I wish to share time with Deputies O'Hanlon and O'Keeffe.
Private Members' Business. - Beef Export Ban: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Hugh Byrne on Tuesday, 22 October 1996:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the decision by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to agree to the arbitrary ban on the export of beef from Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan to Russia and also condemns the mishandling by the Government and, particularly, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, of the BSE crisis since 20 March which has resulted in this debacle and calls on the Government to immediately make direct political and diplomatic representations by An Taoiseach, An Tánaiste and other senior Ministers in person at the highest level with all foreign markets so as to ensure that sale of Irish beef abroad and the thousands of jobs at home dependent on them are effectively protected and promoted.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and insert the following:
"Dáil Éireann endorses the efforts of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to facilitate and ensure the continued export of Irish beef to Russia and commends the strategy and actions of the Government and the Minister in protecting export markets for Irish beef, in defending the interests of the sector overall and in helping it to overcome the effects of the BSE crisis."
—(Minister for Agriculture Food and Forestry).
I am sure that is agreed.
Last evening I spelt out my understanding of the disastrous position that has befallen the beef industry in Cork due to the Minister's actions. It is necessary to restore Irish and international customer confidence in beef. To do that we must establish a national co-ordinating committee with representatives from Government agencies, retailers, processors and producers. The EU Commission must clearly define a strategy for the management of the beef industry over the next five to ten years and the newly established national co-ordinating committee would have an input into that process. Existing markets must be strengthened and new markets developed.
The quality of the product must be continuously improved. We must develop a national strategy for research and development which would be co-ordinated with the requirements of the industry's markets. We must remove excess capacity and improve customer service, with the national co-ordinating committee centrally monitoring these improvements. We must also develop a national strategy for the education and training of industry staff. Those are the steps that must be taken to bring back confidence in our beef industry. The position in counties Cork, Monaghan and Tipperary has deteriorated because of the Minister's actions in the past week.
If we are to restore confidence in our beef industry, appropriate action must be taken to lift the ban on exports to Russia. I am a medical doctor and I have no difficulty about eating beef. Quality assurance measures must be put in place. Animals must be easily identified and traceable. We should eventually introduce a system whereby a bar code would be given to an animal at ten days old and still be in existence when the beef from that animal is placed on the shelves of supermarkets. The Taoiseach should get involved in this matter. I am disappointed he has not travelled to some of the markets concerned, particularly to Russia, to undo the damage done by the Minister. The Tánaiste should also travel to some of our markets. This is too serious a matter for the Minister to speak over the telephone to his counterparts in other countries.
The Minister made a monumental blunder and it discriminates against County Monaghan. There was no scientific reason for the ban. National and European Union policy was set aside. The Minister was supposed to have had a gun to his head. I do not know if that is true, but he knifed the farmers of Monaghan in the back. There are 187,000 livestock in County Monaghan and 4,500 farmers have a herd number. Up to 46 per cent of those farmers are involved in specialist beef production. The seriousness of the position for County Monaghan farmers is evident.
Why was there no consultation with the IFA on the matter? Why did the Minister run to the press before notifying farmers in the three counties concerned? Was it a Government decision? Why is the Taoiseach not directly involved? Under the Irish Presidency of the European Union we could use our influence to undo the damage done by the Minister's disastrous decision. Why has the Tánaiste not travelled to markets abroad to resolve this matter? It would be beneficial if he visited countries in the Gulf and the Middle East.
I have always been concerned about the policies of the two left wing parties. I have frequently stated that the Labour Party has nothing to offer the people of rural Ireland. Neither has Democratic Left, and that is evident from the throwaway remark about farmers made by its leader, Deputy De Rossa, last Sunday. That gave us an indication of what he thinks of the farming community. We should not be surprised that the Government made a blunder on this issue. In the light of its different ideologies, we should expect it to make such blunders. Because of its different ideologies, in cases involving the national interest would it not be more appropriate for the Minister to place a motion before the House and let it decide whether he should make such agreements.
The Minister tabled an amendment to the motion and anybody who votes for it is supporting the Minister's action. Last week three backbenchers on the Government side influenced the Minister for Health, Deputy Noonan, to accept an amendment in the name of the Opposition. I ask the Government backbenchers from the constituencies of Monaghan, Cork and Tipperary to use their influence to get the Minister to withdraw his amendment and support the Fianna Fáil motion.
I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this motion. Last Wednesday was an historic day for this country when an announcement was made about regionalisation and placing a ban on beef exports to Russia from Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan. We had Fine Gael backbenchers, the Minister, Deputy Lowry, and Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, running to the Russian Embassy to make their case. They had no confidence in the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry who had let them down badly in this case. I have before me a photograph from a newspaper of the Russian Ambassador trying to get into his car and make a fast getaway from them. Those Deputies and Ministers were frightened. The Minister, Deputy Lowry, has been frightened in the past, but he showed real fright at the Russian Embassy.
More damage has been done to the Irish beef industry by this Minister than was done to the entire European beef industry by Douglas Hogg on 20 March 1996. The Tories wrecked the beef industry of Europe in the way they behaved. Without any foundation or backup, the Minister identified three counties to the Russians. There are seven meat plants in Cork and we have the largest agricultural processing industry. We also have the highest level of employment in agriculture production. Since this Minister took office finished beef cattle have lost £200 per head. Following the Minister's visit to Russia in May 1996 he promised £20 million for promotion in the autumn of 1996. What happened? He put £500,000 into a Mickey Mouse campaign to be ripped off by the media.
The Deputy's time is exhausted.
I want the Minister to clarify whether he was at Dublin Airport when the deal was made. Was a gun put to his head or has he ever seen a gun? He has disgraced Irish agriculture and he should remove himself from the Cabinet because he has failed, along with the Labour Party and Democratic Left, to assist our farmers. The Labour Party is running the country. The next time farmers vote for Fine Gael they are voting for Democratic Left. Every vote for Fine Gael is a vote that will not help farmers or rural constituencies.
Deputy O'Keeffe, please resume your seat.
We are going down a slippery slope under this Government The Minister does not have the courage to come into the House tonight to defend himself.
Deputy O'Keeffe must restrain himself and resume his seat or leave the House.
So far, the hallmark of the debate from the Opposition side has been hype and hysteria. Deputy O'Keeffe's comments epitomise the bankruptcy of the Fianna Fáil position. Notwithstanding the fact that I represent a Cork constituency, with Deputies O'Keeffe and Ahern, cometh the hour, cometh the man. The Minister, Deputy Yates, is the right man in the right place at a critical time for Irish agriculture.
BSE is not a political problem, it is a consumer problem. It does not lend itself to quick fixes or strokes which might be the hallmark of those who, I hope, will continue to occupy the Opposition benches. This debate requires a constructive approach but, regrettably, I get the distinct impression that if the dire consequences that Fianna Fáil and others in Opposition are predicting do not follow, there will be grave disappointment in Fianna Fáil. This recklessness is second only to the disregard displayed for the beef industry by a minority of farmers who appeared before the courts during the week.
Does the Deputy intend to share time?
I regret I did not inform you that I wish to share my time with Deputy Lynch——
A great supporter of the farming community. It is a strange alliance.
——and Deputies Upton and Foxe.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am a Cork Deputy and I wholeheartedly support what the Minister has done. While we disagree with the Russian authorities because this decision has no scientific basis, the national interest dictated that a market which takes a quarter of our sales, or £300 million a year, had to be kept open. Otherwise the consequences would have been a drop of 5p or 6p in the lb for every producer, which would be unacceptable.
My colleagues on the Government backbenches know that six weeks ago when the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, was in Russia this issue was flagged and the market was being closed. Much has been said about why the Minister or the Taoiseach did not do something about it but the message conveyed to the Department was that the market would be closed. That would have been the reality if it had not been for the strong intervention of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, their Cabinet colleagues and the State's diplomatic and technical staff.
Deputies from Cork, Monaghan and Tipperary will agree it is regrettable that we are victims but the decision was taken in the national interests even though there was no scientific basis for it. Those are the parameters within which the decision was made but we are being led to believe that if the Opposition was faced with the same decision, it would have forsaken £300 million worth of trade for some sort of political figleaf. The Minister acted correctly in the national interest. Not a single constructive suggestion has come from the Fianna Fáil benches in this debate as to how this issue can be resolved. Many voices outside the House have been equally destructive in their cant.
Everyone is out of step except the Deputy.
Not at all. The solution requires a partnership approach.
It requires action and political initiative.
It requires a partnership between the Government, consumers and the farming community. Let me warn farming community leaders that every time they open their mouths in the fashion in which they have done during the last six weeks, they do more harm to consumer confidence in beef than anything the Russians have done with regard to the Russian market.
That is arrogant.
I would like the Minister to take on board three suggestions and I am glad he was associated with one of them in today's newspapers. First, there is a need for traceability so that consumers here or elsewhere can identify the sirloin steak on their plate back to its farm of origin. Second, compound feeds should be labelled so that we know exactly what they contain. Legislation was introduced in 1990 banning meat and bonemeal but these products continued to be fed to cattle. Third, in the light of allegations raised about compensation payments for BSE outbreaks to individual farmers, it is time that, rather than huge cash compensation payments, there should be some system of compensation whereby a farmer's income could be paid to him over a period of years similar to what he had earned from his farm in the previous tax year. As an interim step this should be considered as an alternative to the immediate attraction of a huge cash injection which is something akin to getting six numbers in the lottery.
Deputy O'Hanlon said it was a Government decision and asked why it had been taken. The decision was taken because if it had not, there would have been a complete ban. Deputy Creed is right to ask what Fianna Fáil would have done.
The Deputy's party is in Government, we are not.
Would they have taken on the Russians?
One would have thought Democratic Left would have used their contacts with the Russians to good effect. They were important visitors there at one time and well received.
There is a time limit to this debate and interruptions are most unwelcome, if not disorderly. I will not tolerate them.
Consumers in Cork South Central will be glad to hear Deputy Martin defending their rights.
If Deputy Martin feels he is unable to listen to what another Deputy has to say here, he has a remedy. There are many exits from this Chamber.
One Parliament, one exit.
International and domestic consumer confidence in the beef industry is vital to this country's economic interests as well as to the interests of tens of thousands of farming families who depend on the beef sector for their livelihood, not to mention thousands of workers employed in the industry. Fianna Fáil, ably assisted by the IFA, is currently doing everything within its power to undermine that confidence by focusing attacks on the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry rather that attempting to come to grips with the broader issues facing the beef industry.
That is not right.
Rubbish.
That is how the majority of the public see it.
A conversion on the road to Damascus.
Earlier this month, the Minister, Deputy Yates, acted in the national interest when he forestalled a blanket ban on Irish beef imports by the Russians. In return he had no option but to accept a three county ban. I am confident the ban can be lifted in the near future provided we are rational in the debate and that sanity prevails. We have not see that from the Opposition.
I come from one of the counties included in the ban and it worries me that this should happen. Those are the facts behind this motion but the problems facing the beef industry go far beyond the Russian ban on beef imports from counties Cork, Monaghan and Tipperary. Consumers are becoming increasingly concerned about the safety of beef in particular and foodstuffs in general. Their concerns are not allayed by recent proven cases of farmers using illegal growth promoters or by the so far unconfirmed reports of some farmers introducing BSE into their herds to draw down fat compensation cheques funded by the very EU consumers that will eventually pay them again.
My party had in the past, and still has, every sympathy for the vast majority of honest farmers who are trying to cope with the effects of a crisis that is not of their own making. There can be few worse experiences for a cattle farmer than to discover that his herd, through no fault of his own, has been infected with BSE. Those farmers are entitled to all our support whether as legislators, the State or as a society.
To a large extent the Irish beef industry is paying the price of UK deregulation and mismanagement of the British national herd. They are also paying the price for the activities of a small rogue element in Irish farming. I welcome the recent convictions which have been secured in respect of illegal growth promoters. The IFA's relative silence following those convictions has been in marked contrast to its vociferous condemnation of the Minister. I wonder why. I do not know how many of those convicted of using illegal growth promoters were members of the IFA but I know that the IFA has had an ambivalent attitude to such activities in the past. I have proof of that. In 1991 the IFA blamed a 1988 ban on certain growth promoters for what it called a dramatic fall in farm incomes. In 1993 the IFA beef committee's chairperson, Mr. Richard Booth, called for an end to the EU wide ban on illegal growth promoters saying there was no scientific reason for it — other than the health of our children of course.
In November 1994 in a policy document on the future of the Common Agriculture Policy the IFA called for the reintroduction of certain illegal cattle hormones. By arguing for their reintroduction and tacitly condoning their illegal use the IFA has done far more to undermine the beef industry than the Russian ban on imports ever could. I would welcome a clear sharp statement from Mr. John Donnelly condemning the activities of the rogue farmer element who persist in undermining the beef industry, pledging that the IFA will do all in its power to weed out such sharp operators and that such individuals will not be welcome in the IFA. I hope that statement will be forthcoming.
I do not believe the Russian ban is justified by the scientific evidence available. While the incidence of BSE in the three counties involved is slightly higher than the national average——
That is not true.
——it is still extremely low as a result of the pre-emptive management policies adopted by the Government under the Minister who has done an extremely good job.
That is not true. The Deputy should get the facts right.
Facts do not matter to her.
It is true. However, the Russian ban did not arise out of a vacuum. It arose because Russian consumers were concerned about the safety of food they placed on their tables and in that respect they are no different from Irish consumers. If the position were reversed and Irish consumers were concerned about the safety of beef imports from Russia, what would Fianna Fáil do? Would it not be its bounden duty to protect our consumers? Is it saying that it would not protect them?
Russian concerns regarding the quality of Irish beef have been exacerbated by what was learned during the beef tribunal regarding the quality of beef processed at, for example, Larry Goodman's plant in Rathkeale.
That is a different subject.
Those revelations put many of us off our Sunday roast, but there is no doubt that the beef industry is paying the price for the mismanagement and malpractice uncovered by that tribunal.
Consumer confidence here and abroad has also been undermined by unconfirmed reports that a handful of farmers have been deliberately introducing BSE into their herds to claim compensation.
Is that another scare?
All EU compensation packages are vulnerable to fraud and the bigger the package the greater the vulnerability. The various agricultural schemes which comprise CAP and other associated programmes have long been a goldmine for a small minority of farmers. The abuse of those funds has been highlighted time and again by the EU Court of Auditors. Compensation schemes are especially vulnerable to sharp practice. As long ago as 1992 there was a major investigation into the sharp rise in brucellosis in Limerick, Cork and Meath amidst fear that the disease was being deliberately introduced to claim compensation payments. On foot of that investigation it was found that some farmers were injecting their cows with a brucellosis vaccine which confused the blood tests and gave a positive reaction — and we are supposed to trust them.
Is that another scare?
That happened when the Deputy was Minister and he should know all about it. He was responsible.
That relates to the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte's, letter.
Another trip to Moscow.
The Minister, Deputy Yates, has made it clear that sharp practices undermining confidence in the beef industry will not be tolerated by his Department.
At least we can make the trip. That market was closed when Deputy Walsh was Minister.
The Deputy has nice bedfellows now.
I hope that the recent spate of prosecutions relating to the use of illegal growth promoters will be just the start of a major clampdown. If it is necessary to amend the legislation to introduce more severe penalties, that must be done also and I am sure Fianna Fáil will agree to that.
Of course. We will do something about it.
We are a law and order party.
We are talking about protecting a national industry, but there is a limit to what a Government can do.
Farmers' representatives, first and foremost the IFA, must take the lead not only in condemning such practices out of hand — and they have been very slow to do it——
What about the Russian ban?
——but also in making it clear that no farmer convicted of such activities is welcome in its organisation. It has not done that either. I have no doubt that the Minister, Deputy Yates, who has proven to be an effective defender of farmers and farm interests will continue fighting to reopen closed markets, to penetrate new markets and to gain the best possible compensatory deals for farmers in the EU. I am sure he will continue to do that because he has done very well so far.
The time has come for farmers to examine their record and to put in place an honest farming policy——
Are they a dishonest lot?
——which would do more to maintain and increase confidence in the beef industry than any action that can be taken by any state.
That is not true.
It is widely recognised among the public that Fianna Fáil's attitude and behaviour in this debacle has done more to undermine our beef industry than the Minister's action or the Russian ban.
We want more honesty.
That party is a disgrace. Its members should be working to protect consumers.
What about the contacts in Moscow?
It is beyond me how Deputy Walsh can stand up and defend that when he was responsible for the beef implementation plan.
The Deputy should look up her contacts in Moscow.
Members of the Fianna Fáil Party went to Moscow during the time of John Boland.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Foxe.
This debate is taking place as consumers are becoming increasingly worried about the health and safety of the foods they consume. Food scares are a regular event and in truth I suppose we have no real plans to deal with them. Acceptance of the concept of risk and the need to understand it are central to a proper response to this crisis. The public want a healthy food supply obtained from plants and animals produced in acceptable conditions. It follows that feeding offal to ruminants is not acceptable. The public are not prepared to tolerate the use of hormones or growth promoters such as angel dust. Anyone who considers the consumer a central player in the food chain must accept those issues.
At this stage BSE is not a major problem in this country. The first case occurred a relatively short time ago in the late 1980s and we have had a total of approximately 150 cases to date. However, there is a need to be honest and frank with the public about BSE. Absolute assurances given in relation to BSE cannot be sustained. If people continue to give such assurances they will erode public confidence. We have been less than frank with the public in regard to BSE and, inevitably, that causes problems and confusion when more incidents of the disease occurs.
There is a well established pattern of response to a BSE scare. Initially following a scare an assurance is given along the lines that there is nothing to worry about, that food is perfectly safe and there is no evidence of BSE being transmissible to humans. Nonetheless, despite that absolute type of assurance some extra measures are taken. A new slaughter policy is introduced; if it does not work a more extensive slaughter policy is introduced. If that does not satisfy people we have a system for tracing food from the consumer's table back to the many farmyards through which farm animals make their way before they are finally slaughtered.
Such absolute assurances given on phase 1 of our policy to deal with a BSE crisis erode confidence. We must accept that the BSE crisis will not go away and we must adopt an effective response. We need to understand that there is some element of risk. It is not very great and I do not have any problem eating beef, but it is not realistic to give absolute assurances which are not consistent with the facts. We must put risk into perspective. Life is full of risks and nobody can have a life free of risk. This motion is about as unrealistic as those who expect to have a risk free existence.
Urban voters consider the behaviour of the IFA and Fianna Fáil in response to this crisis surreal. They are flabbergasted at the way Fianna Fáil and the IFA have conducted themselves since the crisis developed. They have been left bewildered at the effrontery of members of the IFA who when it suits them are pillars of free enterprise. That is how they operate most of the time, but in cases such as this they behave like obsolete Stalinists from Eastern Europe. They cannot have it both ways and it is time we knew which element of the IFA is for real. It should know that the consumer is king. That is the way it should be and the way it will be. That is the way the world has gone.
The Government abolished the department of food.
There is no purpose in blaming the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when the Russians say not to Irish beef from three counties. They are entitled to say so and we must accept that. We must recognise that the Minister for Agriculture does not have the power to force Russians to eat Irish beef. It is as simple as that and we must accept it.
Dublin consumers are turned off by the antics of farmers and their behaviour. They are particularly turned off by the antics of farmers in Killarney. They are likewise appalled by the abuse of angel dust by some farmers who are prominent members of the IFA and are now before the courts. Fianna Fáil and the IFA should realise that the more of a song and dance they make about BSE and the Russians, the more they are ensuring that consumers are turned off eating beef while they are being reminded incessantly about the connections that exist between BSE, CJD and beef. Farmers who make ridiculous calls on Ministers should realise that consumers are not impressed by these demands. This Minister did not cause BSE and he does not abuse angel dust. Given the response to angel dust abuse by some farmers and farming organisations, can anyone feel confident that farmers have ceased to use banned meat and bonemeal?
If I were a farmer I would expect more from Fianna Fáil. Its behaviour during this crisis is designed to appeal to rural dinosaurs only. It is antagonising the rest of the population. More importantly, it is working against the interests of sensible and reasonable modern farmers. These farmers know they must clean up their act and produce a product which is healthy and wholesome and which consumers want. The shenanigans which have surrounded this debate and the latest BSE incident do no favours to anybody, certainly not to the beef industry. It is some consolation to people on this side of the House because the more Fianna Fáil does this, the more likely it is to stop people, who would normally vote for it, from doing so.
The Minister is condemned for signing the Protocol. However, what would the consequences have been if he had not signed? We would have lost a market for 360,000 cattle worth £300 million. What were the consequences of signing it? We retain our market for 360,000 cattle and we have a good chance of expanding our market in Russia. It is easier to expand an existing market than to get into a new market.
The downside to signing the Protocol is that there is a ban on beef sales from three counties — Cork. Tipperary and Monaghan — to Russia. However, we have more markets than Russia. We have a 200,000 tonne market in Europe which has no regionalisation policy; it accepts beef from the 26 counties. We have other markets in the Middle East which has no regionalisation policy and which accepts beef and cattle from the 26 counties. It has been stated that some Middle Eastern countries will look for a ban on beef from certain counties. However, they already looked for that before the Protocol with Russia was signed. The Minister rightly refused to agree to that. If he had agreed, he would be criticised more for doing so than for signing the Protocol.
This situation reminds me of the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921. The last thing any of the men who negotiated that Treaty wanted was partition. However, before the negotiations were over they realised the best deal they could get was to sign the document to partition the country. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry found himself in a similar situation in recent days. I might not give the Minister ten out of ten for his work in this regard, but if he had told us he lost the Russian market for 360,000 cattle because he was too pig headed to negotiate, he would have got less marks than nine out of ten.
There has been much scaremongering over the past week which causes consumers to lose confidence in our beef. If we are afraid to eat beef, how do we expect customers in other countries to eat it? Many notable sections of the community were involved in this scaremongering. There were many debates on television and on radio involving Members of this House. Farming organisations, which one would expect to be more responsible in their approach, were anything but helpful. We cannot forget the extremely bad press we got a few years ago during the beef tribunal when all types of muck, literally and metaphorically, was thrown up. That did not do our beef trade any good. I am satisfied that when this issue dies down the farmers of Monaghan, Tipperary and Cork will not receive one penny less for their beef than the farmers in the other 23 counties. Russia is not our only market, although it is important, so there is no reason beef from those counties should be sold for anything less than the going rate in the neighbouring counties.
The governments of countries which have diplomatic relations with Ireland are kept fully informed about our beef industry. If we continue to criticise what the Minister has done and to decry the effects of BSE, then we had better be prepared to accept the consequences. We must bear in mind that BSE is not an indigenous disease. It has been imported and all BSE cases in Ireland since 1988 can be traced back to imported animals or imported meat and bonemeal. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry must be complimented on its approach to the BSE problem. Once an animal is infected, not only is it slaughtered but the remaining animals in the herd are also slaughtered and disposed of. That approach was not taken by Britain which was responsible for the disease.
The Minister had little choice, but he made a decision in the best interests of Irish farming and the economy. Within a few months these three counties will be free to export their beef to Russia in the same way they are free to export it to Europe and the Middle East at present.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Dan Wallace, Deputy Joe Walsh and Deputy Martin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
We are all aware of the serious concern in the farming community, particularly the beef sector, since the start of the BSE crisis following the statement in the House of Commons on 20 March last. In the immediate aftermath of that statement, Fianna Fáil called for the necessary political offensive by this Government to safeguard our markets. Unfortunately, those appeals by our party leader, our party spokesman and numerous Fianna Fáil Deputies were not heeded by the Government. In debates in this House on this issue, which were initiated by Fianna Fáil, we asked the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to mobilise all the political and diplomatic resources available to get the message to the markets that our beef product is of the highest quality, that it is grassland based production and that the strictest disease prevention measures are in place.
Unfortunately for this country, particularly for livestock farmers, Government leadership and the concerted political effort needed to protect the biggest sector of the largest industry was not forthcoming. The debacle at Dublin Airport, from which the Minister was absent, could have been avoided if the Government had carried out the necessary and appropriate political footwork since last March. The farming community would like to know if the outrageous remarks by the Minister for Social Welfare on RTE last Sunday night reflect the collective view of the Government. The comments by Deputies from Mr. De Rossa's party in every debate on agriculture issues show complete hostility to the farming community.
The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa.
That is what I said.
Standing Orders of the House ordain that Members be called by their appropriate titles. I am not intervening unnecessarily.
Can that party, led by the Minister for Social Welfare, with its avowed antagonism to farmers, not realise that many employees in various industries whom it purports to represent depend on a vibrant agriculture industry for their livelihood? It is too much to expect the Leader of Fine Gael to reject the remarks of the Leader of Democratic Left, Deputy De Rossa, and reassure the farming community that the interests of this sector will be protected by the Government——
The Minister for Social Welfare.
——or at least that it will try to protect those interests. We have listened time and again to Government members speaking in glowing terms of the value and prestige of the Presidency of the European Union. What use has the Presidency been to livestock farmers? Why was the Government unable to build on the stated desires of Russia to improve relations with the European Union and hold on in toto to our largest beef market outside the European Union? What contribution has the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, made in his capacity as President of the Council of Foreign Ministers? Unfortunately, the answer is in the negative. Will the people's only recollection of our 1996 Presidency of the European Union be an irate group of farmers chasing across a field in Killarney towards the European Commissioner and Ministers for Agriculture? Sadly, the recollection will not be of the Taoiseach coming home from foreign markets with beef orders.
An extremely serious matter has arisen because on 12 October the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, acquiesced to pressure from the Russian veterinary authorities to allow a ban on three countries, namely, Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan, to come into effect on 1 November. Even at this late stage I ask the Minister to use the good offices of the Presidency of the European Union — the Taoiseach is President of the Intergovernmental Conference and the Tánaiste is President of the Council of Foreign Ministers — to resolve the problem. If there are any privileges in being a member of the European Union, in the Presidency year they should be availed of, particularly since Russia wishes to have good relations with the European Union. I do not agree with the suggestion that a gun was put to the Minister's head — we learned more about that in the House today. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste should go to Moscow to try to solve the problem.
There is a serious downside to this matter. For the past 25 to 30 years we promoted not only Irish beef but Irish food which had a standard of excellence that was established worldwide, but unfortunately that is no longer the case. In light of recent developments, beef emanating from Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan is to be avoided. It is second rate and cannot be promoted with a national degree of excellence.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is an important matter.
Of course it is important. The Russians buy prime Irish beef at only 15p per lb. because it is heavily subsidised by the European Union. Intervention stocks are being built up at present, but what will happen in a couple of months when those stocks are again available? I make those comments in the best interests of the Irish industry and I take no lectures from Members of this House or anybody else.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy is downgrading the debate.
I did more for the food industry and the quality of Irish food than anybody else. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, has done more damage by making scarifying statements than any Member of the House or any farming organisation. In the Seanad last night he stated:
Two years ago there were 19 cases of BSE; last year we had 16 and so far this year we have had 38 and we will have more before the year is out. The figures will more than double and maybe treble.
Because the Deputy did not do his job right in 1991.
What evidence has the Minister of State to justify such a statement? It is unacceptable for a Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to say that the figures will more than double and maybe treble.
It is the Deputy's fault. He was in office in 1991.
The Minister capped it by saying that we have the second highest level of BSE in the European Union.
The Minister does not have to tell the people that.
It is outrageous for the Minister to undermine the good image of Irish beef in such a way.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Martin. There is no doubt but that the BSE crisis is the single most worrying development to affect the agricultural sector since Ireland joined the EEC in the early 1970s. It is worrying on a number of fronts. First, the problem was greatly increased by the appalling mismanagement of the matter by the British Government. Rather than tackling the problem head on with determination and resources, there was a long period of relative inactivity on the part of the UK, with the result that its BSE levels reached epidemic proportions. It could be argued that the EU should have intervened much earlier and in a much more effective manner to force the British Government to act in a responsible way to bring the crisis under rapid control. Following what seemed a very questionable scientific report the British Government seemed to panic and one of its Ministers even talked about destroying the total British national herd of approximately 11 million animals.
While this disaster was unfolding in Britain, fortunately we had a relatively excellent record as regards BSE, with extremely low annual rates by international standards. That position was in no small way due to the vision and leadership of former Ministers for Agriculture.
It gives me no pleasure to comment on the disaster which has unfolded since this matter became an issue of the utmost public concern, particularly throughout the EU and indeed further afield. The Government, particularly the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, has managed to turn what was a clear victory for the quality of health care in the cattle industry into what has all the makings of a disaster of the highest proportions.
Before commenting on the gross mismanagement of our vital beef trade with Russia I wish to refer to one aspect of the problem which bothers me very much. Everybody has taken it for granted that the diagnosis of a case of BSE on any Irish farm must result in the immediate depopulation of the farm without question or delay. It seems, however, that this has not been the case in recent months. If so, it is a scandal which far exceeds the issues investigated by the beef tribunal. The Minister should inform the House of the exact date of diagnosis and farm clearance in respect of each outbreak of the disease since he took office.
On the partial Russian ban on Irish beef, the Minister should inform the House of the basis on which he decided to accept the ban given that there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support such action and outline the role played by the Taoiseach and other Cabinet Ministers in this sorry mess.
I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Malley.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I take this opportunity, as a Cork Deputy, to voice my concern and condemn the Minister's actions. It is extraordinary that Cork, Monaghan and Tipperary Deputies are being asked by the Government side of the House to endorse the Minister's actions which have resulted in these counties being placed at a serious disadvantage in terms of their capacity to market beef in the future. As Deputy Joe Walsh said, the Minister has undermined the efforts made to achieve a national quality standard.
There has been political mismanagement of this issue. As Deputy Brendan Smith outlined, the Minister had political options but this issue did not receive the degree of priority it deserved, despite repeated requests from this side of the House. There should have been a major political initiative extending to the Taoiseach's office to prevent this happening.
This side of the House is not guilty of hyping the issue. As Deputy Joe Walsh suggested——
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Does the Deputy believe that?
——the Minister's choice of language was regrettable and, at times, forgettable.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy's party has had a calming influence.
In referring to the incidence of BSE he used terminology such as "the scale will rocket upwards" and "double and treble". This contributed to the hype. Having read his contribution in the Seanad I respectfully suggest he should hire a new scriptwriter as there is a need for a dramatic improvement.
The issue of food quality has been mentioned. On taking office the Government abolished the department of food.
It did not, it still forms part of the Department.
It is interesting that Deputies on the Government side of the House referred to the Minister as the Minister for Agriculture. When in office Deputy Joe Walsh was always referred to as the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. This is indicative of a decline in standards.
In this frenetic debate it is necessary to stand back from the heat and some of the emotion which dominates the public and media debate. This is not a crisis which affects farmers and a few others only, as one is inclined to think listening to some of the impassioned contributions. Above all, it affects consumers. In particular, it is more than just a serious economic or commercial crisis.
There are three important aspects to this problem. They are separate and as follows in order of importance: a public health problem, an animal health problem and a commercial problem.
There has been a failure to recognise the primacy of public human health in this affair. This is all the more surprising given that, parallel with this debate, we have had an equally impassioned public debate, inside and outside this House, on the activities of the Blood Transfusion Service Board and the huge public health problem that has arisen from its use of contaminated anti-D.
If BSE was some obscure bovine disease and nothing more, this country and its farmers would not have become remotely as agitated as they are. The real damage and the real danger arise from the fact that it is perceived, in medical as well as in lay circles, that there is a grave danger that this brain disease in cattle can be transmitted to humans and exhibit itself in a form known as CJD which is, almost invariably, fatal for humans.
It is claimed that it has not been conclusively proven beyond all doubt that this transmission to humans can take place. Whether it has or has not been so proven is less important than the fact that some medical opinion at least has expressed that view and there is a general perception among the public that there can be such transmission.
We know for certain that BSE can be transferred between species. In laboratory conditions it has been passed on to other species of animals. Naturally, nobody wants to test this on humans. No human should be subjected to the risk involved. Thus it can be claimed that it is not conclusively proven it is transmissible to humans. Because of the inability of science directly to test it on humans, it may be many years before it can be conclusively proven, one way or the other, if it is transmissible to humans.
If there is a perceived danger of the possibility of transmission to humans of a highly unpleasant and, usually, fatal disease, there is a major public health problem and inevitable consumer resistance on a wide scale to consumption of the product which is seen as the potential source of such a human disease. Not to recognise this is foolish. To deny everything in the hope it will go away will not work and is not good enough. To engage in a kind of official conspiracy of silence about the disease, its likely consequences and inevitable effect on the consumer and consumer attitudes and preferences, as happened here, is the height of foolishness. Trying to sweep things under the carpet in the hope they will disappear did not work for this country before. The consequences of concealment or denial are, in the long run, far more serious than the short-term effects of transparency. The Government has not yet learned that lesson in spite of the experiences of the Minister for Health in recent weeks.
The fact that this is primarily a public health issue and problem is underlined by the fact that it was the British Minister for Health who disclosed this matter in the House of Commons last March, not the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister for Health here has sought to wash his hands of the whole affair. That is hardly good enough.
Animal health should be a matter of great importance to us, although it is secondary to human health. Ireland is a small island and the Republic of Ireland has a land boundary only with Northern Ireland. Therefore, as an island, all of Ireland should be able to protect itself from a wide variety of animal diseases that are often endemic in the remainder of the world but, increasingly, we seem to be failing to do that.
The responsibility lies with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry whose approach to the whole question of animal health, certainly in more recent years, is cavalier to say the least. Forgery of official documents, not always by private individuals, is becoming an increasing feature in this field. The sale of blank official Irish animal health certificates to people in the trade at home and abroad should be a matter of huge concern. The credibility of our supervisory and certification system as administered by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry has been seriously called into question. That being so, we can hardly be surprised at the results if some countries do not wish to buy our produce. Have we anyone to blame but ourselves?
My third point, the commercial and economic consequences of the danger to human health and the lack of credibility of our animal health regime, is obvious. Farmers and processors and all those dependent upon them are now paying the price for short-term greed and official negligence, or worse. This can hardly be surprising.
The failure to slaughter cattle believed by veterinary surgeons and farmers to be suffering from BSE is a serious error. This has been happening recently here. The failure to cull or depopulate herds in which BSE occurred, even after periods as long as ten or 12 weeks, is a serious error and makes our criticism of the British reluctance to cull on a wide scale appear rather hypocritical. I am aware of one case where there has been prolonged official indifference to the existence of BSE in a herd and where no action was taken until a veterinary surgeon sent a fax to the headquarters of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry in Kildare Street informing it that he had to carry out a private post mortem. The Department's reaction now is to blame the farmer concerned for allegedly deliberately introducing BSE into his herd. I am not aware there is any proof of such an allegation and to make it in the absence of proof is a monstrous injustice. It is being done as part of an official cover-up for official lethargy and negligence.
Even if it were the case that a farmer deliberately bought an infected animal — a scenario I regard as unlikely — the Department should nonetheless depopulate the herd without any delay. Failure to do so, after a prolonged period in several cases, only adds to consumers' doubts about our beef.
Some people think the customer has no right to have doubts, that the customer has some divinely imposed obligation to buy our beef regardless of whether he or she wants to or is happy with it. This mentality, which is dangerous in the modern world and lacks an appreciation of the reality of the market place, arises from the fact that for a great many years we could easily get paid for beef at prices way above the world level, thanks to the intervention and export refund policies of the European Union. In a sense we were not really selling the beef, we were simply producing it and getting paid for it at a very high rate by world standards. Its quality did not greatly matter as long as it was taken into intervention or some third country accepted it so that we could draw down the export refunds.
The importance of the Russian trade lies not so much in what the Russians pay us, which is very little, but in that they will take beef thereby enabling us to draw down the refunds. It is not possible for me to quantify precisely what the Russians pay but it probably lies somewhere between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of the total price obtained by the Irish processor. The rest is paid by the European Union by way of subsidy in an export refund. There have been cases in the past where Irish beef was exported to third countries in effect for nothing but primarily to draw down the refund. In these circumstances beef is no more than a commodity that is internationally traded. In spite of what we tell ourselves, its Irish origin is not really of any significance.
The real value in our exports of beef lies in what we can sell to supermarket chains in countries like Britain and Germany where there is a retail customer with preferences. The customer is entitled to demand a high quality because she is paying a full and high price for a product. It is in those markets that the real return to the Irish producer and processor lies in the long-term, by building up a reliable relationship with the ultimate consumer. For too long many of our processors ignored the development of that relationship and were happy to take the quick buck wherever they could find it and however they could make it. It will be recognised in future years that this is and was short-sighted. We still have time to put our mistakes behind us if we establish a proper food inspection board which inspects all beef leaving the country, and all beef consumed here, and operates independently of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry whose credibility is now so severely dented.
The Government amendment to this motion calls on the Dáil to endorse "the efforts of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to facilitate and ensure the continued export of Irish beef to Russia" and commends the actions of the Minister in protecting export markets for Irish beef. This amendment constitutes the height of cheek. How dare a Minister ask that we commend his efforts in the Russian markets when he refused to attend the meeting at which his Department agreed to exclude three Irish counties from the market concerned even though two of those counties had a very low incidence, even by Irish standards, of BSE?
It was only here this afternoon that I prised out of the Minister that he was not at the meeting last Saturday week. That fact was successfully concealed by him for more than 11 days up to then. What explanation has he for his absence and will he now withdraw the amendment in his name in view of the fact that its terms are particularly inopportune and inaccurate?
The Minister has some neck to put down an amendment in these terms and to describe himself as having had a gun put to his head is hardly correct when he had abandoned the negotiations. Any gun to his head was a very long range weapon. I rather think the Russians must have been using one of their intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The Deputy often had a gun put to his head.
The Fine Gael farmers in Wexford will put a gun to Deputy Sheehan's head.
I do not recall the Minister saying he was at the airport on that occasion but I am sure he will clarify the position.
This is my first opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is not necessary for me to repeat the details of the events leading to the signing of the Protocol. The correct decision was made. It was not an easy decision and we would all prefer if we were not faced with such a stark choice. We must face the reality, that BSE has generated a high degree of suspicion and concern among consumers. Veterinary and public health authorities are naturally on their guard and we have to accept that third countries which import a product will only do so on the basis of detailed Protocols and in circumstances where they are fully satisfied as to the safety of the product.
In the case of Russia, the alternative to the Protocol was a total ban. In a newspaper article Deputy Cowen accused me of making matters worse in Russia and in this House. I will clarify the position for him. I visited Russia on 16 and 17 September and encountered at first hand the concern and the strong views of the Russian authorities about BSE in that country. A ban was threatened but because of my direct intervention with the Deputy Prime Minister the threat was averted. If I had not directly intervened the ban would have been implemented. I did not come back to Ireland and gloat about my efforts because I did not want to create panic selling in the cattle industry. When I returned the market was still open for Irish beef. That is what I set out to do and I achieved that.
As the Minister has outlined a series of political contacts were made at the highest level following that culminating in the visit of Dr. Avilov and the technical discussion which followed. It was inevitable, therefore, that this issue would have to be brought to a head at a technical level.
I understand the concern and emotion in the counties involved. The three counties have a strong and proud tradition in agriculture and nobody is denying that. Comments about partition and segregation are over the top and are not justified. The three counties were selected by the Russian delegation and its decision seemed to relate to the level of BSE cases in 1996. When I faced Dr. Avilov in Russia he had all the statistics before him. It was not necessary for the Minister to mention them in the Seanad. He had a map of Ireland with every case indicated on it. He had all the statistics and a dossier with press releases, many of them from the Deputy's party spokespersons.
This is drivel.
Was the Deputy there?
Does the Minister of State have the dossier? Can he speak Russian?
Deputy Davern should not repeat that outburst.
I will defend my county.
Not in that manner. The Deputy will not interrupt in that manner or he will leave the House.
I will defend my county.
I did not mention the Deputy's county.
On a point of order——
Perhaps Deputy Sheehan would desist also. It would pain me to ask any Member to leave the House but I will maintain its order and dignity. The Minister will speak without interruption as other Members did.
It is the level of BSE that has got us into this predicament. The only answer is to ensure we have the best possible control system. I have no doubt this is the case and it will be improved upon. I agree with most of Deputy O'Malley's comments on the credibility of our product. The real test of any control system is attention to detail and therefore we need all elements of the industry to play their part in ensuring full compliance with all requirements. Despite all the criticism and controversy, there has been an absence of alternative suggestions.
Whether we like it or not, we must accept that matters like this are dealt with on a technical basis and this is in the best overall interests of our industry. Those who criticise the decision are therefore arguing that it would be better to accept a total ban without facing up to what a ban means.
Russia has a very large imported beef requirement. It is a growing and increasingly sophisticated market. Is the Opposition saying we should have accepted a ban and allowed the whole country to be excluded because of a temporary ban on three counties? The Opposition may not like to admit it but that is the logic of their argument.
There have been almost two weeks of recrimination on this matter. To what effect?
Will the Government wall those counties off?
The Protocol which has been signed is a fact of life. It is time to move ahead and to implement the agreement to cause a minimum of disruption. Discussions have already been held with the trade on the details of its implementation and it will not cause the disruption some are suggesting.
Cattle are selling at £200 a head less.
There is business to be done there and there is no need for the prophesies of doom and gloom which have been so evident in this debate. I was at the food fair in Sail yesterday and the people at the coalface are fed up reading articles emanating from the Opposition side of the House.
Was the chairman of An Bord Bia there?
Those articles are being used by our competitors as they compete with us for vital orders. I accept the Opposition's right to raise matters on the Adjournment or in Private Members' time. We would be doing the same in their place. I met nobody out there who disagreed with the Minister's decision.
The Minister did not go to Cork.
Or Tipperary.
Do not make a political football out of this.
Let us have similar order for the speaker.
I propose to share my time with Deputy Cowen.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
A number of questions need to be answered. France has as high an incidence of BSE yet they are taking our markets because the French Government is exerting political pressure in third country markets to pick up some of our contracts.
That is not so.
What efforts have been made by the Government? The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry cannot be singled out. His partners in Government are not here to defend him because the Tánaiste will only pursue those markets when the deals have been done and the problems ironed out. That is closing the stable door after the horse has gone because the markets we are seeking now and will need for the next six months will be gone by the time the Tánaiste decides to visit Libya or Iran.
He wants to be a winner.
Power does not come without responsibility. The Minister has been responsible for the lowest cattle price for a number of years.
Not in Bandon mart last Monday.
Deputy Sheehan should keep fishing.
We have allowed our main markets to be lost. How is the Government going to get them back? Dumping three counties to save the rest means when the next delegation arrives there will be more than three counties barred. It is time for positive action and the necessary political action to reopen the Iranian and Libyan markets. If it were not for the attempts of the Iranian Ambassador and others, the Iranian delegation would not have visited this country three weeks ago. What efforts have been made by the Tánaiste and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry over the last three months to get back the markets we lost on 20 March? A blank sheet would cover their efforts.
The Government should take account of the serious concerns not just of Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan but of everyone involved in the agricultural industry at this debacle. The position has been deteriorating for some time, particularly in the light of the Government's handling of it in the past week. The Opposition has adopted a responsible approach——
The Deputy has a great sense of humour.
——in the light of our knowledge of the problems the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has faced since last July. I ask any Member of the Government side to show any public pronouncement on our part which undermines his attempt to ensure our Russian markets, which he described as pivotal.
Having made his decisions, we must seek public and political accountability by the Minister. His approach since making those decisions has been worrying. There is a burden on him and the Cabinet to ensure that the harm done by those decisions is not emphasised further by continuing irresponsible and speculative statements such as those made here and in the Seanad in recent days.
I have received phone calls not just from producers but from people in the processing industry asking if there is any chance the Minister will stop digging when he is in a hole. This Government remains oblivious to the damage this spiralling crisis is causing to the economy. The contribution of Government Ministers in recent days has been depressing. The analysis by the Government of the crisis has not advanced one iota since 20 March. The Government, in so far as it has any view, holds that BSE is an exclusively technical issue.
The political composition of the Government is a major reason for our not coming to terms with this situation. One would have expected, after seven weeks of consistent briefing and representation by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry in Cabinet that we would not hear the type of ignorant prejudicial statement by the Minister for Social Welfare last Sunday. In fairness, this House would have expected that it would not hear the type of dismissive throw away remark in relation to farmers, "they are rolling in it". As many as 75,000 farmers obtain less than £3,000 per year.
You approached his party about participation in the next Government.
It has become a tactic in this House when I rise in debate to send in a certain element from the Government benches to distract me, but I will not be distracted. What the Minister for Social Welfare said last Sunday harmed the Government. People who have no interest in farming are prepared to go on national radio and describe farmers as a privileged class, but 75,000 farmers do not get more than £60 a week in direct payments, and it is not a top up; the direct payment system has become the net income of farmers over the past few years. No one knows that better than the Minister.
(Interruptions.)
As a Member of this House I am entitled to speak. We had to listen to Deputy Lynch but assumed hers was a voice in the wilderness. However, it is clear that right in the inner Cabinet that sort of ignorance predominates, and the Minister is expected to come forward with solutions while the political composition of the Cabinet is as it is. Deputy Spring, our Minister for Foreign Affairs, refuses, on principle it would seem, to go out and bat for our most important industry because it is a technical issue. Let me say for the umpteenth time since 20 March that it has been the analysis of this party that this is not simply a technical issue. It is a matter that requires a major political initiative at all levels. We have said consistently that it has been the absence of that sort of political imprimatur that has brought us to a situation where we are being dictated to, despite the statement of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry that we have as good an animal disease eradication programme for BSE as for any other disease. We have taken the initiative in Europe to assure a "slaughter out" policy, but we are being dictated to all along the line because nowhere during the past seven months have we seen a co-ordinated or coherent approach that addresses the problems of perception domestically and abroad.
The Government seems to see no role for itself in tackling the biggest ever crisis in our biggest industry. In the Dáil this afternoon the Minister said in answer to questions "I have never said I was in Dublin Airport on Saturday morning". Asked about the infamous gun that was held to his head, the Minister described it as being "metaphorically" held only. The Minister's denial in the Dáil today that he was at Dublin Airport or that he ever said he was at Dublin Airport is totally contrary to what he said and sought to have believed. Last Saturday, 19 October on the programme "The Week in Politics" the Minister stated explicitly that he did the deal personally in Dublin Airport. In the course of answering a question the Minister said "on Tuesday week before I did a deal with the Russians last Saturday at 1 p.m. in the VIP lounge in Dublin Airport ...". If, as the Minister now says, he was not at the airport, he made no effort to correct himself either on the programme or in the 11 days since the programme was broadcast. The foundations for this illusion of a Minister battling it out at the steps of an aeroplane with a gun to his head was already well laid.
(Interruptions.)
In the Seanad yesterday the Minister said "I will not sign Protocols with any other markets". The fact is that the Minister did not sign Protocols with any foreign market. He was not on the job when Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan, producing 30 per cent of the national steer herd, were sold out. Speaking last Thursday in the Dáil during Government time the Minister said in relation to the events of that day "we continued to oppose the measure and it was only following further consultations at high level that a decision was taken reluctantly to sign the Protocol". Who are the "we" to whom the Minister refers? The clear implication was that the Minister was on the job. The previous night in the Dáil on Wednesday 16 October the Minister said "following further consultations with me and discussions at the highest level in the Department, a practical decision was taken to sign the Protocol, and this was done just before the head of the Russian delegation boarded the plane to return to Moscow on Saturday 12 October". The definite impression that the Minister was on the spot was sponsored. Earlier that day the Minister's party colleague, Deputy Seymour Crawford, referred to the Minister's signing of the infamous Protocol on the "Morning Ireland" programme.
I demand that the Minister unequivocally withdraw this and apologise for having deliberately misled the public. The Minister has been shameless in the way he has twisted and turned the truth to suit himself. A public image was created that was totally at variance with the facts. On "Morning Ireland" today, the Tánaiste made his first contribution to the public debate on BSE. He refused outright to visit Iran in the present circumstances. Additionally he placed a question mark over the status of the national herd. What technical issues pertaining to the national herd are so serious that they preclude the Tánaiste making political representations to the Iranian Government? I am aware of none.
The Minister promised he would retrieve the Russian situation. It is extraordinary the Minister launched his onslaught on Russian confidence by speculating in the Seanad yesterday that the incidence of BSE could treble between now and the end of the year. Such speculation was outrageously irresponsible and has no scientific basis. Before going to Russia to, in his own words, retrieve the situation, the Minister has cut the ground from under himself. What are the consumers to make of this example of crystal ball gazing?
I would remind the Minister of Rab Butler's wise advice to politicians in trouble, "when you are in a hole, stop digging". I and my colleagues have had calls all day from farmers asking two things. They want to know what the Minister is playing at. They want to know if we can go easy on him before this industry goes into a total tailspin. Government Deputies, in an attempt to deflect attention from their own responsibilities, have accused Fianna Fáil of national sabotage. Like many others I was aware for some time of problems in our beef trade with Russia. I said nothing. During the debate on BSE on 25 September, I simply asked the Minister for his prognosis on the Russian trade. I wanted to give the Minister the opportunity to address the issue, a chance to way what the situation was. He refused to do so. Instead at the Ploughing Championship in Carlow he vehemently denied a press report that there was a problem in the Russian market.
It was not Fianna Fáil or the farm organisations but the Minister who called a press conference yesterday week to announce details of a ban on 30 per cent of the national steer herd before he had worked out the details of how this ban could be operated. It was the Minister who last weekend brought a group of farmers to Paris to the second largest food fair in the world and announced to the world press that he was "absolutely convinced" that the increased number of BSE cases this year is directly related to animals fed on bonemeal since it was banned in 1990.
It was a Mickey Mouse ban.
While the Minister is engaged with a spasm of foot in mouth disease the interests of this industry are being sold down the river. It is unbelievable that a Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry could engage in such a political suicide mission.
The Taoiseach, in a rare and belated intervention in this crisis, called today for a cooling off in the national interest. I agree with him. If he wants an end to speculative hype he should tell the Minister, who has engaged in speculative hype, that it is time for him to stop talking without producing scientific evidence for the assertion he made yesterday in the Seanad that the incidence of BSE would treble. If the Taoiseach seeks an end to damaging speculation he should put a gagging order on the Minister, Deputy Yates. With friends like him the Irish beef industry will never need enemies.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 58.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Penrose, William.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Penrose, William.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Amendment declared carried.
Níil
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Burke, Raphael P.Callely, Ivor.Connolly, Ger.Cowen, Brian.Davern, Noel.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fitzgerald, Liam.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hilliard, Colm M.Hughes, Séamus.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia. Quill, Máirín.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Treacy, Noel. |
Kenneally, Brendan.Keogh, Helen.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Leonard, Jimmy.Martin, Micheál.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McDowell, Michael.Moffatt, Tom.Molloy, Robert.Morley, P. J.Moynihan, Donal.Nolan, M. J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Desmond J.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán. Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael. |
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 58.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Question declared carried.
Níil