I wish to share my time with Deputy Browne (Wexford).
Private Members' Business. - Beef Industry: Motion.
The following motion was moved by Deputy Cowen on Wednesday, 25 September 1996:
That Dáil Éireann, mindful of the central economic importance of the beef industry to the Irish economy, condemns the Government for its failure to deal with the BSE crisis since 20 March last, deplores the failure of the Government to clarify Ireland's position in relation to the EU Commissioner's proposals to reorganise the beef regime under the Common Agricultural Policy and calls on the Government to defend and protect the interests of the Irish beef sector in the present negotiations before the viability of thousands of Irish farm families is fatally undermined.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
Dáil Éireann, recognising the importance of the beef industry to the Irish economy and the serious difficulties being encountered by the beef sector, endorses the action taken by the Government to alleviate the effects of the BSE crisis on Irish producers and approves the approach adopted by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to the European Commission's proposals for reform of the beef regime.
—(Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.)
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I focused yesterday on the Minister's recent predictions for the future of the agriculture industry. He indicated that, by the year 2005, there would be approximately 60,000 full-time farmers and that no milk quota system would be in place. Those two predictions are an indication of the dire changes that face the agriculture industry in the intervening period. If the Minister's figures are accurate, the number of full-time employees in the industry will be whittled away.
I am not sure if the focus of the debate shifted to long-term issues to divert attention from the current BSE crisis, the most serious difficulty to hit our agriculture industry for many years. Some of the solutions proposed by the EU will have profound implications for our agriculture industry and the economy in general. Its importance to our economy is graphically underlined by the fact that we export approximately 80 per cent of our beef produce. Members referred to the gradual move towards a world price structure for agricultural produce. This will have an even more dramatic impact than the recent significant reduction in beef prices. While beef production has a low labour intensity, it has a high capital requirement and even in good times the return on investment is marginal. If management does not operate efficiently, the return might not even justify the investment. The interdependent link between our 12,000 beef finishers, our store producers and those involved in the dairy and suckler cow sectors, who produce the calves, has a domino effect on finishers.
The Minister stated that pig meat and poultry products can be sold at a reduced price and still make a profit for producers while, in comparison, the price of beef is high. It is not a wise exercise to compare the bovine beef production, pig meat and poultry enterprises. Members will be aware that in the past 20 years pig meat production has diverted from family farm type units to much more intensive enterprises. There has been a similar movement from small to medium sized producers to large acreage producers in the potato industry, particularly in Counties Louth, Meath and Dublin. The pig meat industry has not attracted support from the European Union and only in recent years EU money has been made available for the development of storage facilities, handling equipment and so on in the potato industry. That was a catalyst for the dramatic changes necessary for the survival of that industry. However, a large amount of EU funding has been made available for the beef industry. Therefore, is it necessary to examine the development plans for that industry? If the Minister's predictions on farm incomes and the numbers employed directly in the industry are accurate, our beef industry faces serious difficulties in the future.
Unless the Minister focuses his attention on the serious difficulty that currently obtains for beef finishers, store cattle producers and calf producers and ensures they receive adequate compensation, they will go out of business long before the year 2005-06, with serious implications for the economy. The beef industry is crucial to our balance of payments and the economy in general.
(Wexford): The BSE crisis arose six months ago and, because of Government inaction, the problem is escalating. We have had the Florence summit, the Luxembourg package and we are holding the Presidency of the EU, but neither the Minister nor his Cabinet colleagues acted on this matter.
The Florence Summit was hailed as a major breakthrough and the catalyst for restoring consumer confidence in the beef sector but obviously the UK were not aware of that and its Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Hogg, has disregarded the Florence Summit. I am amazed at the Minister, Deputy Yates, allowing the UK off the hook in terms of culling when it will cause major problems in the industry here and in the European Union. He is more concerned about not upsetting the British Government and the British Minister than about our farmers.
Current cattle prices are an insult to farmers who are losing £300 per head compared with 1993 prices. Many small farmers will go out of business this winter. Banks are already putting pressure on beef farmers, withdrawing loans and calling in repayments which many farmers are unable to meet. This is unacceptable at a time when the Minister wants to give the impression that he is concerned about farmers.
We are all aware of the protests by angry farmers in Killarney. The Minister and his backbench colleagues should note that the majority of the farmers who protested in Killarney are Fine Gael supporters.
And will remain Fine Gael supporters.
(Wexford): Unless Government backbenchers do something about this matter those farmers will take the necessary action at the next general election, which they hope will be held shortly. The silence of the Fine Gael backbenchers is amazing, because what is happening is totally unacceptable to their supporters.
Consumer confidence is in need of major restoration by this Government. The Minister spoke of regulations for the rendering industry and meat factories and to control the amount of money farmers will be paid in compensation but, in fairness to our farmers, there is nothing wrong with Irish beef and the problem is not of their making. Our beef is produced on a green island in environmentally-friendly conditions. Our farmers produce a first class quality produce yet they are denied the price they should get because of the lack of action and diplomacy by the Minister and his Government.
The Minister is a great PR man but he has little substance. He has nothing to offer farmers and Fine Gael supporters are totally disillusioned. Many of them say the Taoiseach should re-shuffle the Cabinet and put someone who knows how to deal with the present problems into the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
It will not be the Fianna Fáil spokesman anyway.
(Wexford): The Fine Gael backbenchers should wake up before it is too late. A general election is on the way and many of them will not be back here unless they take the necessary action to support their farmer friends.
If it is agreeable, the three parties have arranged to speak for ten minutes each. I intend to share my party's time with Deputy Crawford and Deputy Connor.
That is fine for this 30 minute time slot.
I welcome the opportunity to progress the debate on the catastrophic effects of BSE on farmers' incomes. The direct devaluation effect on each animal is about £150 per head and the loss on one animal alone equates to the cost of a tonne of fertiliser. I heard a great deal of nonsense from Fianna Fáil last night and Irish farmers are beginning to accept that it is nonsense. Deputy Cowen should know that bluster and loud talking will not solve this problem. If he believes the Government does not have the answers, farmers want to hear his answers. There were no answers last night, nor was there a sinner in the Gallery for the debate. In answer to Deputy Browne's point, we went around the country in the last two weeks to face the farmers.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
We were not afraid to tell it as it is, which is the important point. As Deputy Cowen said last night, 82 pence per pound for beef is not enough. I have cattle to sell and I should get 90 pence per pound, but who will pay it?
It should be 105 pence per pound.
If beef cannot be sold commercially at 82 pence, what hope is there of selling it at 90 or 95 pence? What about the 1.1 million tonne mountain of frozen beef which will overhang the market at the end of this year — where will that go next year? It is time that we told farmers where they stand. They will not like hearing it but at least they will know the position.
The Government is giving up.
We should not create a situation where winter fatteners are caught for a second year in a row. The only person who said the price of beef next spring is likely to be between 82 and 85 pence per pound is the Minister. Is Fianna Fáil saying it will be between 90 and 95 pence, to put farmers on the wrong track? Fianna Fáil should tell farmers the truth.
I agree with Fianna Fáil that, as far as European farmers are concerned, the keystone to the Treaty of Rome is that they are entitled to be looked after in good and bad times. There is a moral responsibility on the Commission to ensure more compensation is made available and the person most likely to bring it through is the Minister, Deputy Yates. Fianna Fáil should not think bluster will carry the day for them because that time is past. Farmers accept the position although they do not like it and nor do we. I assume Fianna Fáil do not like it either but they should tell it as it is and between us we will try to deal with it. They should not paint the picture as being rosier than it is.
Some of the conditions leading to current difficulties in the beef business are historical, and stem from the steps taken by the then Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry and the then Minister, Deputy Walsh. They agreed to certain strategies and told us compensation was for lower prices. Unfortunately we were hit by BSE this year but that is outside the Government's control.
Let us look at the record of Fianna Fáil. Its members talk about what they will do to open the Libyan and Iranian markets. When Mr. Haughey was Taoiseach he went to Libya to open that market. However, the record shows that, while 43,000 cattle were sent to Libya in 1990, none went in 1991 or 1992. In 1993, 39,000 were sent and in 1994, 5,800. Last year, when Fine Gael was in Government, 81,420 cattle were sent to Libya, which is twice as much as the largest amount when Fianna Fáil was in power.
What was the price of beef then compared to now?
The position is simple. BSE is a worldwide phenomenon which has caused major problems and it will not help to pull political gimmicks. Beef was pulled off the boat when it arrived there but unfortunately, instead of going to the market, it went to cold stores for a number of months. This has caused many difficulties of which we are all aware.
Deputy Crawford does not know what he is talking about.
I do, I was involved in An Bord Bia when Deputy Cowen did not have a clue what beef was. The record there is clear also. The first year I was involved with CBF, the Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance cut the budget to £350,000. More money is being spent in one week on the Border to save the meat industry than that Minister was prepared to spend in the annual budget to promote Irish beef. This Minister is providing £23 million. If we are to get anywhere it will be through realistic, constructive efforts to manage the market and improve consumption by product promotion. Only this week the Government, through An Bord Bia, started that work in a positive way.
(Wexford): Six months too late.
Until the issue was corrected, what point was there in providing for expenditure? For three years in Government Fianna Fáil tried to open up Iran when there was no scare such as there is now.
We did it.
Some £86 million was provided in a special package which will come on stream in the next few days. If any Minister can improve the position for farmers it will be Deputy Yates, under the leadership of the Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton, the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring and the Minister, Deputy De Rossa.
Deputy Crawford should mention Deputy De Rossa in Monaghan, it will get him lots of votes.
This debate is important and it is a pity that it has degenerated into the claptrap coming from the Opposition benches. This is a serious economic crisis for the country, not just the farming community. I will respond to some points made by Deputy Killeen. Last night he criticised the Minister, as did Deputy Byrne this morning, for the share of the package put together following the BSE scare that this country, with 7 per cent of the livestock population in the Community, received. It was 10 per cent of the total budget. We did extraordinarily well, twice as well on a pro rata basis as the Italians, Austrians, Swedes and other Scandinavian countries.
Does beef represent 40 per cent of our gross national products?
I know Deputy Cowen does not like to hear these facts. That package was secured as a result of the Minister's negotiating skills.
As mentioned by Deputy Crawford, in 1989 the Iranian market closed down because of the British BSE scare, which the Iranians thought could have effects here. To my knowledge no realistic attempt was made to open up that market at that time.
More nonsense.
That is an historical fact.
We will answer that in a minute.
That market remained closed for three years up to 1992 and in all those years a Fianna Fáil Minister was responsible for agriculture. Deputy Cowen visited Iran recently.
Thanks be to God he did.
We know the famous remarks made here about his visit. His efforts there reminded a Minister of sending Mike Tyson to a ballet class. He was accompanied by Deputy Andrews, a member of the Fianna Fáil Front Bench, and Niall Andrews, MEP. I would like Deputy Andrews to tell us what happened during that visit because Deputy Cowen has not described how he got on in Teheran or in the other parts of Iran he visited. That visit did not yield very good results and from the stories we hear it appears it did a good deal more harm than good. That is the reality.
That is nonsense.
They are the people who lecture the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and say that he should be in Iran, Libya and so on. When he undertakes such a visit he goes at the appropriate time and achieves results.
(Wexford): What results were achieved in Libya?
As a member of the IFA, I deplore the actions that took place in Killarney. It would have been excellent if the large numbers who attended demonstrated in an ordinary way but the manner in which a section of the demonstrators took the law into their own hands and conducted a noisy and unruly demonstration in the immediate vicinity of the hotel did not do us any good. That impacted in the worst possible way on the Community's Agricultural Ministers, including the German and French Ministers, to whom we must look for a favourable response to this problem. We do not have the funds within our resources to resolve the problem. The point was well made that £1.6 billion of a total agricultural income of £2.2 billion or £2.4 billion is received in direct transfers from the European Union. We must do everything possible to ensure we create an environment under which that income continues to flow.
I am mindful that I am sharing time with colleagues. It is regrettable that I do not have more time to rebut in greater detail some of the nonsense. downright cant and lies in the contributions of Members on the benches opposite.
They are not lies. Maybe the Deputy would organise a Government debate. We could speak about the matter all next week. So much for cant.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Upton.
That is agreed.
Some of my time has been eroded but it is important that we all make a contribution to the debate. While nobody can stand over what happened in Killarney, Members representing rural constituencies understand the increasing frustration in the farming community.
The Deputy should tell that to Deputy Connor.
Farmers' incomes and livelihoods are under threat as a result of this crisis in which neither they nor Government had any hand, act or part in creating. What happened in Killarney will do very little to help resolve the problem.
The British Government has no answer to the problem. Even yesterday it was changing its mind about whether the disease is transmitted from cow to calf. There is no scientific evidence to substantiate any of the measures taken during recent weeks. I hope that the British Government will do what was agreed in Florence and depopulate affected herds. The Minister and the Government must be congratulated for the speed with which they acted, particularly along the Border, to stop cattle being smuggled into the South, which would have been unfortunate and would have created the perception that our herds were at risk.
It is unfortunate that the Opposition, particularly Fianna Fáil, has failed to resist the temptation to make this a political football. Everybody understands that the problems of the farming community are not of the farmers' making nor are they caused by those currently in power. To inject some realism into the debate, it is useful to consider the extent of the remedial action taken by the Government since the crisis broke in March, given that I heard today that nothing has been done and nothing is happening. There has been a 12 per cent increase in export refunds.
After it had been slashed from 25 per cent.
The Irish herd has been depopulated to reassure potential customers. Our diplomatic resources have been mobilised to protect and expand our live export markets but we need to do more. In cases such as this there is always more we should and could do but what is happening here is nothing short of political point-scoring. There has been a shock in the agricultural market which is not dissimilar to that experienced during the 1970s oil crisis which fundamentally changed the global economy. Prior to this crisis, which arose from the ineptitude of the British Government, beef consumption was in decline and the BSE scare accelerated that. Unfortunately, there is little or anything any Government can do to alter the public's perception, having regard to the manner in which the crisis was dealt with in the media.
The Deputy might as well pack up and go home.
Instead of recognising that reality and helping the Government the Opposition is not supporting it. Last night the Minister specified why Fianna Fáil is acting in this manner. It is amusing to listen to "Hill 16" Deputy Ahern talk about the beef industry. Having list-ended to him last night my suspicion that there are very few farmers in Drumcondra was confirmed.
What about the Tralee man talking about urban decay?
They have the cheek to criticise the Tánaiste about the difficulties involved in reopening the live trade with the Iranian market.
That is the best argument the Deputy can come up with.
I am delighted that last night the Minister nailed that lie on the head and confirmed that the Tánaiste had spoken to the Iranian Minister last week.
(Wexford): After six months.
I congratulate the Tánaiste and the Iranian Ambassador for their efforts and the officials in the Department who continue to give high priority to the promotion of Irish beef exports and the retention of Irish markets. Following representations I made to the Tánaiste at the request of the IFA, he confirmed he is sparing no effort to ensure that the trade——
The usual old story.
——the media and consumers are fully informed and that any misunderstandings are cleared up.
The Minister confirmed that he was the first western politician to visit Libya in recent years. If such a visit were so simple, it is difficult to understand why Deputy Cowen and his colleagues did not bring home any good news from their much vaunted visit to Iran. It was a PR job for the Fianna Fáil party. Fair dues to the Deputy, he did what he could but it did not amount to anything. I support the Minister in——
We did more than the Deputy or the Tánaiste.
The Deputy would be surprised at what the Tánaiste has done.
He has not visited one country with which we have a beef contract.
It breaks the Deputy's heart that we are in a position of influence and he is not in a position to do anything.
Surely Deputy Upton is not going to sit there and support the Tánaiste, given that he has been sniping at him for the past five years.
It might not be any harm if we were to put this matter into perspective. This problem is primarily one of people in Europe not eating beef. It has arisen because of BSE and the way in which it has been covered in the European media. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry should not be blamed for this phenomenon; it is beyond his control and to continue to blame him serves no useful purpose.
The enormity of the difficulties should not be underestimated. We have not fully come to grips with them. Consumer confidence has been seriously eroded and will not be restored easily. The public has no obligation to eat beef, or meat, because there are many alternative ways of having a satisfying and adequate diet without beef.
We must look at BSE in a wider context. BSE is just one more food scare, although it is the worst to date, and we have failed miserably to learn how to cope with them. In this respect, a fundamental problem with BSE is getting the public to deal with the concept of risk. Life is full of risks. A risk free life is not possible. We must all live and deal with risk. We must, therefore, try and get this matter into some kind of perspective.
We must also understand and realise that there are many problems to which we do not know the answers. This is part of the difficulty with BSE. The experts, people who have been studying this matter for years, do not have the answers to many of the questions which arise. However, we crave for certainty in life; indeed many people are prepared to provide a false certainty. In addition, there has always been fear of the unknown. In the old days there was a fear of ghosts, etc., but that has been replaced by a fear of technology.
We must try to understand technology, we must try to understand these diseases and we must try to understand the concept of risk so that we can deal with them in a reasonable manner, bearing in mind that we have to live with a certain level of danger. We would be better off treating members of the public as intelligent rational beings and explaining these things to them than having various agencies of State and Ministers for Agriculture, here and elsewhere, telling us that there are absolute safeties. There are not and it is nonsense to suggest otherwise.
I have spent some time considering these matters and have concluded that there is not a great deal of risk attached to BSE. I have no problem eating beef, but I am not going to suggest that it is perfectly safe; nobody can say that, nor can it be said about any diet. We should come to grips with this reality.
I accept that the farmers have a serious problem and I am glad there are none of them in my constituency because it gives me licence to talk more freely about their behaviour in Killarney; it was appalling. Rural Deputies should realise that the urban population is appalled by that kind of unacceptable behaviour. It is impossible to understand it. It is also counterproductive because if this matter is to be contained, everybody's support will be needed.
The Fianna Fáil idea of blaming the Government is consistent. We have all blamed Governments for everything, including the bad weather. However, this matter is beyond the capacity of the Government to deal with. It is a consumer problem and the sooner we accept this the better, rather than being involved in the politics of blame which ultimately does not get anybody anywhere.
Not all of us living in urban areas were appalled by events in Killarney on Monday evening. It was the most entertaining clip on the news. The farmers did not expect to break through the cordon, but having done so they were at a loss as to what to do. Events such as these happen in urban areas. However, we were terrified that they achieved their end by such a small demonstration, which they usually do.
I am pleased that the Fianna Fáil Party finally recognises the central importance of the beef industry to the Irish economy. I only wish that party had recognised this in the events leading up to the beef tribunal, the consequences of which are still unresolved.
The BSE crisis has its roots in the overriding ambition of the Tory Government in the UK to deregulate. I am always astonished at the achievements of the farming industry. It has always had exceptional Ministers for Agriculture, and this Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry is no different. He has visited Russia, the UK, Italy, Spain and Libya to secure not just existing markets but to ensure that we open up further markets. In this he has been extremely successful. In this respect there has been a sea change in the farming community in recent weeks. Everybody to whom I have spoken has told me what a great Minister he is. If I were a farmer I too would concede that he is doing an exceptionally good job.
Democratic Left acknowledges that farmers and processors have been hard hit by the crisis which was not of their making, but of the farming industry. It originated in England and we are feeling the effects. Why can people in the wider world not distinguish between Irish and English beef? What has An Bord Bia been doing? We now find that the shamrock is not recognised. Why did we spend so much money on it and why are those responsible still in charge?
I have expressed my views and the view of my party on the need to reform the CAP before it becomes unsustainable. I still maintain that the system of perks, grants and subsidies is one which disproportionately benefits large ranchers, is unsustainable in the long-term and will eventually be rejected by the taxpayers of the EU who are picking up the bill both in terms of taxes and higher food costs.
However, my party fully supports the effort being made by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, and the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Deenihan, to ensure that Irish farmers and processors are not penalised for the mind boggling bad management of the UK herd. It is a tribute to the Government's tenacity that 10 per cent of the EU compensation package has been secured for Ireland despite the fact that we hold only 7 per cent of EU beef production.
The Government is not afraid to take tough decisions. It was a lack of tough decisions in previous Administrations that gave us the beef tribunal scandal. The Government's decision to slaughter BSE infected herds has protected Irish farmers from that catastrophe. It is regrettable that the UK Government lacked the political and economic guts to take a similar decision.
I hope the compensation package negotiated by the Government will cushion our farmers against the worst effects of the crisis in the short-term. However, in the long-term, we must recognise that there has been a fundamental sea change in consumer attitudes. People are not eating beef. There has been a 20 per cent reduction in consumption because they are nervous about their diet. We will not persuade them to return to eating beef until we can guarantee that the meat they eat is perfect and will not detrimentally affect their health.
The farming industry, not just the Irish industry, is responsible for what it has done. It has, unnaturally turned herbivores into carnivores and then into cannibals by feeding them their own species. We cannot continue to do this without the kind of effects that have emerged under BSE. We must stop using the headage mentality which compensates those who produce most and start considering schemes for producing quality rather than more beef. Food production and consumption have become political issues. Until we begin to examine how food is produced rather than by whom, we shall lose the battle. The ultimate arbitrators, consumers, will decide for themselves. Until we can prove to them that this product is good and pure and identify our market, we shall continue to lose the battle.
I believe that ultimately our farmers will recognise that we have an excellent Minister for Agriculture and Food doing an extremely good job on their behalf and will reject the nonsense we have heard from the Fianna Fáil Party in recent weeks, trotting from city to city seeking urban votes, then coming in here to talk about farmers' interests. I cannot fathom it.
It is called being a national party. With four candidates in the country what would the Deputy known about it?
It is our intention to divide this timeslot between Deputies Michael Kitt, Clohessy and me.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
All Members have one interest at heart. It is not our intention to bleat about the circumstances prevailing outside this House but rather to ascertain what can be done about them. Failure to obtain contracts in Libya and Iran is well understood beyond the parameters of this House. Deputy Crawford might not be aware that the day after the Minister left Tripoli the Australians signed up with Libya for 50,000 head of cattle. The Minister made a clear statement that he was there merely to sign a contract and was not prepared to discuss any of the other problems the Libyans appeared to have.
Was that what happened in 1991-92 when Fianna Fáil was in power?
It is regrettable that that market, clearly identified as one for our exports, has been lost to the Australians.
Were it not for the efforts of the Iranian Ambassador and others, there would be an absolute closed door to us in the Iranian market. It is imperative that the Minister for Agriculture and Food or the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs should engage in the necessary exercise to bring about circumstances in which Iran will again accept meat from this country rather than from countries like Uruguay and others. We now witness our counterparts within the EU taking our market share in Iran. Deputy Crawford and others will readily understand that once ejected from a market it is very difficult to be reinstated.
It is time we began to examine the overall matter of consumer health and the realities of the marketplace. I was delighted to hear the Minister say yesterday that he will introduce regulations regarding meat and bone meal imports. It is ridiculous that there are gardaí on the Border whose duty it is to prevent cattle being smuggled across. Deputy Crawford and others who live nearby will readily understand that smugglers never travel on main roads in either direction. Yet those same gardaí are allowing trucks to pass carrying meat and bone meal compound to be fed ultimately to ruminants in this part of the country. While such compound is intended as foodstuff for the poultry industry, we are all aware that a certain amount is being diverted into other livestock feedstuff, something which must cease immediately. There is need to establish a register of those entitled to obtain feed destined for poultry.
There is a need also to introduce higher standards. We talk much about improving general health and welfare in respect of the overall agricultural scene. Some officer must be appointed whose task will be to monitor and give a quality assurance to consumers generally. We shall not progress past 82p per pound if we do not restore consumer confidence and assess their needs.
During a previous debate on this issue I ask the Minister to introduce a test on all carcases to detect residues. We are told this cannot be done, yet I understand that McDonalds are about to have such a test introduced in regard to the beef they use in their burgers. Meat and bone meal in feedstuff is a major problem which must be tackled urgently. The time has come when there will have to be a quality assurance in the case of all farms. One person is best equipped to give that assurance, the veterinary surgeon who deals with each farm. It is time regulations were introduced to ensure that a veterinary surgeon or a departmental officer can take samples of all products to be found on farms whether feedstuffs, manure or any other.
We shall be unable to sell our beef or any of our other grassland or meal compound products as long as we are unable to stand over their quality. This is another matter that must be tackled urgently. The Minister would be better employed pursuing those matters immediately rather than some of the other hare-brained ideas being spoken about. The sooner the better top-up payments, needed to finance their various commitments, are made to farmers.
I can readily understand, as I am sure can many others, the frustration at what happened in Killarney. Many of those demonstrators, awaiting grants and so on, had to obtain funds to pay fees for children returning to second or third-level colleges, having expected the income from the sale of their livestock to cover such commitments.
We must also examine some of the other hare-brained schemes suggested, one being an intervention scheme pitched at £ per pound for weanlings, which was a joke. Any farmer with weanlings wishing to avail of such a scheme merely had to wait two months before drawing his £100 subsidy on male calves. Had the Minister said he was prepared to allow a certain number of such animals to qualify and pay the additional premium it would have prevented the pile-up that will inevitably occur in the not too distant future.
We should pay tribute to some of those not present in the House who have been endeavouring to reopen our traditional markets, such as those in Libya and Iran. The Iranian Ambassador has done everything in his power on a number of occasions, from a political point of view, to improve the position. Why can the Minister of State not tell us why he or his Minister could not travel to Iran to ascertain how they could overcome the present problem? We were told by the Minister, prior to the summer recess, that the problem there was of a veterinary nature. My understanding is that the Iranians are reasonably happy with regard to the veterinary position and that our efforts over many years to prevent the spread of BSE are acceptable to them.
Will we have a recurrence, as in the case of Libya, of a Minister arriving the day after a contract has been signed with another country for the following six months? That is a problem we must confront. I urge the Minister to ask his senior colleague and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to talk to these people. There is no point in Deputy Ferris informing us that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs shook the hand of the Iranian Foreign Minister in a corridor in New York. That would be similar to my meeting somebody outside the entrance of Leinster House, shaking their hand and inquiring how they were. That is not where business is conducted. It is not conducted in public.
With television cameras present, were they in private?
Some of them did so without the presence of television cameras. When history has been written, Deputy Crawford will know who engaged in such endeavours in private. Business with Iran will be conducted when our Ministers go there and negotiate. A number of groups with contacts in Iran have done their utmost to improve the position. I know that Deputy Crawford, representing an area with a large number of winter fatteners that produces quite an amount of beef, will understand the need for the establishment of a market for next year's stock. At present farmers have not the confidence to put such animals in sheds. If confidence in farming is not restored in the very near future the overall effects on our economy in 1997 will be drastic.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Kitt wishes to share his time with Deputy Clohessy. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. All headage payments, premia and payments under REP schemes, or any scheme the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry has not suspended, should be made as quickly as possible. Farmers owe more money than ever and have very high borrowings, borrowings which were encouraged by this Minister and the Department. They need those payments urgently so they do not have to sell cattle immediately. As my colleague, Deputy Ellis, said, we want to build some confidence in the industry. I ask the Department to do a small thing to encourage this.
The agriculture budget has not been spent and we read in today's paper that £825,000 was overpaid last December to nearly 14,000 Department staff for over-time. There is panic in the agriculture sector. I saw the results of this uncertainty in my constituency yesterday. Prices for good cattle in the marts there were disastrous. Farmers would like to know what will happen in the coming months. They are losing up to £200 per head of cattle and there has been no response from the Department. The payment of headage premia due is the minimum response necessary.
In County Galway and in the western counties farmers depend mostly on store cattle. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry is not firmly on the side of the smaller producer. He came to a meeting in Galway and may have gone to meetings all around the country, but farmers in Galway wonder why he is not spending more time looking for markets. Why is he touring Ireland, going to party political meetings, talking to farmers about what he will do when we want him to find markets as quickly as possible?
The live trade is particularly important to the smaller producer. I was glad the Minister came to a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs two weeks ago. I mentioned at the meeting the question of the live trade and in response he said that but for the Taoiseach's discussions with President Mubarak, Egypt would not be open today. I do not believe the Taoiseach has done more than make a telephone call to President Mubarak on that issue and I would like the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste to adopt a hands on approach to get those markets as quickly as possible.
In regard to Iran, the Minister said he did not wish to pre-empt discussions that may take place but that both France and Ireland were pulling out all the stops for the Iranian market, and he considered this to be very urgent. Since the Minister spoke at that committee meeting, France has done its own thing. It is a pity the Minister would not do his thing for Irish farmers by reprsenting them as well as possible. I would like the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste to show us evidence of what they are doing, particularly in regard to the live trade.
I regret that so little has been done about the Departmental dispute concerning meat inspectors. One commentator said this morning that this dispute could be as serious or more serious than the BSE crisis. I am amazed there have not been talks with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry or any other Department on this issue in recent days. I hope — Deputy Cowen referred to this last night — the meat inspectors' dispute is resolved as quickly as possible. Some 9,000 workers are facing lay-offs and the livelihood of farmers is in jeopardy because this dispute has not been tackled. We want talks to resolve it.
I also raised the issue of compensation with the Minister at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs. I am amazed that compensation is not being given to farmers who sell at the marts. Surely farmers deserve that compensation more than the agents and dealers who buy cattle. I understand the Minister talked about a national scheme of compensation for farmers with heifers for sale at marts. I would like him to clarify that when he replies to this debate, because that would be the most unfair treatment of farmers.
Deputy Upton mentioned the role of the consumer. I agree this is vitally important but I am amazed there has not been a concerted effort by the Government to promote beef. It is too late now in many ways but the Government should still move. This has been done very effectively in the case of sheepmeat. The Government should start such a promotion. The Minister says the retail price of beef is not sufficient; let him promote its consumption. We would at least have increased confidence in the industry if he did so.
I wish to share my time with Deputy de Valera.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome this very important discussion and thank the Fianna Fáil Party for putting down the motion. I thank the Government side for responding to it and hope it will ensure that common sense prevails in the light of this awful tragedy.
The scale of the crisis in the beef industry is apparent to all. Beef consumption has fallen heavily right across Europe. As a result, cattle prices have collapsed and tens of thousands of Irish farmers are under severe financial pressure. It is not an exaggeration to say this may be the greatest crisis to hit agriculture since the economic war of the 1930s.
Consider the situation in which Irish agriculture now finds itself. Cattle prices have fallen by more than 20 per cent compared with a year ago. The value of the national herd has fallen by up to £1 billion. Exports of Irish beef to continental Europe have plummeted. Prices for cull cows have collasped causing major knock-on problems in the dairy industry. Cows due for culling are now being retained on farms and their milk output is pushing the dairy industry into a very serious superlevy problem. I am not convinced the Government has tackled this crisis with the seriousness it deserves. I have no doubt the Fine Gael Party in Government is well aware of the scale of the problems currently facing the agricultural sector, but I am not convinced the other two coalition partners are of like mind on this issue.
Coherent and decisive Government action is needed to deal with this crisis. It would be a tragedy for the country if this Administration, which is openly divided on so many issues, was to divide on the beef issue also. The solution to this problem lies at European level and it is there that our efforts have to be concentrated. The Government must ensure that compensation is made available to Irish beef farmers. This crisis was not of their making. The reputation of their product and demand for their product has been severely damaged by events entirely outside their control, namely the gross mishandling of the BSE situation by the British Government.
There are now proposals from the European Union to solve the beef problem by introducing a calf and weanling slaughter policy as a means of reducing supply. This is not the route we should take. I see several major difficulties with it. It would send a very negative message to consumers at a time when the beef industry should try to rebuild its image. The impact on supply would be very gradual. It would take two years, for instance, for calf slaughtering to reduce supply. Such a scheme would destroy the raw material of the beef industry for future years. The whole scale of the agri-business industry would be reduced, with job losses across the board. A policy to slaughter calves and weanlings would do little to help the position of beef finishers. They would effectively compete against an intervention mechanism when buying in their stock, but they would sell their finished cattle into a depressed market.
A much better suggestion for dealing with the problem would be to take cull cows into intervention and to compensate farmers at market rates for the animals involved. That would not have the negative image problems associated with slaughtering calves. It would have a number of practical advantages in that it would reduce supply almost immediately and it would alleviate consumer concern about eating beef from older animals.
We are now moving into the peak disposal season for the cattle industry in Ireland. It is vitally important that measures are taken to restore buyer confidence at all levels of the industry, otherwise, the whole cattle sector could be plunged into major decline. We must pay more attention to the place of the consumer in all of this. If the BSE crisis has taught us anything it is the truth of the cliché about the consumer being king. Many people in the beef industry paid lip service to that idea. Now, they ignore it at their cost.
The key to success for the Irish beef industry lies in quality assurance and customer assurance. As long as market confidence can be maintained in the Irish product all doors will be open to it. We express great pride in the clean and green image which our beef enjoys, or which we think it enjoys. The fact is that this favourable image is useless and will rapidly disappear without proper verification standards. We have an advantage but we are throwing it away because of our inability to convince international consumers of how good and safe is our product.
The organisation charged with responsibility for maintaining public confidence in Irish beef is the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. The Department's record in policing that industry over the last decade has left a lot to be desired. Irish taxpayers will this year face a bill of up to £100 million in EU fines because of the Department's failures to control abuse and fraud in the beef processing industry. Taxpayers and consumers might have hoped that the Department had put that era behind it. Revelations during the past week, however, are hardly encouraging.
During the week in which the BSE crisis broke we read in the papers that one of the Department's officers was to face criminal proceedings for allegedly selling bogus Irish health certificates to cover British cattle. This scam would have enabled British cattle from BSE infected herds to be sold into continental Europe markets as Irish animals and the potential damage to Ireland's disease-free status would be immense. I need hardly say that incidents of this kind do not cast a very favourable light on the Department. There continues to be a serious question mark over its ability to police the beef industry in a proper manner.
I thank my colleague. Deputy Clohessy, for sharing his time with me. It is obvious from all who wish to take part in this debate that further time is needed to discuss these issues of grave importance to the agriculture industry and to the economy generally. It is amazing the Government never seems to initiate these debates; they are initiated by Fianna Fáil and by our spokesperson on agriculture, Deputy Cowen.
BSE has had a catastrophic effect not only on the agricultural community but on the whole economy, yet no decisive action has been taken by the Government to conserve present markets or to try to find new markets to make up for recent losses. There has been no Government action to bolster the confidence of the consumer with regard to beef. There has been a worsening of the position of the beef industry since March of this year when the BSE crisis erupted. The only practical assistance to beef exporters was from the Fianna Fáil Party with its visit to Iran. The Minister was unable to follow up on this visit even though the groundwork has been laid for him by the Fianna Fáil representatives on that occasion.
As President of the Council, the Minister has failed to achieve consensus at EU level on how to approach the BSE crisis. Only confusion and discord are evident. There is no co-ordinated strategy, which is vital to restore consumer confidence in the safety of beef. The fact that the Minister is prepared to consider the Fischler proposals on the slaughter of calves demonstrates his complete lack of comprehension as to the extremely damaging effects such a policy would have. As Deputy Cowen pointed out, this policy amounts to the equivalent of eating seed corn. The Minister has been unable to convince his EU colleagues of Ireland's special dependence on beef. The point made by Deputy Clohessy and others on the issue of compensation is of grave importance. This issue has not been adequately addressed by the Minister or the Government.
The Minister's paralysis results in beef prices falling through the floor. He does not appreciate what this means for the industry, the individual farmer and the economy generally. If he is not prepared to take immediate action, the future viability of thousands of farm families will be fatally undermined. That is why Fianna Fáil decided to bring this debate to the House. We realise the catastrophic effects this issue has had on the farming population. Most disconcerting is the fact that there seems to be no will on the part of the Government to address this problem. It lacks courage to deal with the issue.
I sympathise with the Minister in that, in his job to defend and protect the interests of farm families and the industry generally, he is not helped by the views expressed by Deputy Kathleen Lynch in today's debate, which can only be described as an indiscriminate gratuitous insult to farmers. The Deputy may believe that this might serve her political interests but she forgets that the agriculture industry is the foundation of our economy. She should urge her colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, to act for the common good.
The importance of An Bord Bia has been referred to in other debates on the agriculture industry initiated by Fianna Fáil. I hope the Government will give further assistance with regard to BSE so that An Bord Bia will be in a stronger position to market Irish beef. Unfortunately, no distinction is made between Irish and British beef in terms of quality, which should be evident. The Government has failed in that regard. The threads could be picked up by An Bord Bia if given extra financial assistance to deal with the issue.
I am pleased to address the House on this motion. It is evident from the Minister's statement in the House last evening that the motion tabled by the Opposition is misguided and inaccurate in that it fails to acknowledge the enormous efforts made by the Department, the Government and various Government agencies during the last six months or so to protect the beef industry from the worst effects of the BSE crisis. The amendment moved by the Minister more accurately reflects the position and I am delighted to support it.
People listening to the Deputies who support the motion could be forgiven for believing that the BSE crisis is confined to Ireland and that it stems from some failure on the part of the Government, but nothing could be further from the truth. This is a European crisis of dimensions never previously experienced and it stems from a disease which originated in the United Kingdom. The fact that it is a European rather than an Irish crisis is demonstrated by the fact that beef consumption across the European Union has fallen by about 20 per cent since the announcement in the House of Commons on 20 March and average EU cattle prices are now some 16 per cent below 1995 levels. In addition, most of the beef sold into intervention since the beginning of the crisis has come from member states other than Ireland, which means that the Irish industry has performed quite well on the commercial market given the difficult circumstances.
The Government is fully aware both of the importance of the beef industry to the national economy and the serious threat to the industry posed by the BSE crisis. At the informal meeting of the Council of Ministers over the weekend the Minister made the point repeatedly to his European counterparts and the Commissioner that the beef industry was more important to the Irish economy than the entire agriculture industry to the European economy. It is evident from the Minister's statement last evening that the Government has taken a range of measures to minimise the impact of the crisis on the economy, the beef industry generally and, in particular, beef producers.
My Department has never sought to minimise the scale of the crisis or its impact on producers. However, by any standards, the compensation package negotiated in June, which was worth some £70 million to Irish producers, registered a substantial negotiating success on the part of the Minister who succeeded in securing 10 per cent of this package for Irish producers. This figure does not include the amendments made to the deseasonalisation premium scheme in order to ensure its retention in 1997. This premium is worth £16 million annually to Irish producers and has already helped to restore confidence to the winter fattening segment of the beef industry which, as we all know, is of vital importance to the overall health of the sector. The decision by the European Commission, as announced at the informal meeting of the Council in Killarney earlier this week, to bring forward the date of payment of cattle premiums into the current budget year and to increase the rate of advance to 80 per cent will make additional financial resources available for the beef sector in 1997. This improves the prospects for a further compensation package in the course of the 1997 budget year.
In essence, the current problems in the beef sector stem from a lack of consumer confidence in beef. This lack of confidence is reflected in a 15 to 20 per cent fall in consumption in Europe since the beginning of the crisis. Unfortunately the fall in consumption has been even higher in some member states and all of the evidence is that beef consumption is unlikely to return to 1995 levels for some time, if ever. This development has created a new imbalance in the beef market and this has increased the net surplus in the European Union by up to one million tonnes. This problem has to be addressed urgently because failure to do so would simply store up further problems for the future. The Commission's proposals for reform of the beef support system, which are designed to restore balance to the beef market, have to be seen in this context.
We support the Commission's strategy of scaling back beef production to the new consumption levels because in the long-term this is in the best interest of Irish producers. There is no other option. Our overall approach to the Commission's proposals is to ensure that the Irish beef industry is not required to make a disproportionate contribution to the overall reduction in production sought by the Commission and that the measures are implemented in a balanced way throughout the European Union. Clearly, we welcome the Commission's proposal to increase the intervention ceiling for 1996 and 1997. If these ceilings were to be retained at current levels they would be quickly exhausted and prices would collapse to safety-net levels. The decision of the Council at its informal meeting in Killarney this week to proceed to the early adoption of a Commission proposal to increase the intervention ceiling temporarily for the two tenders in October and the first tender in November pending the adoption of the full package of proposals was extremely welcome because it removes a degree of uncertainty about the availability of normal intervention arrangements during the next six weeks or so.
I reject the criticism by Deputy Cowen who argued last night that the Beef Management Committee has failed to recognise the importance of the beef sector to the Irish economy. The reality is that the Beef Management Committee has taken a number of measures designed to tailor the intervention system to the needs of the Irish beef sector. For example, the intervention system has been extended to include steer grade 04, the committee normally accepts in full Irish offers into intervention and the processor's margin has been increased in direct response to the Minister's intervention with Commissioner Fischler.
The Minister announced last night that additional measures were being introduced to reinforce the existing ban on feeding meat and bonemeal to cattle and sheep. I thank Deputy Ellis for his support for this proposal. In that sense, his contribution was very positive.
The Government is fully aware of the problems being encountered by beef producers and the beef industry generally as a result of the BSE crisis. It has taken effective action on a range of fronts to minimise the effects of the crisis, in particular by way of the retention of various markets which were under threat, the introduction of effective emergency intervention measures and the implementation of a BSE compensation package worth £70 million. Our strategy has been designed to address the short, medium and long-term dimensions of the problem. The problem to be addressed is the imbalance between supply and demand in the EU beef market and the Commission's proposals for reform of the beef sector have to be judged in that context. I assure the House that there is strong Government solidarity on this issue.
I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Cowen.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This motion would meet with the acceptance of all Fine Gael backbenchers and farmers. The Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, said it was mischievous. It states:
That Dáil Éireann, mindful of the central economic importance of the beef industry to the Irish economy, condemns the Government for its failure to deal with the BSE crisis since 20th March last, deplores the failure of the Government to clarify Ireland's position in relation to the EU Commission's proposals to reorganise the beef regime under the Common Agricultural Policy and calls on the Government to defend and protect the interests of the Irish beef sector in the present negotiations before the viability of thousands of Irish farm families is fatally undermined.
No one could oppose that. The Minister will have to accept that what we are saying is accurate. I do not underestimate the task confronting him. We are not blaming the Government for creating the BSE crisis, what we are saying is that its response to the crisis, the test of any Government, has been abysmal to say the least.
Farmers demonstrated in Killarney earlier this week. As the Minister and all Fine Gael backbenchers well know, farmers are hardworking people who do not want to travel to Killarney in the autumn to protest, but they had good cause for so doing. I do not want to comment on their actions on the day in question but it was their intention to send a signal not only to the Minister and the Government but also to the Commission that they were both angry and frustrated. No one can blame them for that.
Deputy Ferris referred to the increase in export refunds. This time last year they decreased by some 35 per cent. This was followed by a fall in prices and, in turn, the debacle of the announcement in the House of Commons. Suddenly, BSE was being mentioned in the media throughout the world. Little had been known about it prior to that.
What was our response? The Minister decided to do nothing but wait and see which way the wind was blowing and then react. What he should have done immediately, in our opinion and that of farmers and those interested in the economy, was to dissociate Irish beef from British beef. Cattle are produced here under a strict health regime but the Minister failed to draw that distinction with our European and Third World customers. The Minister should have acted immediately. The Opposition was told yesterday that it had little to offer by way of suggestions to deal with this crisis. We have put forward suggestions but there has not been any response to them from the Minister. I will repeat some of those suggestions in my contribution.
By initiating this debate Fianna Fáil sought to set out clearly the failure of the Minister and the Government to deal effectively with the BSE crisis. As an Opposition party, we wanted the Government to set out the policies, if any, it has to deal with the worsening problem. The Minister's only suggestion last night was that farmers should produce beef at 82p per pound. I am sure all farmers would like to achieve that one day. I have cattle to sell, as do some Members on the opposite side of the House, but does the Minister honestly believe that small farmers can change from producing beef at 1.05p per pound to 82p per pound within a matter of two or three years? The Minister should come back to the real world and put forward realistic proposals.
Because of the ongoing industrial action in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, the cattle industry, already on its knees, has been crippled in recent days. The immediate crisis has not received any response from the Minister. He has failed to meet members of IMPACT, the union representing 40 per cent of his staff. The Minister's appalling description of his hard working meat inspectors as "opportunists in the extreme" must rank as one of the most unhelpful interventions in recent industrial relations history. It is also a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If there is opportunism in the Department, it is coming from the top down. We are reminded of that every day when we turn on our televisions or read newspapers.
The 300 staff involved in this dispute have a legitimate grievance. That has already been recognised by the Department. Since the reintroduction of intervention, staff have been pressed beyond the existing limitations of training and manpower. Rather than address real problems in his Department, the Minister has opted to play to the gallery, not for the first time. The result is that at this most critical time of the year, during the most critical year in memory, meat factories are in a state of chaos.
The ongoing failure of the Minister to deal with this issue as a matter of urgency is only the latest in a series of blunders by him in handling this ever worsening crisis. The Minister's only defence in the debate last night was that Fianna Fáil had nothing new to say. That overlooks two facts. First, it is the Minister's job to bring forward proposals and, second, Fianna Fáil last night restated the obvious fundamentals of this crisis, one of which is the inadequate response of the Government.
Our party spokesman, Deputy Cowen, clearly set out the approach that needs to be taken to deal with this crisis. Ireland has a good news story to tell about its beef industry. Our grass-based. environmentally friendly, extensive production is a model of how the industry as a whole needs to be developed. Just as BSE is not a problem of Ireland's making, likewise intensive overproduction is not a feature of the Irish industry. The strength of our argument should be buttressed by the Commission's own position paper on CAP reform. Commissioner Fischler, in his option paper for CAP reform published some months ago, set out the clear intention that in future payments to farmers should be linked to environmental and quality criteria.
By these criteria, Ireland has a natural advantage over EU states in beef production. Ireland is dependent on beef to an extent unlike that of any other European country. Although we have the most extensive regime of major producers, we are also the largest exporters in the northern hemisphere. To put it in graphic political terms, beef is to Ireland what fish is to Spain or olive oil is to Greece, but as Irish fishermen know, and Irish farmers are finding out, the difference is that where Spain views its industry as a vital national issue, a veto issue if necessary, there is no corresponding political will in Ireland. Shame on the Minister in his role during Ireland's Presidency of the EU.
This crisis has never been at the top of the Government's agenda. We have heard sniping from the Democratic Left backbenches today. The Tánaiste and members of the Labour Party prefer to perpetuate their grudge with the beef industry rather than advance the national interest. A graphic illustration of this is the failure to convene a meeting of the Joint Trade Commission between Ireland and Iran. A meeting of this body is already a year and a half overdue. This body is the key to opening our formerly profitable market in Iran. Resolving the technical issues alone will not sell even one pound of beef to Iran. The Tánaiste refuses point blank to have a meeting of the commission. At this most crucial time for the beef industry, old scores are put above sales abroad. Will the Minister tell us the reason the Tánaiste will not convene a meeting of the Joint Trade Commission? Is there another agenda? Why has the Minister allowed Denmark and New Zealand to take advantage of our disadvantage?
A meeting of EU Ministers was held recently in Killarney. Government Ministers normally invite their European counterparts to their own constituencies. Why was the recent meeting in Killarney not held in Wexford? Is the Minister ashamed of the tourism industry in Wexford? Is the Minister ashamed to promote County Wexford? Why did he not take this opportunity to do so? The Minister has a job to do. I ask him, for the benefit of the agricultural community and the whole of the economy, to do something about this crisis.
I thank the Members who contributed to this debate. I ask the Minister to urge the Taoiseach to ensure that every Deputy is afforded an opportunity in Government time to discuss this major crisis in agriculture, our biggest industry. The Government talks about transparency and openness — the Minister referred to that last night — but it is refusing to be accountable to this House. If the credibility of public representatives is to mean anything in rural communities, Members such as Deputies Davern, O'Hanlon, Timmins, Kitt, Burke and others should be entitled to come into this House for a full Government debate on this issue. That is the least Government and Opposition backbenchers deserve. As far as I am concerned, there will be no further business in this House from next week onwards until the Government accedes to a full debate so that my colleagues can avail of the same opportunity given to me. The Minister and I are the only two Members who have had an opportunity to speak at length on this issue. That is not good enough in a parliamentary assembly on an issue as important, delicate and critical as this.
The Minister made a landmark speech last night. He described what is probably the greatest sell-out of a negotiating position by a Minister for Agriculture. Let me paraphrase it succinctly in the next minute and a half. The Minister said that, as the country responsible for the largest surplus of beef in the EU, it is in our best interests to go ahead with the Fischler proposals. This country produces seven million cattle out of a total EU market of 84 million cattle under the most non-intensive systems of production in the Community. We have always been exporters of beef. Are we now to be punished at the Minister's behest, under this country's Presidency, on the basis that were we not exporting 80 per cent of our cattle to the EU and elsewhere, there would not be a surplus? That is the political noose on which I will hang the Minister from now until the next general election.
We joined the European Union to get away from dependency on Britain. It is now being suggested that we cut out production to a far greater extent than any other country because of the Minister's public position at the Killarney meeting.
The opposite is the case.
The Minister suggests that he has attained a floor price of 82p. That is a market price. Regarding export refunds, the Minister was very critical of the fact that £1,000 was being spent on cattle that were worth £200 in Egypt. That is what Egypt is prepared to pay. Is the Minister suggesting that we should not take that money, that a French farmer or a German farmer or someone else should benefit from what has always been a permanent feature of the Common Agricultural Policy, the export refund system to take away surplus production?
I demand a Government debate on this issue as and from next Tuesday morning. I want to hear from Deputy Connaughton and others who are entitled to speak for more than three minutes on a matter of such importance. I hope Deputy Connaughton will use his influence with the Minister and the Taoiseach to get a full three-day debate on this matter before it goes further, because the Minister's negotiating position as described in this House is selling farmers down the river.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Penrose, William.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- ÓCuív, Éamon.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Amendment declared carried.
Question, "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to", put and declared carried.