asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the steps he intends to take to secure a settlement to the dispute between beet growers and the Irish Sugar Company which has led to hundreds of workers being laid off at the Carlow and Mallow plants and which threatens up to £40 million worth of raw sugar beet; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Questions. - Industrial Action.
asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if he will intervene in the ongoing dispute between Greencore and the Irish sugar beet growers that is threatening the loss of hundreds of jobs at the Mallow and Carlow plants and affecting the livelihoods of many farmers.
asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if he will initiate a mediation procedure with a view to resolving the dispute between sugar beet growers and Greencore plc which has delayed the beginning of the sugar processing season, endangered over 600 jobs and which threatens the future of the Irish sugar sector.
asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if he will mediate between sugar beet producers in the IFA and the Irish Sugar Company having regard to the monopoly position and very profitable position of the Irish Sugar Company and the need for producers to receive a fair price for beet in the light of increasing overheads.
asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if he will intervene and arrange immediate negotiations between all the parties concerned to bring about an end to the dispute between the Irish Sugar Company and the beet growers in view of the serious consequences of the dispute and the risk to 650 jobs at the plants in Mallow and Carlow.
I am aware of the dispute between the sugar beet growers and the Irish Sugar Company plc. I am anxious that the matter is resolved quickly to the satisfaction of both sides.
It is important to explain that the production of sugar in all European Union member states is regulated by the EU sugar regime. The EU regulation specifies a minimum price for sugar beet. In some member states, including Ireland, an additional payment termed the deficit premium payment is paid. Under the regulation sugar manufacturers are obliged to pay at least the minimum and, where appropriate, the deficit premium for sugar beet. Any additional amount is a matter for negotiation between the two parties. The information available to me indicates that Irish Sugar plc. pays above the minimum price specified in the EU regulation.
As the sugar manufacturing season is now well under way and many farmers are ready to deliver their crop, I am very concerned that the matter is resolved quickly and I urge both sides to come together and do everything possible to find a solution acceptable to all concerned, not least the 650 employees, many of whom are seasonal workers and depend on this money for Christmas. I am concerned at recent developments and lack of apparent progress in the dispute up to now. I am very conscious that the sugar beet harvesting season is of short duration and time is of the essence. This dispute, no matter what its origins, cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely.
As Minister of State with responsibility for the food industry, I am concerned about the deterioration in relations between the growers and Irish Sugar plc. and again urge both parties to work out a solution as a matter of urgency. Should this not happen within a very short timeframe, although neither side has formally asked for my direct involvement, I shall use my good offices to seek to bring about a speedy resolution of the matter at least for the current crop.
Having listened to what the Minister of State said, it is obvious the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development had no contact with either side despite the ongoing dispute for the past eight to ten months. I am absolutely amazed at the Minister of State's reply on the matter. Has he contacted the IFA or Greencore on the matter? What contact has he had with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment given that 650 jobs are at stake and that together with the knock-on effect on other service industries we could be talking about at least 1,000 jobs? Is the Minister of State telling the House that he has had no contact with the parties involved despite the fact that it has been on the cards for the past eight to ten months that the dispute would reach a climax?
Surely the farming community will not be allowed to again suffer a major catastrophe in regard to income for themselves and their families? Is it possible that nothing has been done in this regard despite the figures quoted repeatedly in the lead-up to the dispute, culminating in both factories being closed? Is the Minister of State aware of the problems in extracting the crop because of the closure of both factories – it will take at least a week if not more to recommence processing? I was an employee of the Carlow sugar factory and I am fully aware of the problems.
The purpose of Question Time is to illicit information. I ask the Deputies to put a brief question without repetition.
I have asked the Minister of State about the contact he has had with the Sugar Company, the IFA, the unions and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and I would appreciate an answer.
I have been talking to beet growers in recent days and the reality is that this is a commercial transaction between the IFA and Irish Sugar plc. While it is not a commercial transaction in the true sense – there is a monopoly – it has always been standard practice. Negotiations on both sides have been going on for ten months and nothing has been achieved. The position escalated over the weekend when the Irish Sugar Company took out a court injunction which embittered the other side and caused a lot of anger. While we were not asked to intervene by the other side which looked yesterday for an independent chairperson, at least noises were made in that direction. My Department is prepared to meet two of the parties together at any time. I suggest that a two on two meeting would be the best solution, whether it is chaired by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development or an independent person. In recent hours we have encouraged both parties to meet.
I return to the question raised by Deputy Wall. I, too, am amazed at the Minister of State's reply. I am sure he will confirm that the State holds what is still known as the "golden share" in the Irish sugar industry. This issue was debated at some length some years ago when Greencore was being set up. I am sure the Minister of State will agree this places an onus on him and his Department to ensure the future of the Irish sugar industry. Is he saying that since the dispute began many months ago from a nego tiations point of view, but last week from a protest point of view, his Department has not been proactive? Will he wait for the 25th hour to intervene? I am sure he is aware that since last Wednesday there have been protests at both factories on a 24 hour basis. There is a sense of anger and despair among those who supply produce to the factories and there is great anxiety among workers. The farmers and workers would be stunned to read—
The Deputy is making a speech. This is Question Time.
Will the Minister of State agree that the farming community and the workers would be extremely surprised and disappointed to learn that his Department—
Please, Deputy Bradford. There are a number of Members offering and I would like to facilitate all of them. The Deputy cannot make a statement. If everyone makes a Second Stage speech rather than asks a question, we will have to abandon the question.
Will the Minister of State, without any further delay and without waiting for invitations, use his good offices to intervene immediately to save the Irish sugar industry?
With regard to the first part of Deputy Bradford's question, there have been discussions between senior officials of the Department and various people on both sides. There has been informal contact by telephone but neither side has asked the Department to intervene in this commercial dispute over the price of beet. There is 199,000 tonnes of beet involved and we are aware of the risk of damage to harvested beet in the event of frost and the danger to road traffic, where there are large quantities of beet on the roadside. We are anxious to have the dispute settled and will give any possible help towards achieving that. However, it is essentially a commercial dispute between two parties which have been in ongoing discussions for more than ten months and have not sought anybody's intervention during that period. The sugar beet crop is a very valuable asset to this country and we are anxious that it be maintained, in the interests of both sides in the dispute. I believe there is room for manoeuvre on each side and the matter can be settled reasonably easily if both sides are willing to meet.
Will the Minister of State reconsider that part of his reply in which he stated that neither side has formally asked for his direct involvement? Will he reconsider that, as a courtesy to the House, in view of the fact that at least one member of his party has informed a number of the farmers concerned that, at their behest, he had spoken to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Walsh, and that the Minister said he would do nothing? Will the Minister of State reformulate his reply, in the light of that, because I know he would not wish to mislead the House? Will he agree that the Minister has been asked, formally, to take a position on this? In view of the fact that this is a regulated sector and that, under the current market regulation, there is a national quota, will the Minister of State agree that, as part of the authority which set up that quota, he and his Department have a responsibility to ensure production takes place? Does he agree that, in addition to the downside of the regulation, whereby his Department applies penalties, he should also look after the upside of the regulation, in terms of his responsibility to ensure production takes place as per the market organisation?
In relation to the statement which Deputy Dukes quoted, I said I was not asked directly to intervene. I am not aware of whether—
On a point of order, the questions were put down to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, who is absent, but the Minister of State is acting directly—
Deputy Dukes should allow the Minister of State to reply.
The Minister of State is misleading the House.
I am not misleading the House. The Deputy should keep cool. I am not misleading the House. I have given a direct answer to the direct question the Deputy asked.
The Minister of State is speaking on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development—
Deputy Dukes, order, please.
Whatever opinion the Deputy may have about me personally is irrelevant.
The Minister of State is speaking for the Minister—
We are trying to resolve the issue but you are making a political football out of it.
If the Minister of State would address his remarks through the Chair, the Chair might be in a better position to control Deputy Dukes.
Yes, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. We are anxious that the dispute be settled and I ask Deputies on the other side of the House to use any contacts they have with both sides to ensure they will, at least, meet under some independent direction. In regard to the future of—
(Interruptions.)
I will have to ask Deputy Dukes to leave the House if he is not prepared to allow the Minister of State to reply.
It is an essential requirement that both sides are willing to come together under some umbrella. We do not care what umbrella is used, as long as they are willing to come together. That is the main sticking point at present – are they prepared to come together? Informal telephone calls have been made to both sides. Unfortunately, the decision by the Irish Sugar Company to take a court injunction yesterday has hardened attitudes on the other side, as has the company's action in making telephone calls to farmers, asking them to supply beet to the factory. It seems to be a bitter dispute on both sides and relationships seem to have deteriorated. We are anxious that they get together under one umbrella. Everybody should use their influence with both sides in that regard to encourage the commencement of talks to settle this dispute, without further delay, in the interests of saving the beet crop and in the interests of the workers at the factories.
Is the Minister of State aware that more than 100 farmers are standing, in desperation, outside the Carlow sugar factory, including some from as far away as my area? They do not want to be there. They want a meeting, which they are unable to get. Is it clear to the Department that that is the case? Does the Minister of State accept that, for a meeting to take place, it needs to be meaningful and to address the salient points? I am informed that the price has remained unchanged for four years, despite increasing overheads. With improved technology, there is a greater rate of sugar extraction from the beet and farmers are asking for a share of that benefit. Is the Minister prepared to meet both sides, unilaterally in the first instance, so that there can be an agreement on the agenda and, thereby, bring about a meeting? The Minister is in a unique position to do that. Others are simply asking him to act, because he is ultimately responsible.
Many beet growers, from my area and other parts of the country, have contacted me during the weekend and I know they are anxious to save their crops which, as a cash crop, is particularly important at this time of year when bank repayments are due. The company complains that French and British farmers are paid less than Irish farmers. However, rather than concerning ourselves with the details at this stage, the immediate requirement is to get the two sides together to talk about the issue. From the comments I have heard from both sides, in the media and otherwise, there is a willingness to come together but the difficulty is to get the first move in that direction.
The Minister of State has clearly stated there is a willingness to come together to discuss the issue. Why has he, or the Minister, not made a move to arrange a meeting to facilitate negotiations? That is his duty. In his reply, the Minister of State said this is a commercial dispute. He is in charge of the Office of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, a key industry in this country. Do I understand correctly from his reply that neither he nor the Minister had any discussions with the Irish Sugar Company or with the IFA to resolve this dispute? If he has not made any such efforts, but has left the matter in the hands of senior officials in the Department, has he not been complacent? Has he not shown a lack of urgency and has he not failed in his duty to the farmers, the workers and the Irish people by failing to initiate negotiations? This is a serious matter—
The Deputy should ask a question. He cannot continue to make a statement.
If, as the Minister of State has said, this matter can be settled easily if both sides come to the table, will he pick up the telephone without further delay and arrange discussions between the beet growers and the sugar company? Will he confirm to the House that he will act this evening and not wait for a formal request as he suggested in his reply.
Maybe I misunderstood Deputy Enright when he said there is willingness. The trouble is there is no willingness to come together. We are trying to get them together even in the same building so that some consultation can take place. We are making every effort to get the two sides together, but because of the entrenchment by both sides this is now more difficult.
(Wexford): Deputies on all sides of the House are very concerned about this dispute. I have had hundreds of phone calls over the
weekend from farmers, hauliers who have to let workers go and contractors who have a considerable amount of money tied up in machinery. It is very important that the Minister finds a formula. I accept there is a commercial decision, but there are also many people involved and if it is not possible for the Minister to get involved himself, he should nominate a third party to bring the two groups together. The sugar company has much to learn. A court injunction in the middle of a dispute solves nothing. Dialogue is the only way forward. I ask the Minister to give an undertaking to nominate a third party to bring resolution to this dispute as quickly as possible.
We are prepared to nominate any person, either from the Department or outside, if both parties are willing to accept that person and accept the principle of coming together to discuss the issue.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): As one of the people who tried to get the parties together, I am disappointed the Minister is still asking us to use our influence to get them together. I ask him to come up with a name, offer that to both parties and then the onus will be on the parties to accept or reject that offer. We have all made appeals in the media and at public meetings for them to meet and talk. Talk across the table is the only way to settle this. I have not ever taken sides in this dispute. If the Minister offers a name and both sides accept that person, they can discuss the problem. If they do not accept that offer, we will then know who is really causing the problem. I ask the Minister to come up with a specific name rather than talking about generalities. He should get in there and offer a name this evening.
What is needed is to get them to agree to come together. After that the name is immaterial.
The Minister should get some advice on that.
I appreciate that. We will look for some advice on it to secure the interests of the beet industry. Shortly after this dispute is resolved, a mechanism should be put in place for an independent body to agree on price increases or decreases for next year.
I share the concern of all the other Deputies about the Minister being aware of the problem but not taking action. As a matter of urgency, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development should immediately set up contact between Greencore, the IFA and the Beet Growers Association. I am sure negotiations are not high on the agenda of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, but in my first submission, I asked the Minister if the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment was contacted in relation to this. Some 1,000 jobs are under threat because of this dispute and that is the responsibility of the Tánaiste. She should have contacted the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development or vice versa.
As we approach Christmas it is not acceptable for 1,000 people not to know where they stand. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment must be involved. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development is responsible for agriculture and is responsible for bringing these people together. It is up to the Minister of State and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Joe Walsh, to ensure this happens. Has there been any contact with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to address the problem affecting Carlow and its surrounding areas as well as Mallow?
I am not directly aware of what role the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment plays in the matter. However, it would have been notified today because some workers were given notice today.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I contacted the Tánaiste's office today and the people there washed their hands of it.
Someone must take responsibility.
We are trying to get together two sides that are totally entrenched. That is the single greatest problem.
I ask the Minister to appoint a third party and name that person. This would help in finding out who is more entrenched. If an individual was named this might bring about a softening of positions. This is not just about beet growing farmers, it is about hauliers, contractors, etc. This issue will have to be resolved and I urge the Minister to name a person to come between the two sides to resolve this very serious dispute.
We are deeply aware of the effects. It affects 4,000 farmers and is worth about £60 million. There are about 650 direct employees with many more independent drivers and other contractors. If we think naming a person who is willing to act will get the two sides together, we will certainly do that. However there are no signs that the two sides are willing to come together.
Mr. Coveney
I have a slight conflict of interest here. I live on a family farm that produces sugar beet and we provide to the factory in Mallow. It is only a small quota of 17 acres.
I agree with the Minister in saying that both sides have become increasingly bitter over the past 24 hours in particular. However, there is an appetite on both sides to put a structure in place that will decide on a fair price for sugar beet each year. Surely the Minister will agree with me in saying that it is his responsibility to ensure that process happens as quickly as possible. It was his responsibility this time last week to anticipate the problems before the factories had closed. Some 650 employees—
The Deputy should confine himself to questions. This is Question Time and not a debate.
Mr. Coveney
If the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development is not the most suitable person to mediate between a food company and farmers, then who is? Does he agree that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has a responsibility because it and not Greencore looks after the State's beet quota? Does the Minister agree that it is not a matter of a private company dealing with private producers because the quota, which is at the centre of this dispute, is controlled by the Government on behalf of the people? So it is an issue for the Department and the Minister. He is the person most qualified to mediate between farmers and a food company as the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. It is about time some leadership and initiative was shown. Both sides want to see a mediator in place quickly and it is about time names were put on the table. I respectfully say that the Minister himself should be there.
Does the Minister agree that he should suggest a name, preferably himself, and allow the sugar company and the farmers to reject that if they would? I believe neither side would reject that offer. I repeat Deputy Enright's question – could we have an assurance now that the Minister of State will offer himself as a mediator between farmers and Greencore this evening?
The Deputy may be assured that there are ongoing phone calls today, as there were yesterday, in the hope of getting agreement. I appreciate what the Deputy says about a willingness to agree but there are elements on both sides who are intransigent.
Mr. Coveney
We are talking about a 50 pence difference.
We should not specify sums at this stage because there is a difference of opinion on that also. There are much larger sums sought than that. We must realise that we cannot pre-empt what people will decide when they enter negotiations. Not everyone is intransigent but some people are. Some people on the board are anxious to have it settled as are some people from the IFA and the beet growers, but sometimes people find it hard to move once the lines are drawn.
It was not a matter on which the Minister ought to have intervened last week because it is a commercial arrangement between growers, producers and processors. I accept what the Deputy said about the desire for an automatic mechanism involving an independent body to recommend an increase which both sides would accept. That would be easier and would have avoided these ten month discussions that achieved nothing.
The Minister of State has been sitting ill at ease for the past few hours advising us that he is trying to solve the problem. How long was he aware that this problem was boiling up? It was boiling for quite some time. For the Minister of State or the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to say they have no interest because it is a commercial body is not acceptable. There are 650 jobs involved. Is this or is it not an important industry? Should the Minister of State have stood idly by until an injunction was issued? Can he, at this late stage, get someone to be an independent negotiator? Minister of State, you and your senior colleague sat idly by while Rome burned. You saw this dispute arising—
I ask the Deputy to address the Chair.
Can he prove to us that he, his senior colleague, the Taoiseach or the Department have taken any step to solve the problem? Has he spoken to the senior management in Greencore or the IFA? Has he moved to solve this problem?
The Deputy asked when we were aware of it. We were aware of the protracted ten month dispute, but that did not mean a strike. Many farmers are surprised at the recent escalation when supplies of beet were withdrawn and then the injunction issued yesterday by the sugar company. Ten months of prolonged negotiations was a long period without a resolution.
Ten months in which nothing was done.
It is a matter between the IFA, the sugar beet growers and the plc—
Mr. Coveney
Not when factories are closing down.
The Deputy referred to the ten month period.
The Minister without interruption.
No one was asked to intervene because both sides were happy that they would succeed. It has escalated only in the past week, particularly since last Wednesday. As the Deputy knows, it is normal for senior officials in the Department to have contacts with both sides to try to resolve such problems. That was done over the weekend and further actions are being taken by the Department. As I said, the departmental officers are now formally offering to negotiate.
I am surprised that someone with Deputy Crawford's experience in IFA politics made such statements. He is well aware—
Many people are surprised at what the Minister has done or, rather, has not done.
—that the Minister and Minister of State are doing what Ministers and civil servants have always done in such disputes. The Minister should involve a third party because that is the way to solve this problem.
Mr. Coveney
It is necessary now.
The Minister must secure this as soon as possible.
I assure the Deputy that that is being done. Over the past week, senior departmental officials were engaged in informal contacts with both sides. We must realise that Greencore is a plc and has responsibilities to its shareholders, which makes it a commercial situation although I accept that it is different because it has a monopoly. Every effort is being made and will be made to resolve this problem.
Hear, hear.
Is it not true that the State allocates the national sugar quota of manufactured sugar to the Irish Sugar Company? In so doing, does the State attach any conditions regarding sugar manufacture, and if so, what are they? Is the Minister satisfied with the way the company is carrying out this responsibility? When did the Minister or his colleagues first contact either side in this dispute? When did the phone calls start in earnest or did we wait until the injunction was issued?
A Cheann Comhairle, I hope you will assist me on a point of order. I tried to raise this matter last week on the adjournment but you ruled me out of order because the Minister had no responsibility. However, the matter is taken in a Private Notice Question today.
That is not a point of order. If the Deputy wants information on—
Could the Ceann Comhairle let me know why?
The Deputy knows that there is a procedure for that. The Deputy is not in order in questioning the Chair.
If I had been allowed to raise this last week we may have had—
The Deputy is not in order in raising it now.
The Government has a 199,000 tonne quota which it gives to the Irish Sugar Company to distribute in contracts with approximately 4,000 farmers. I do not know the details of the contracts.
Will the Minister tell us the details?
Order, please
We can find out if it is necessary, but it is a private contract between the company and farmers.
What is the Department's role?
The Department has no role.
No Deputy should address the Minister.
Like Deputy Coveney, I have shares in Greencore which I bought because I thought it was good to invest in an agricultural company here.
The Deputy is lucky that he did not buy shares in Eircom before Deputy O'Rourke got her hands on it.
I took bad advice from the Minister for Public Enterprise and bought shares in Eircom.
The Minister makes the point that this is a commercial dispute. There are many commercial disputes involving private companies, some of which are based abroad, but the Tánaiste and other Ministers fly to the head offices in America to meet the senior management to prevent a firm closing and that has happened under different Ministers. Why, when we are dealing with a public quoted Irish company, could the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development not telephone the IFA and Greencore management and arrange negotiations? Common sense and logic demand that the Minister should do so. I ask the Minister to take the initiative and make those telephone calls. I call on him to state in the House that he will call both sides, and the union representatives, to a meeting at 8.30 a.m. tomorrow morning at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Because of the high standing of the Department, I believe both parties would attend. It could help to break the deadlock and bring about a resolution.
We are anxious that the sides meet, under any headings, in any place – we will not dictate where it is – and under a broker that suits both parties. I have reassured the House that everything that can be done will be done to bring about a suitable termination to this dispute.
Is the Minister of State aware that there are a number of highly respected mediators and facilitators who are involved in resolving industrial and commercial disputes? I have used them myself in commercial disputes in the past. If he is not aware of it, will he ask somebody who is? Will he have that individual speak to some of those persons and ask if they would get involved and use the benefit of their experience to get the parties together to negotiate?
I have said on a number of occasions that we are prepared to look at any name, position, place or time—
The Minister of State should do something about it and stop telling us that he is making telephone calls.
If I was let out of the House we might do something about it.
It is to this House the Minister of State is answerable.
I will not delay the Minister of State any longer than is strictly necessary. He said this was not a normal commercial negotiation given that the farmers were dealing with a monopoly. Does he accept that a monopoly, or a cartel in other instances, is generally not good for growers or farmers – whether they be beef or beet – to deal with? Does he accept that they have suffered in such circumstances before? It seems they are on the back foot again. Accordingly, does the Minister of State accept the Department – which set out the policy on food and agriculture which has us dealing with a monopoly – has a particular responsibility to follow this through and not just look for willingness but generate, where possible, the willingness of both sides to meet? I support the repeated calls that the Minister of State set in train the mediation process as soon as possible so that we can have a resolution to this dispute.
I agree with the Deputy, it is a monopoly. In the light of the experience of this year's protracted negotiations and dispute, we are anxious that there would be some mechanism, recognised and acceptable to both sides, to review the position annually.
Is the Minister of State now confirming he will appoint a mediator?
We do not look at any dispute or person—
The Minister of State should say yes or no.
Unless there is something to mediate, a person cannot be appointed. We will do everything possible this evening to ensure some name is found that is acceptable to the two groups. Any name that would be acceptable to either side will be put forward today, providing the parties are willing to come to a meeting.
The Minister of State has, for the past hour, shadow-boxed, shuffled and moved, doing everything except admit that he will involve himself in this dispute. Will he contact the IFA and Greencore when he leaves the House today? Will he set in motion a process to find a person who is acceptable to both sides? Will he do that when he leaves the House? That is a simple question that requires a "yes" or "no" answer.
The Minister of State should say yes.
It is a bit like the Kildare football team, hire them in from everywhere. We will do that—
Just say yes.
We will do that immediately this evening. We will use whatever facilities we can—
Just say yes.
We will try to facilitate everything this evening. Both sides have to be willing to come together.
The sides have to be contacted first.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister of State is giving the impression that if he were to get out of the House now, he would solve the dispute. That is a bad reflection on what has not been done. When I telephoned the Minister's office last evening I was told he was out of the country and that nothing could be done but that the Tánaiste had made a statement. When I contacted the Tánaiste's office to establish if she had a nominee to act as facilitator, I was told that she had no responsibility for this and that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. There are a lot of Neros fiddling. Will the Minister of State come up with a name, give it to both sides and let them decide they are not going to co-operate? I have spoken to both sides. If they had a facilitator they would have the option of talking. If one side decides not to talk then we have a serious problem. The sides are so far apart they must have a chairman. I ask the Minister of State to decide on a name the minute he leaves the House.
I have a number of names in mind.
Bravo. Now we are making progress; just say yes.
We will offer that immediately; we will offer that this evening.