have strong ethnic connections. They will feel more justified in giving aid to those countries than to countries such as Ireland, which is on the periphery of Europe and does not have such ethnic connections. We will also be looked upon as a country that has benefited for virtually 20 years from the Common Agricultural Policy. There will not be the same allegiance to granting aid to Ireland as was the case over the past 18 to 20 years.

We are facing into a very dangerous and difficult period. I have reasonable confidence that the Minister for Agriculture and Food will be able to spot the imminent dangers and take steps to avert the worst aspects of the proposals which are emanating from Brussels. Some of the proposals on renationalisation are visible and others are not, but there is a trend towards subsidisation by Governments in other countries and we will not be able to compete with that.

I am particularly interested in subhead L4, which has to do with intervention. I have said publicly and repeat that we in this country have a lot to answer for in relation to the development of agriculture. Our reliance on EC mechanisms such as intervention and export refunds has been an absolute disgrace. I used the word "reliance", but I should actually talk about abuse. For 18 years we have been abusing the intervention system, a system which should be used as an emergency mechanism to help farmers in times of glut and of particular difficulty but instead of using intervention for that purpose, we have used it as if it were an integral part of the Common Agricultural Policy. We could be about to pay very dearly for that abuse, for the very serious mistake we have made.

I blame many people for that abuse, particularly the farming organisations. I blame politicians — some of us have advocated moving away from dependence on intervention, but others have taken the soft option by saying that intervention will always be there so we should continue to make use of it. Intervention and export refunds will not always be there. Ireland has to devise an individual policy and system of self-dependence, because that is where we are heading. Renationalisation means self-dependence, but Ireland is not prepared for that at the moment.

I am not here to goad or to abuse the Minister, I am here to be helpful. I tell him that in the current talks on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy Ireland should specifically look for a derogation so that in a specified period we can do what we have failed to do in the past 18 years. We need a chance to reduce and eventually get rid of our dependence on intervention and export refunds. The agricultural industry needs an opportunity to come to terms with the fact that there will not be hand-outs from Europe forever.

This week a most disturbing development took place. The one thing the agricultural industry needs most of all is enlightenment. However, it is going backwards — it is going into the backwoods. The very processes that would help Ireland to become financially independent in the agricultural world are being almost eliminated. If Ireland is to devise a policy and a strategy for independence in agriculture, then we need well-educated young farmers, a massive amount of research and development and, probably most important, the ability to market. However, all of those areas are being starved of money.

Only yesterday there was a day-long meeting of the State body for research and development and advisory services, Teagasc, aimed at holding off the closure of a list of agricultural training centres and research centres. How can an independent agricultural industry or an independent policy be developed without the nuts and bolts needed to build that industry? We must have education, we must have more research and development and we must have better marketing techniques.

An unfortunate fact of life is that 50 to 60 per cent of all of the milk products produced in Ireland at present go into intervention. Almost as much of the beef produced here goes into intervention. What will become of the industry and what will become of the farming community and the rural community when the supports are withdrawn?

There should not be less money spent on the ingredients vital for a proper agricultural programme; a massive injection of capital is needed. The amount spent on research and development has reduced from £45 million in 1987 to £29 million this year. Much of that money is being spent on paying pensions and redundancy money. The actual amount provided for research and development and education in agriculture is being reduced daily. Our efforts are going in the wrong direction. I used an agricultural expression to describe our position the other day, but it is an expression that is very appropriate; in this country we are eating the seed potato.

There should not be cuts in Teagasc, there should not be cuts in research and development or in advisory services and there should not be cuts in education. There should be a massive injection of finance into all of those areas, and I ask the Minister to give that issue his immediate attention. I suggest that Structural Funds from Europe should be diverted to provide the kind of facilities that are so badly needed.

If steps are not taken to have the position improved, then the future for agriculture is extraordinarily bleak. Initially, education must be the focus of attention, research and development must be next and we must then be able to sell what has been developed. The days of producing butter and skimmed milk powder to put into storage are fast coming to an end. Eventually those products are sold off to Russia or Cuba for 10p a pound, whereas they cost more than 100p a pound to produce. Such lunacy cannot continue.

The co-operative movement in the agribusiness must move towards the production of goods that can be sold on the open market — goods that can be sold, goods that do not have to be put into storage, goods upon which money is not wasted. It is very hard to get that message across to people who have become accustomed to a system whereby they can stash everything they produce into storage and not worry about its sale. Those days are coming to an end; that system cannot last.

If the Minister is serious about doing a good job in the Agricultural portfolio then he will have to inject massive sums of money into the areas I have mentioned. Whether he gets the money from the national Exchequer or from Europe is fairly irrelevant; the fact is that the money must be obtained. I cannot honestly foresee the Minister getting the money from the national Exchequer in the present financial climate, but surely the money is available from Europe. We have Structural Funds for everything under the sun but there seems to be no large injection of Structural Funds into the areas that would contribute to the revitalisation of our major industry, agriculture.

The Minister talks about taking an organised approach to agriculture. I shall point out a typical example of the contradiction existing at the moment. Subhead L1, farm improvement grants, includes land reclamation. When it comes to the nonsense at present taking place within the EC, which we witness at first hand in this country, could there be anything more glaring than farmers being paid grants to reclaim mediocre or marginal land, wet land, rock land while, on the other hand, they are being encouraged to set aside the best land? I should like people to dwell on that. It is the craziest thing imaginable spending millions of pounds reclaiming bad land and, on the other hand, paying farmers not to sow crops on good land. That is a vivid illustration of the contradiction in EC policies and in our national policies, and speaks volumes.

We have no policy, no structures in place, to face up to the challenge of the future. We must educate our young farmers and develop products we can sell. We must get away from our dependence on intervention. I feel sorry for farmers with young families hoping that their families will be able to continue to work those family farms. How, in God's name, can they expect those children to make a living unless we, the politicians, change the system and devise one that will work, because the present system will not work in the future? We have abused that system and cannot allow it to continue. We are being totally irresponsible in our attitude. When I see the numbers of people employed in Teagasc research and advisory services reduced from 2,200 in 1987 to 1,400 at present and a further proposal to reduce those numbers to 1,050, I shudder at the future for those young people. We are in the process of more than halving the numbers of people involved in these vital services.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must alert the Deputy to the fact that he has two minutes only remaining.

Mr. Deasy

I cannot finish without commenting on something I mentioned in the House earlier today. It has to do with the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry, because a considerable part of the Supplementary Estimate has to do with that inquiry.

Dr. Woods

All of it.

Mr. Deasy

Not all of it, because there is provision for farm investment, intervention——

Dr. Woods

They are all changes within the Estimate.

Mr. Deasy

Yes, I know, but they are all included in the Estimate. The former Minister for Agriculture and Food, the present Minister for Labour, got very annoyed with me here this morning when I asked him to explain publicly the statement he made to the House on 15 May last. He must explain it because it has all to do with the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry. I will quote briefly——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Deasy is a fair and honest man. May I say to him that he has heard here on several occasions statements from the Chair — indeed he has heard it from the tribunal itself — that the tribunal is applying itself to the deliberations requested and required of it. Therefore, everything dealing with the tribunal itself is sub judice. In respect of utterances made here I think Deputy Deasy will accept that this is not a court of law. Statements are made and if a Deputy accuses another Deputy of having made a statement and that Deputy or Minister disclaims it, there is nothing much we can do beyond that. The same protection would apply to the Deputy in such circumstances.

Mr. Deasy

In retrospect I would have to say I never got any protection at all. My own Ceann Comhairle was not much help. If you will not allow me to use a quotation, Sir, I want to refer the Members of the House to the debate that took place in this House on 15 May last. In particular, I want to refer to the Official Report, column 1267, of that day where the former Minister is quoted, and to the fact that he was wrongly contradicted last week at the tribunal by a former Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. We are all entitled, particularly the Members of this House, to an explanation of that statement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understand that Deputy Kavanagh is giving way to the spokesperson for The Workers' Party, Deputy McCartan.

Mr. McCartan

I thank Deputy Kavanagh for facilitating me in regard to a meeting I have later in the morning. I appreciate it and will be as brief as possible.

I take this opportunity to welcome the new Minister to this portfolio. As a constituency colleague I am pleased that he got what I understood to be a long-hoped for change in portfolio, having contributed as well as he did to the Social Welfare brief in the years he occupied that office. I wish him well and hope we will see less of him in the constituency as a result, but we will maintain matters in order there in the meantime.

Dr. Woods

I will be keeping in touch; the Deputy need not fear.

Mr. McCartan

No doubt. This Estimate provides more than £1 million for the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry now under way in Dublin Castle. It is a very substantial sum which arises directly from a decision already taken by the Dáil, and clearly we must now provide the funds to meet its needs.

Tribunals of inquiry are always expensive and the final costs of this one are likely to be very substantial. Indeed I would be doubtful if the amount involved in this Supplementary Estimate will cover the full costs of the tribunal. In replying perhaps the Minister could indicate whether any estimate is available of the likely final cost. I know the Minister has said that that probably is impossible but I should be glad if he would say, from his experience and/or advice what the overall cost is likely to be.

The task undertaken by Mr. Justice Hamilton is a mammoth one as the scope of the inquiry is very wide, embracing the activities of an entire industry over several years. Anybody who has attended any of the hearings, or who has been following the media reports, cannot but be impressed by the diligent and comprehensive manner in which Mr. Justice Hamilton and the tribunal's legal team have gone about their task. We hope they will now get to the truth of this affair and settle matters accordingly.

I should also take this opportunity to acknowledge the very good work done by the media in covering the deliberations and business of the tribunal, ensuring that the public are kept abreast of developments as they occur daily. It is perhaps regrettable that the tribunal and/or the media did not take the opportunity to consider the televising of their affairs. In time it will be an inevitable development that all court proceedings in this country will be available to the television cameras. In saying that I am not prompted by anything I have seen in another country in regard to a recent trial. The more involved use of the media and their technologies in reporting matters is an inevitable consequence and extension of the democratic process. Perhaps the tribunal would have been an excellent starting point for meeting media technology, the courts and their operations. Perhaps it is a pity that the television cameras were not brought into the hearing room of the tribunal at the outset.

The House will be aware that there was considerable controversy, at the tribunal and in this House, as to what legal team was representing the public interest there. Most people expected that the legal team representing the Attorney General would represent the public interest. But it was clear from the early days of the tribunal that the brief given to the State's legal team was that their priority was to defend the interests of Government Ministers and public bodies against whom accusations had been made. The statement by Mr. Justice Hamilton on 25 November, in which he asked the tribunal's own legal team to have special regard to the public interest, helped to clarify the position. However, as we pointed out at the time, it imposes an additional burden of responsibility on the tribunal's own legal team while leaving the Attorney General's team unburdened in this regard and exclusively preoccupied with representing the State agencies against whom allegations have been made.

A further conflict of interest can be anticipated when the issue of export credit insurance comes to be dealt with. It is difficult to envisage how counsel for the Attorney General can defend the allegations and, at the same time, represent the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, the original principal accuser in this regard when he was an occupant of the Opposition benches.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I suggest that this is not really our function here. The deliberations will be carried out in whatever fashion is decided upon there. It is not our function, nor is it desirable, to refer to the outcome or to anticipate its shortcomings. The decision has been made and any contribution here is not likely to change it. Apart from the fact that we might be accused by the tribunal of infringing on their responsibilities, it seems to be a rather useless exercise to comment in any respect on it.

Mr. McCartan

I have finished what I wanted to say in that regard. We deliberated on these matters earlier in the session and those deliberations led to a useful clarification by the chairman of the tribunal. The issue will inevitably reemerge when the important matter of the export credit scheme is considered.

The second and perhaps most important part of this Estimate is an additional allocation of £6 million to cover increased costs arising from the intervention system. This focuses attention once again on the whole Common Agricultural Policy, which at last seems about to be subject to some degree of reform if the MacSharry plan goes ahead. We have persistently queried the value and morality of a policy which produces goods for which there is no market, which adds up to £15 per week to a consumer's food bill, which consumes 60 per cent of the entire EC budget and allows 80 per cent of all price supports to go to the top 20 per cent income bracket.

The intervention system is the cornerstone of the Common Agricultural Policy. Where is the morality in the Community buying huge quantities of meat and dairy products and locking them away in some warehouse to deteriorate and decay while millions of people are starving to death in the Third World? Where is the morality in paying huge sums to cold store owners to store meat and dairy products when there are many families in my constituency for whom real butter and meat are a rare treat?

The dependence of Irish agriculture on the intervention system is a shameful indictment of the policies of successive Governments. There are more than 300,000 tonnes of beef and dairy products held in intervention, with a value of around £300 million. Ireland accounts for only a small proportion of total Community agricultural production, but we are one of the biggest users of the intervention system. As of May this year this country accounted for almost 40 per cent of skimmed milk powder held in intervention by the EC. We produce only about 5 per cent of the Community's butter but account for about 30 per cent of intervention stocks. Almost 25 per cent of beef held in intervention is Irish.

During the past year we have witnessed the totally immoral spectacle of families, including farming families, being unable to put adequate food on their tables, while at the same time we had to resort to hiring South American ships to anchor in Cork Harbour and store intervention butter because every cold store was already full to the brim. The provision of cold storage facilities for intervention products is itself a big business. The Minister told my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, last July that the total cost of storage this year would be £62.5 million. The beef barons are paid £4.80 per week to store each tonne of boned beef and get £2.40 for each tonne of boneless beef. He added that the cost of storage aboard ship is approximately three times greater than land based storage. Those who have done best out of the Common Agricultural Policy are not the farmers or the consumers but the beef barons, the cold storage owners and South American shippers. It is proposed in the Estimate to extend and continue this system which does not benefit farmers or consumers and for that reason we will be opposing the Estimate.

In the short term we need to devise a strategy to get food out of the intervention stores and on the plates of those who need it, at home and abroad. The huge quantities of skimmed milk powder would certainly save lives in many Third World countries. The provision of meat and butter, even at a reduced rate, would make a major difference to the efforts of many low income families at home to make ends meet. There was a number of limited distributions some years ago but they seem to have been quietly dropped while we keep throwing foodstuffs into cold stores and warehouses until they reach bursting point.

The days of the Common Agricultural Policy in its present form are numbered. Everyone accepts that and knows that the Community will not continue to spend huge sums of money on the intervention system. Rather than fighting an unwinnable battle to preserve the Common Agricultural Policy in its present form, we should be insisting that any reduction in EC farm supports is matched by a compensating increase in Structural Funding for Ireland. Such a development would be of far more benefit to all sectors, including farmers, than the present wasteful spending under the Common Agricultural Policy.

The long term aim of the national agriculture policy must be to enable the land to provide the maximum possible number of families with decent incomes and increase its overall contribution to the economy in terms of income generated and employment created. The Estimate before us addresses none of these fundamental issues and we will be opposing it. I thank the Chair and Deputy Kavanagh for facilitating me.

Mr. Kavanagh

I join with other speakers in welcoming the Minister in his new portfolio. Only three weeks ago I called for a change in this area and I particularly welcome the appointment of this Minister. His record in his previous Ministry shows that he is a very caring, aware and dedicated Minister. This is what this Department needs now and in the future.

The Minister takes over at a time of crisis in confidence and in direction among farmers themselves and the associated industries. The four main farm organisations came together when the proposals for the restructuring of the Common Agricultural Policy were announced. They indicated to the then Minister that if those proposals were to be carried out it would mean a fall of 20 per cent annually in farm output. They estimated the annual depreciation in the value of output at £684 million. That is a staggering figure.

I am aware that the Minister has been engaged in discussions during the past few days to avert the worst features of the proposals emanating from Brussels. He must also face the GATT negotiations. Everybody in agriculture is concerned about the outcome of these discussions. No matter how hard the Minister tries, it is believed that very extensive change will take place which will not be to the benefit of the farming community. I was glad that the Minister, in introducing the Estimate, was allowed to give us some idea how these discussions are going. We are generally kept on a tight rein during these debates, but I hope we will be allowed in turn to make some comments on these matters.

The Estimate before us indicates a demand for £1.1 million to cover various areas, but before dealing with it I would refer to the promise made by the Minister on taking office to draw up a national development plan for agriculture. This commitment was given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. I wish the Minister well in bringing forward this plan which, as can be seen from the difficulties in agriculture is urgent.

I do not know if the Minister will be in a position to tell us today when the plan will be announced or the length of time it will take to be implemented. He should take into account not only the agricultural sectors but the wider community also. Agriculture is our largest industry and impacts on every area of life. People may not believe it but our economy and the purchasing power of people depend more on agriculture than any other industry. Shops and businesses in Dublin depend on a vibrant agricultural industry for their survival as much as corner shops in Shillelagh, Tinahely or Wicklow town. A development plan for agriculture which will restore the confidence which has been missing in this sector as a result of the scandals and events of the past year is badly needed. I hope the policy adopted by the Minister will bring the crisis in agriculture to an end. There is no need for me to mention the problems being experienced by people in all sectors of agriculture today because everybody knows them. However, because of debates on other issues over the past few months we have devoted very little time to debating agriculture.

Mr. Durkan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Kavanagh

A few weeks ago one day was devoted to a debate on a report on agriculture. So far as I am aware, it is a long time since a report on agriculture produced by a committee of this House was debated here. That very important debate was overshadowed by other events. Reference was made in the debate to the crises in the beef, cereals, milk, sheepmeat sectors and so on. Unfortunately, these issues seem to be of little interest to the media. If this country is to succeed and thrive the attention given to the other activities which are taking place needs to be given to these issues.

Subhead L.4 of the Vote refers to a sum of £50 million for payments in respect of storage, freezing, handling, transport and so on under market intervention arrangements. Deputy Deasy referred to the cost of intervention and intervention stocks. This morning I heard on the radio that housewives in Russia, a once great country, have to queue for bread, milk and meat. It is terrible to think that we have intervention stocks piled up to the roof in plants throughout the country when people are starving in different regions of the world. As has been said, we have had to hire ships to store some of our excess production. A limit should be put on the financial aid given by the EC to the Third World and East European countries so that once that limit is reached we will resort to giving aid by way of intervention stocks. It is very difficult to understand how countries in Europe can give arms to countries which are marginalised in terms of their standard of living but cannot give them intervention stocks which are readily available. The distribution of these surpluses is not just a problem for Ireland; it is also a problem for the EC. In view of the cost of intervention one of the best things the European Community could do is give these stocks to the Third World.

Previous speakers have referred to the TB eradication scheme. I hope the development plan to be introduced by the Minister will improve this scheme. Spokespersons for some of the agricultural organisations have said that this scourge will never be brought to an end under the present scheme. Until such time as the operation and management of this scheme are improved we will merely continue to pour money down a black hole. Last year more than £33 million was paid by farmers in fees and costs under this scheme. Many farmers are unable to sell their cattle because one reactor was found in their herds. The Minister should set a timescale for the elimination of this disease. ERAD should be given the same timescale as Teagasc to organise themselves so that they can do the work they were set up to do. I do not understand how this level of finance can continue to be wasted every year when no obvious improvement can be seen in the elimination of this disease.

I was glad to hear the Minister say he has improved the situation in regard to the payment of headage grants particularly to farmers in disadvantaged areas. However, I am concerned that he may be only catching up with outstanding payments and that many farmers who hoped to be paid this year will not be paid until after Christmas. One of the problems relates to the filling in of complicated forms. While these forms are required for administration purposes, in many cases claims cannot be paid in the current year. I hope the Minister will improve the procedures.

We had a brief comment on the operation of the tribunal. I do not intend to deal with that issue; it is being dealt with adequately in the media. I should like to ask the Minister if he is in possession of information, as I am, which suggests that agricultural officers in the meat factories and on TB eradication work have not been paid overtime and subsistence allowances for work carried out as far back as last September. The cases which have been brought to my notice suggest that sums of £1,500 or an average of £500 to £700 for overtime and subsistence allowances are outstanding to these officers. We all like some extra money at Christmas time and if we earn it we expect to be paid within a reasonable time. When I was informed of the case of the agricultural officers I found it hard to believe. Yesterday, I took the opportunity to telephone the payments office in Cavan town and I was left in no doubt that under subhead C.2 there is no money left to pay these people. Unless money is made available these officers, their wifes and families will not have extra money to provide goods, toys and the various other things that people like to have at Christmas. I am sure the Minister experienced this type of problem when he was Minister for Social Welfare and that he dealt with it so far as was possible at Christmas time. He can take it from me that genuine hardship will be created for people who do the field work in the meat factories and who are under severe pressure, many of whom we have seen march across the gravelled triangle in Dublin Castle where they have to prove their worth in that very difficult tribunal. We must ensure that people who are doing the field work in the factories are paid what is due to them. Perhaps the Minister would examine the position and ensure that these moneys are paid out before Christmas.

The reclassification of disadvantaged areas has been the subject of discussion in this House. There are differing views as to the work the disadvantaged areas appeal board can do. A promise has been made to set up the appeal board but there is a doubt about the necessary resources being made available. As I understand it, work in this area is at a standstill because of lack of resources. I had hoped for something in this Estimate today that would ensure that the important work of the reclassification board could continue.

Finally, we will not have the opportunity to discuss again the threatened closure of the establishments under the aegis of Teagasc, about ten in all. Nevertheless I welcome the reversal of the decision to close the Grange beef research station. If this decision was arrived at before the Minister came into office perhaps he would agree to taking time to have a close look at the area of research for the agricultural industry. This matter was dealt with very ably by Deputy Deasy. There is a need for this type of research and development to continue apace rather than be reduced by cutbacks. There are 600 jobs involved in the proposed cutbacks. We must take into account the fact that the removal of the Dublin and Cork milk boards will result in redundancies in the AI area. As I believe most of these decisions were taken before Deputy Woods became Minister for Agriculture and Food, I would ask him to take the opportunity over Christmas to examine them in detail. The Milk Bill is in the Seanad at present. Because there was an error in the Bill when produced in this House I would ask the Minister to disregard it and come back with a new one——

Dr. Woods

I have already done that.

Mr. Kavanagh

——and to look much more closely at the effects that will have on particular areas of the operations of the milk boards.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Stafford)

Sorry, Deputy, you did say finally, perhaps you would conclude.

Mr. Kavanagh

Because of what is happening in the industry and because of the crisis — and this is no reflection on the Minister as he has been in the Department only a short time — in the operation of the Department of Agriculture and Food under this Government, particularly during the past two years, we have to underline our disappointment and that of the farming community by opposing this Estimate next week. Nevertheless I hope that the Minister will produce a more comprehensive declaration of the development plan that we can support. At present because of the crisis in agriculture we have to take this opportunity to demonstrate to the Government that we are opposed to what has happened in agriculture in recent years.

Mr. Durkan

Like previous speakers, I wish to outline my opposition to this Supplementary Estimate on the basis of its insufficiency which is clearly indicated by virtue of proposals to phase out a number of research stations throughout the country. Like my colleague, Deputy Deasy, who initially outlined his opposition to this proposal, I would like also to underline the foolhardiness of any proposal by any Government Department to phase out the research and development section of an industry at a time when research and development is more important than at any other time in the history of the State. If we are to compete in the international arena, or even on the home market — at a time when unemployment is at a peak and we have to depend on core industries — we need to put more money, time, effort and energy into research and development than ever before. I should point out that the agriculture and food industry has the best potential for providing badly needed jobs. It is flying in the face of the facts, of the evidence and the experience of those who have been involved down through the years, that at this vital time, when the dependency for job creation must be focused on the agriculture and food industry, it should be deemed fit to save what can be only a miserable amount of money by cutting off research and development and by saying that we no longer need it. The policy is being borrowed from the Eurocrats who have deemed that food and agriculture in this country will no longer play a major role in Europe. It is clear from what we saw in the past few months that the bureaucrats have decided that after the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy there will not be any need to bother with research and development. In the Department of Agriculture and Food there now appears to be an opinion that there will not be any need to continue with research and development after the Common Agricultural Policy reform.

I welcome the Minister to the debate. This is our first opportunity to have an eyeball to eyeball discussion across the floor. I wish the Minister every success in his new portfolio. He knows the subject very well and I hope his knowledge will stand him in good stead in his discussions with his European counterparts. I was interested to hear him say this morning that there were certain things with which he was not happy and I hope he will pursue his views vigorously.

The Minister has come into this Department at a time when it seems that the future of the industry has been predetermined in the Council, and perhaps in the Commission. I hope the Minister can vigorously impress his opinion on the Commissioner and on the European bureaucracy generally who seems to have such control over our future. If the Minister responds as well to the promptings from this side of the House and from his own side as he did in his previous Department, he will be extremely successful.

The one thing that worries me in relation to Common Agricultural Policy reform, which is very much in the news at the moment, is the proposal to make ongoing payments to farmers to get out of production. That is crazy. It was referred to by Deputy Deasy. When the Commissioner kindly met the members of the joint EC secondary legislation committee I asked him whether these payments would be continued after a certain period, and I was assured that they would. If the Commissioner believes that and the Minister believes it they are more naive than I took them for. Nothing could be further from the truth. The payments now being offered to the productive sector in agriculture to get people out of business are merely sweeteners to encourage them out of the production arena, and once they are out they will be cut adrift. These payments are being offered in the same way the intervention packages were offered some years ago. There will be a battle to determine whether they should remain in place for a period, but ultimately there will be a reaction against them and they will be scrapped simply because they are unsustainable.

We cannot expect any productive sector to be encouraged to do nothing, to do less or withdraw from the arena. Imagine going to a factory owner and offering to pay him not to produce furniture, for instance. One would be laughed off the face of the earth. Ironically, this seems to be what we are doing with agriculture. I emphasise agriculture, and agriculture and food, not because it is a good thing to do politically but because, as Deputy Kavanagh just said, nobody bothers, the local communities do not seem to be worried about it.

The Common Agricultural Policy reform proposals are being sold on the basis of a promise of cheap food to the consumer. That will be another laugh, because if the consumer thinks he will have cheaper food after the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, he has another think coming. Ten or 15 years ago we were told of the prospective benefits of EC membership. We were told that when certain measures were put in place we would have cheaper motor cars, cheaper electricity, cheaper telecommunications and that other services would be cheaper. Now, at last, food is to be cheaper. At the same time the Americans in the context of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade are telling the world that they have the final answer, the technology, the power and the strength of production, that they have modernised and rationalised and so on and that they have all the things they think the consumer wants.

This brings me to marketing, which was also referred to by Deputy Deasy. Marketing in this country in terms of the agriculture and food market is almost non-existent. In many cases producers and processors are presenting products in exactly the same form as they did 20 to 25 years ago. There are a couple of honourable exceptions, but one can buy the same type of cheeses off the shelves in supermarkets as one could 25 years ago. Things are different in supermarkets in Bonn, Berlin or Paris and these people have used time, energy and money on research and development having tested consumer reaction to products. As a result of testing the market, as a result of research and development, they have found a niche for themselves and have sold their products. We have been side stepped all the time in that area.

At a recent meeting one of my colleagues criticised Bord Bainne as being ineffective in terms of marketing, and perhaps there is some blame there, but we have failed badly in the area of producing a product for the convenience of consumers. The Minister should take hold of the industry by the scruff of the neck and he should recognise that eliminating research and development will not serve a useful purpose. We need to spend more on marketing and market research. Products produced here should target the consumer in a way that is a direct response to the consumer's wishes. If we do not do that we will be left on the side line.

In relation to the Common Agricultural Policy reform, which is a forerunner to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, I was delighted to hear the Minister's trenchant tone. I hope he will continue in this way because, throughout the country, farmers and PAYE workers associated with agriculture have become dismayed at the lack of response and the lack of belligerence on the part of Irish negotiators in discussions which fundamentally affect their future. For some reason beyond their comprehension, the farmers and workers feel that our representatives are not fully aware of the necessity to keep a steadfast line in terms of the interests of their own people and to recognise the importance of the industry as far as employment here is concerned.

Some years ago some people talked about how good things were on the farm, how life was great there and so on. However, things have changed because the flight from the land was never greater. This is because the quality of life is better elsewhere.

One would think there was a competition to see who can clear more people from the land most quickly on the premise that there will be greater efficiency in agriculture and the economy will boom. It may improve things, but more people will be unemployed. While it might be a great idea to take people off the land and make things more efficient, it is not such a great idea to put more people on the dole queues, as is happening.

I wish to comment on the beef tribunal. It is sad that so much time and energy must be expended to tackle problems which have arisen over a period. I hope the tribunal addresses all the problems so that there will be no need for further similar inquiries.

I do not agree with Deputy McCartan's suggestion that all such hearings should be held in the full glare of publicity such as we have seen across the Atlantic in a case totally unassociated with this. That could be done if courts and tribunals were there to titillate and entertain the public. If they are to tackle serious problems they should do it efficiently and confidentially and have regard to the freedom, lives and interests of the people involved who have private lives. I would be critical of holding tribunals or inquiries in like fashion to what we observed of the recent trial across the Atlantic on various television channels. That does nothing for credibility or for greater confidence in our institutions. It provides people with cheap entertainment by listening to the minor details of other people's lives.

I hope the expense of the beef tribunal will be money well spent. I believe that in such cases there is only one winner, the legal profession. I mean no disrespect to the legal profession. Many of my family and friends are stalwart members of the legal profession. However, I worry at the number of TV shots of eminent legal eagles trotting to and fro because I fear that every time they appear on television it has cost the taxpayer £250,000.

The general public know that inquiries are necessary from time to time but there must be a less expensive way to do things. This Supplementary Estimate provides for £1 million and that means that we will have full disclosure and identification of all the problems in the industry that were referred to and a resolution to those problems. I hope that, having spent well over £1 million, that the problems will be solved.

I do not wish to upset the legal profession, but I should like to recite a short anecdote. I had occasion to deal with an inter-family dispute involving some property in my constituency. Some few thousand pounds was involved. By the time the matter had gone through the legal channels all that was left was £300 or £400. All the money went on legal costs, as if somebody had worked it all out with a pocket calculator beforehand.

Agriculture does not need handouts. Handouts have killed this country. We need handouts from the EC like a hole in the head. What we need from the EC is equal opportunity to produce, get to the market and have a fair share of that market. If we do not get that we are wasting our time. The Minister is new in office and he should be able to say that he does not accept anything agreed before his term and that he wants a new agreement. I ask him to do that. I also ask him to speed up the payment of beef premiums in County Kildare and to do something about the number who were refused this year as compared to any other year — 90 were refused this year, three last year and one the year before.

My final point is in regard to environmental protection. The necessary moneys must be made available to those in the agricultural sector who are willing and anxious to protect the environment. Will the Minister please ensure that those moneys will continue to be made available?

Mr. Garland

On behalf of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, I am opposing this Supplementary Estimate. The Minister referred to Common Agricultural Policy reform. I note with regret that he, like his predecessors, is failing to face up to the reality of the Common Agricultural Policy. Surely it must be clear to everyone in the House that in our frantic efforts to hold on to as much of the Common Agricultural Policy as possible we are clutching at straws.

The Green Party also have problems with the MacSharry proposals. Our problem is that the Common Agricultural Policy reform does not go far enough. However, we would welcome them as an interim measure to bring some order and sanity into the agriculture and food sectors. The urban taxpayers of the EC cannot subsidise indefinitely an inefficient system of agriculture which costs EC taxpayers and Irish consumers too much to produce products which nobody wants and which in many cases are dangerous for human consumption owing to the excessive use of artificial fertilisers which in turn contribute substantially to the pollution of our rivers and streams. It is hard to imagine a more lethal cocktail.

I accept, however, that Irish agriculture needs financial support from the EC and this is clearly recognised in the MacSharry proposals. What we should be aiming for is a system which benefits small and medium sized farmers rather than the large ranchers who at present benefit from extensive milk quotas and the sales of beef into intervention. What is clearly needed is an income support system to maintain as many people as possible on the land. Clearly the present Common Agricultural Policy system does not do that.

It is ironic that the party to which the Minister belongs have as one of their aims the sentiments expressed in Article 45.2.7. of Bunreacht na héireann which states:

That there may be established on the land in economic security as many families as in the circumstances shall be practicable.

I ask the Members of the House to reflect on this noble aspiration and to draw their own conclusions as to whether this Government, or previous Governments within living memory have made the slightest effort to comply with it.

The numbers gaining their livelihood from agriculture have been declining annually for many years and will continue to decline unless there are radical reforms in this area. The question of agricultural economics, again, points to the advantage that would be gained by having a basic income scheme for all our citizens. This would be particularly appropriate in the agricultural sector.

In relation to the GATT negotiations, the proposals contained in the Uruguay Round have negative connotations for the world environment as they provide for the continuation of chemical based farming which has been responsible for so much environmental degradation, both here and throughout the world, and the production of food which can be dangerous to eat. This is the same policy which is responsible for the wholesale destruction of the Amazonian rain forests in the interests of large multinational companies and the international banks. Our Government should strongly oppose these aspects of the Uruguay Round.

The main purpose of the Supplementary Estimate is to provide £1.1 million to meet the initial cost of the beef tribunal — please note the word "initial". The final cost of the tribunal, no doubt, will run into millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to feed the already adequately fed legal profession. It seems that this tribunal will continue well into the New Year, possibly up to Easter. While the tribunal is necessary, the legal fees involved will be astronomical. Once again I want to put on the record my disgust at the extremely high level of barristers' fees in this type of inquiry.

It should be realised that ewe headage payments are made to prop up a system which is clearly unsustainable. There is much ecological evidence of gross overstocking of many mountain areas in the west of Ireland and this is having a disastrous effect on the ecology of the area and has led to the denuding of vegetation cover resulting in increased land slips and the carrying away of topsoil. In addition, it involves serious cruelty to the ewes as many of them are dying as a result of insufficient grazing. What is wanted is headage payments for people not for sheep.

Under subhead L £2.9 million is being provided for extra farm investment. I wonder how much of this will be used to prop up the agri-business sector and those farmers who have adopted intensive methods of agriculture, particularly in the pig and poultry sector.

This is not often referred to in the House but it has to be said: many practices in this area are extremely cruel and represent a greater degree of cruelty to the animals involved than keeping large animals in zoos or to hares in coursing. These are fashionable issues which we, in the Green Party, take on but they pale into insignificance compared with the millions of farm animals who live in cruel and degrading conditions. This issue needs to be addressed very urgently.

The agricultural industry has many positive sides. The side the Green Party would like to push is the organic farming sector. It is fair to say that up to about four or five years ago organic farming was regarded as a bit of a joke but that is no longer the case. It is becoming big business. Indeed, it is amazing the number of farmers who have switched to organic or semi-organic farming during the past two or three years without any financial incentives to do so, in spite of the apparent short term financial problems involved.

There is a vast market for good quality food which can only be produced by organic methods. It is very hard to get organic food in shops and supermarkets because it is marketed in a very haphazard way. Indeed there is an enormous market for this food in Europe. We know how heavily polluted the soil is on the continent. For example, in Holland the soil is so badly polluted farmers trying to produce food organically have found their produce contained unacceptable levels of chemicals. In other words, Holland is just one vast land of poison, and the Dutch are not at all amused. If they can get it, they will buy organic food produced in this country. Indeed, one of the reasons people from continental Europe come here is that they know they will be able to eat clean food again although they are not always lucky.

Dr. Woods

I thank Deputies for their comments and extending a welcome to me. All that I can say is that I will do my best and will make every effort in what is currently a difficult area.

Let me respond first to the points made by Deputy Garland who does not seem to grasp what is involved under the Common Agricultural Policy and just how important it is for the economic well being of people in Ireland. Deputy Deasy and others made the point very strongly that it would be disastrous, not only for Irish farmers and producers but for the Community, if we returned to the policy of nationalisation.

One of our major tasks is to keep as many people as possible on the land. In this context, I see many new opportunities, given the doubling of Structural Funds, developments at Maastricht and the proposed alternative measures. The alternative measures in the Common Agricultural Policy reform proposals are considered to be separate to the major proposals. Because of this people are inclined to regard them as a sweetener. I made the point trenchantly in the discussions which took place at the Council on a number of sectors, including the alternative measures, that this issue was far more important than they realised. No matter how well we do in the negotiations on Common Agricultural Policy reform and the GATT negotiations, more people are going to leave the land. I am aware that only 50 per cent of farmers derive their full income from the farm. The rest of their activity is off-farm activity which supplements their farm income. That has become necessary and there is nothing wrong with it provided it keeps people in the countryside and maintains the rural population.

All these schemes, whether it be the Leader Programme, which has great possibilities in that regard, the rural development schemes or the alternative measures which are proposed, are vital and there must be substantial funds for them. You cannot say that because changes are taking place — greater competition, new circumstances arising, more efficient production and higher output — we do not need as many farmers. Agriculture is very important to us in Ireland and we need good alternatives, of which there are many, including the crops and other products Deputy Durkan mentioned. There is much talk, for example about the development of the mushroom industry which is worth £45 million now. In the early sixties I was head of the National Glasshouse and Mushroom Research Unit.

Mr. Ferris

The Minister should not allow the present centre to be closed down.

Dr. Woods

I cannot comment on that matter at the moment but the Deputy need not be too concerned about it. I will come back to that later, but these are matters for the board in the first instance. People comment on the success of the mushroom industry, but that could also be the case with a whole range of other products and commodities. There is a great need to tackle marketing and we will do so realistically with the knowledge and the competence we have developed. In the sixties there was not much competence in that area. It was great to be able to develop Dairygold and excellent work was done in that regard but we were limited as far as marketing was concerned. What we must do is look at all the alternative products and market them properly. Deputies are correct in that if we are to develop those products research must be carried out. It is not possible to develop new markets without research and appropriate advice and technology.

We had negotiations recently with the Iranians and succeeded in again opening up the market there. However a number of elements were involved: political, diplomatic, trade and technological elements. If we cannot satisfy people as regards technology, which is of the highest standard, we are wasting our time trying to satisfy them politically, diplomatically and from the point of view of trade. Unless we concentrate on all these elements we will not succeed in developing our products and creating extra jobs. As Deputies said this morning, it is most important that we take action in this area, and I certainly hope to do that.

Deputy Deasy was particularly concerned that the various measures that exist for Common Agricultural Policy reform and the measures that will be introduced as a result of the GATT negotiations will not be permanent. There will be a lot of debate about the "green box". There is also a "yellow box" but I will not confuse the House by talking about that.

Mr. Kavanagh

There is also one for fishing.

Dr. Woods

The "green box" is crucial to development. We will negotiate as best we can but at the end of the day, whatever package is agreed must go into the permanent "green box" which will be exempt from future GATT disciplines. That is the sine qua non of this measure, and there is an increasing understanding of that reality in the US. There is an argument that they want some of their measures included in the green box, but that will depend on what is involved. If the measures are equivalent to ours it would be hard to say that they should not be included but it is a matter of eligibility, and I can assure Deputy Durkan that there will be suitable forms for this. That is the way the matter will have to be addressed at an international level, and these debates are going on as part of the GATT discussions. I want to assure Deputy Deasy that it is a matter of which we are very conscious.

Deputy Deasy seemed to be concerned that nations such as Germany in particular, with all the problems they face, will be less interested in sharing our problems or working with us in trying to find solutions for the Community as a whole. That is not my experience of dealing with the Germans. I had a bilateral meeting and dinner with them very late on Wednesday night last. It was an excellent discussion and they are very anxious to know our requirements and to consider them in the context of theirs.

Deputy Garland spoke about an income support system for everybody and said the people would be happy with that but Deputy Durkan pointed to the great dangers of such a system not only in the short term but also in the long term. The Germans take the view more so than we do that a substantial proportion of the money should come directly from the marketplace. If the system does not provide for that it will not be durable in the long term. I mentioned that point in my speech. We differ from the Germans in various respects but they support us in some of our difficulties. I assure Deputy Deasy — and Deputy Durkan can draw this to his attention since he has had to leave the House — that there is still great cohesion among the Agriculture Ministers in relation to these problems even though there are differences in the requirements of the various states.

Deputy Deasy also emphasised the need for marketing, research and development and education, particularly for young farmers. In this country 50 per cent of our farmers are over 55 years of age and therefore we are very interested in the pre-retirement arrangements under the alternative measures. People in Europe who take a logical view of that would be inclined to say that this measure should apply specifically to those groups and that we should not apply for assistance for young people. However, we want to keep young people in agriculture and we need more flexible arrangements in relation to quotas and so on. Therefore just as it is necessary to have the pre-retirement arrangement it is also necessary that arrangements be agreed for our young people. The Deputy can take it that I have noted his comments and I will be pursuing the matter. Teagasc has been mentioned by Deputy Deasy, Deputy Kavanagh and Deputy Durkan.

Acting Chairman (Mr. M. Barrett)

Sorry, the Minister's time has expired.

Dr. Woods

I thought we were ahead of time.

Acting Chairman

I would advise the Minister that he was allowed only ten minutes.

Dr. Woods

In conclusion, I have noted what the Deputies have said in all these areas and I will certainly give attention to them. Deputies have a fairly reasonable outline of my proposals for reform. In relation to Teagasc, I accept the Deputies' point on the need for research and development and for a good, solid technological base for what we are planning to do, as well as the need for marketing.

Acting Chairman

I am putting the question: "That the Supplementary Estimate be agreed to."

Deputies

Vótáil.

Acting Chairman

The division is postponed until 6.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 18 December 1991 in accordance with an Order of the House yesterday.