Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Nov 1999

Vol. 161 No. 2

Farm Incomes: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to take immediate steps to restore the income of both pig and sheep farmers as both sectors are in danger of collapse; and also calls on the Minister to take urgent action to restore public confidence in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development which has been seriously eroded by recent events.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House for what I hope will be a constructive and interesting debate. I thank him for coming.

There are three main issues I wish to address – the plight of the pig sector, the state of sheep farming and the lack of confidence among the farming community in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. The Celtic tiger has been a welcome visitor to our shores and brought many economic benefits. There is so much hype and publicity about successes and so much talk about the amount of money available that at times one would think there is not a single problem facing us. We do have problems and there are places where there is no evidence of the Celtic tiger. We need look no further than the agriculture industry to discover that the Celtic tiger has been no Santa Claus to the farming community.

The industry is in crisis and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Walsh, and his Ministers of State are blissfully unaware that they are presiding over a potential disaster. They are doing very little about it. They do not seem to realise that we have a crisis on our hands, particularly in the pig and sheep sectors. This side of the House has constantly defended the interests of the farming community. I call on the Minister to take immediate and effective action to restore the incomes of pig farmers, address the crisis in the sheep sector and restore confidence in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.

For many years the pig sector was the jewel in the crown of the agriculture industry. Let me give some startling facts. Pig farmers lost £45 million in the 12 months from September 1998 to August 1999. The average price received in that period was 78.3p per kg. Compare this to the break even cost of 95p per kg, including financial charges. This represents an average loss of 16.5p per kg or almost £12 on every pig sold. Average losses in the past year were £75,000 per producer. In September representatives of the main processors informed pig farmers that they could expect to see prices at 100p per kg before the end of the year. There was a drop of 4p per kg in early October. Is it any wonder that pig producers are incensed? We are informed that there has been a recovery this year but the average price is still £6 per pig below the break even price.

It is little comfort to a pig producer to be informed that the position is improving because their losses have reduced. If the present situation continues producers will have to leave the sector. What will they do then? What will their families do? What will come of the heavy financial, work and emotional commitment they have made to this sector of the agriculture industry? It has been stated that they are not leaving the sector. The reality is that they are leaving in droves.

On 20 October the Minister commented on current developments in the pigmeat market. He said that although prices had risen steadily since June he was disappointed and concerned at the recent price reduction which had disrupted recovery. He also said that he was actively reviewing the situation and that Enterprise Ireland had been asked to conduct an examination of the pig sector with particular emphasis on the issue of capacity. In early November the Minister said that he had sought increased market support at EU level and would continue to press for this. He also said that he would meet the main banks and the Irish Grain and Feed Producers Association to discuss the plight of pig farmers and that he had met Enterprise and Bord Bia to ascertain what action they could take to improve the structural aspect of the sector.

It appears, therefore, that the Minister has been busy on the crisis in the pig sector but let us consider what he has done. While he has expressed concern and promised to review the situation and have meetings with all and sundry to ascertain if someone else can dig him out of the crisis, has he actually done anything?

Has he demonstrated any capability to get this matter dealt with at EU level? The answer is a definite no. As usual he has abdicated his responsibility in this matter. The pig farmers were less than impressed, and I do not blame them. I call on the Minister to take immediate action to rescue the pig industry from the crisis it faces. We are told that the Exchequer is awash with money. Tell that to the pig farmers and see what their reaction will be. Tell them things were never better in the country and see what their reaction will be. The Government does not treat agriculture seriously. I call on it now to take action before it is too late. The Government speaks eloquently in its Action Programme for the Millennium. It is now time for action, not words, not promises, not reviews, not requests for action. Action is needed and action we must get.

Let me turn to the sheep sector. There are roughly 45,000 sheep farmers here. Their viability is under serious threat at present due to the steep fall in their income. This fall in income results primarily from a collapse in lamb prices and inadequate premium payments. In 1979, 20 years ago, lambs were worth £44 per head when the average industrial wage packet was in the region of £80 per week. Today, wages are almost four times higher but lamb prices have reduced to only £36 per lamb. Would this Government be so complacent if there was a collapse in the income structure of 45,000 industrial workers? It would not. It is time it woke up to the plight of the sheep farmers.

Consider for a moment the series of difficulties that have befallen the sheep industry. Irish sheep farmers are being short changed by £8 per ewe in ewe premium payments. This amounts to a massive £38 million loss on the country's 4.6 million sheep. Prices have collapsed and there has been no increase in premium payments. There has been a collapse in lamb skin prices to £1.50 each this year from £8 last year due to problems in the Russian economy. Lamb prices have collapsed totally in the UK, our major export competitor on the French market. There has been a significant reduction in demand for Irish sheep meat in the Mediterranean countries. New Zealand lamb is being dumped on the EU market and this seriously undermines lamb prices to Irish producers. The Minister failed to secure extensification payments on sheep in Agenda 2000 negotiations and this placed severe stocking rate restrictions on thousands of sheep farmers throughout the country. Many of these farmers are being forced out of the sheep sector and unless the Minister takes corrective action soon, they will exit in their thousands.

Senator, let me interrupt you for a moment to welcome the delegation and members of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish councillors and the Director General of the General Council of County Councils.

I join with the Chair in that.

Everybody involved in agriculture recognises that there is a crisis in the sheep sector due to the severe fall in incomes. The issue is what the Minister is going to do about it. There are a number of actions he must take as a matter of urgency. He must immediately implement the recommendations of the Sheep Meat Forum which he established to look at the future of the sector; he must deliver on his commitment to the farm organisations to make the abolition of the £7 stabiliser worth an additional £4 per ewe in premium payments the priority issue at European level; he must pursue the removal of sheep from the extensification premium stocking rate calculation; he must arrange for the immediate pay-out of the compensation due to hill farmers under the various schemes; he must take steps to introduce aid to private storage to lift lamb prices; he must arrange for livestock carrying capacity to accommodate more live lamb exports and he must also get Bord Bia to increase its promotional activity on the French and Spanish markets to help boost demands for Irish lamb exports. This can help reverse the fall in demand in the Mediterranean market.

Let me finally turn my attention to what is in the motion in relation to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Irish farmers, their families and the wider agriculture sector depend on the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development for administrative and operational support and, more important, to be the main strategic driver to ensure the sustainability of agriculture. The Department does not currently enjoy the confidence of the Irish agriculture sector and the sector is increasingly frustrated at the lack of support from the Department. I do not blame the civil servants. I lay the blame squarely at the door of the Minister because he provides no effective leadership. It is essential that we make a special effort to restore that confidence that is so sadly lacking.

I second the motion. Do I have the privilege of speaking at this time?

It is normally seconded and the Senator can speak in a little while.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Seanad Éireann commends the Government and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development for the actions taken in the pig and sheep sectors; and notes the very satisfactory performance of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development as summarised in the First Annual Report on the Implementation of the Statement of Strategy (1998-2000) published in August 1999."

I move this amendment in response to the proposer of the motion. Let me take up the last point he made which is that farmers and the agricultural community are losing confidence in the Department and that he blames the Minister for this. This could not be further from the truth and let me state my reasons for saying so.

Agriculture, food and rural development are highly important topics and it is important that they should receive adequate airing in this House. There are other reasons for me to welcome this debate. It gives me yet another opportunity to correct the numerous unfortunate misunderstandings that the Opposition seems to labour under regarding the main issues in agriculture. It allows me to address their inexplicable refusal to recognise the fact that this Government has done tremendous work over the past two and a half years in helping Irish farmers through a series of difficulties and in putting the industry on a sound footing.

By any standard, the outcome achieved in the Agenda 2000 negotiations was a tremendous success and secured the medium-term future of Irish farmers' incomes and prospects. The leader of the IFA praised and congratulated the Minister at the time on that outcome. I make no apology for reminding all concerned of the anxiety caused by the Agenda 2000 proposals which the Commission brought forward in March 1998. Those proposals would have involved a loss for Irish farmers of £233 million a year, that is, a total loss of £1,386 million over the seven years to 2006. The final outcome involved a gain of £395 million over the seven year period – a massive turnaround of almost £1,800 million. These gains were hard won after tough negotiations. We are not resting on our laurels, however, as work is under way on a range of policies from improving the efficiency of Irish farms, through the reform of quota systems to the highly significant work of planning the strategic direction of the sector's long-term future.

The total commitment of the Government to support agriculture, food and rural development is beyond doubt, given the ongoing annual level of expenditure of almost £2 billion. In practical terms the Government's commitment to farming can be seen in the level of direct payments made to farmers. In 1998, direct payments were in excess of £1 billion. This represented 56% of total farm income. Following the successful outcome of Agenda 2000, figures produced by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute suggest that by 2007, direct payments will account for over 70% of farm income.

I recognise that the past number of years have been difficult for many Irish farmers due to the problems caused by the BSE crisis in Britain, poor weather conditions last year and the closure of the Russian markets. In order to support vulnerable farm households, the Government introduced a new farm assist scheme in the 1999 budget specifically targeted at low income farm households. To date, 7,404 farmers have been approved for this scheme, receiving average payments of almost £80 per week. A total of 1,126 farmers are still in receipt of smallholder assistance with an average payment of £74.60 per week.

Despite these difficulties in recent years, we must acknowledge that by comparison with other EU countries, Irish agriculture has performed well in the 1990s. Average income from agricultural activity grew by over 20% in real terms compared to an average EU growth of only 12%. In the United Kingdom, the average income fell by almost 20% over the same period.

An increasing number of farmers are supplementing their incomes through off-farm employment. This has been facilitated by the national economic boom and growth in employment we are currently experiencing.

Senator Kiely should take up writing fiction.

Senator Connor knows this is not fiction. I am only stating the facts.

It is like listening to Dickens.

Senator Kiely, without interruption.

On average, over half of farm household income now comes from non-farming activities. I welcome this as a positive develop ment which will ensure the economic viability of many farming families in the future. Another benefit to farmers from the current economic climate is that interest rates are at very low levels. This is reflected in the fact that in 1998, interest payments amounted to almost 11% of farm income compared to almost 30% during the time of the very high interest rates in the early 1980s.

On 13 October the Minister announced proposals for the distribution of the additional quota and for quota management measures which are possible following changes in the EU regulations agreed as part of Agenda 2000. The overall objective in exercising the discretion available to the Minister was to put, as far as possible, additional quota into the hands of active milk producers who have shown a commitment to the industry as well as recognising the need to maintain the competitive position of the sector to meet challenges in the years ahead. I welcome that. It is essential that milk producers get the quota and that the quota would no longer be seen as an asset but as a means of making a livelihood. Another important consideration was to ensure that the balance of quota allocation across the country, particularly in sensitive areas, would not be upset.

There are a number of positive developments in the cattle and beef sectors. The level of throughput of finished cattle at meat export plants has increased by 14% and considerable progress is being achieved in recovering our market position. Live cattle exports to date amount to 325,000 head, more than double the number exported in the same period last year and a nine-fold increase on 1997. The trade this year includes almost 260,000 young animals to continental markets and over 55,000 adult cattle to Lebanon.

The Government and the Minister are committed to the Leader model of rural development. The Leader concept is particularly suited to Irish conditions with our tradition of self-help and voluntary and community involvement. There is no doubt that the Leader 1 and Leader 2 programmes were highly successful in regenerating rural areas. Crucial to the success of Leader is the contribution being made by the local groups selected to implement the programme. The Minister of State, who is responsible for the Leader programme, is continually impressed by their determination and sense of community spirit, the enormous commitment of board members by way of voluntary time and effort and the dedication and enthusiasm of the groups' staff and management.

I welcome the Minister to the House this evening and I am glad to have an opportunity to discuss the serious problems facing the sheep and pigmeat sectors. I am a little disappointed with the Fine Gael Party in the motion they have put down. It is one thing to identify problems – we all know they exist – but it is another to come forward with some suggestions as to how they can be alleviated.

That is up to the Minister.

Unfortunately, the Fine Gael Party has not come forward with any suggestions as yet. Perhaps Senator Connor will come forward with suggestions later and I will be keen to hear them.

I will surprise the Senator.

In trying to understand the position with regard to pig production we must first remember that it is a cyclical operation and the cycle tends to be relatively short, three or four years. There are good years, bad years and in between years but unfortunately the difficulties pig farmers have been experiencing over the past while have been outside that normal cycle. There are a number of reasons for that – the Russian market, swine fever, problems in Europe and the fire in the North which created a problem with regard to processing. The market must also be borne in mind. There has always been a tendency to produce more of a product that is profitable, regardless of whether there is a market for it. That must change but it can only come about through a recognition on the part of the producers that only a limited amount of the produce is required by the market. This Government has been to the fore in focusing agricultural policy on the production of quality food for consumers and addressing the needs of the consumer in terms of quality and processing practice. That should not be forgotten.

Significant improvements could be made overnight in the pigmeat sector by controlling the importation of meat. The market consumes about 140,000 tonnes a year but 35,000 tonnes are being imported annually by farmer-backed organisations. These are the areas we need to address if we are serious about these issues.

Through his representations at European level, the Minister has had some success with aids to private storage. This is the type of initiative which has led to a reduction in the losses experienced by farmers. However, more needs to be done. Irish pigmeat is recognised worldwide as being of the highest quality. If this is the case we have to stop importing produce and farmer-backed organisations should cease this practice if they are committed to farming.

The sheep sector has been facing acute problems for a considerable period, particularly lowland producers. One of the unfortunate consequences of the Agenda 2000 discussions was that the extensification problem was not dealt with to our satisfaction. We can continue to press that issue and I have no doubt the Minister is doing so to try to alleviate that problem. However, he has been successful in introducing other measures which have helped the situation. The aids to private storage scheme has been taken up. This initiative amounted to about 130,000 lambs and has resulted in an increase in prices. The same scheme has been in operation in Britain and this has also helped our situation.

The sheepmeat sector is, however, facing the problem of over-supply. There is a market deficiency in the EU but a large amount of sheep meat is being imported into Europe as a result of the world trade agreement, leading to over-supply. This situation has led to a fall in prices. What can we do about this? The world trade talks begin shortly and we will have to enter those talks with the same vigour with which we approached the Agenda 2000 discussions when our backs were to the wall. Senator Tom Hayes rightly stated that the Minister and his team were widely applauded for the successful outcome to those talks and I look forward to similar success at the world trade agreement talks. This will help the situation enormously.

France buys roughly 70% of our sheepmeat exports and seized the opportunity presented by the BSE crisis to nationalise its consumption. They claim that Irish sheepmeat is not of the quality required by French consumers. What can we do about this? We will have to put much effort into increasing the genetic merit and breeding of our sheep herd. This must be done across the board because the quality is not of a standard required by the consumer. We will have to involve Teagasc in research and consider improving the genetic merit by using the Belclare breed rather than sticking with the Suffolk Cross breed which has been used for years. If we do so, we will be where we were 20 years ago when we had access to the French market because we produced the products it wanted. We are failing on this issue at present and we have not made any progress in the past 20 years in terms of the quality of our produce. If we focus on some of these points and place the emphasis on the right areas, we will make progress. That is no help to farmers who are experiencing difficulties at present, but they can be assured that the Government will look after their interests with the same vigour it has shown throughout the economy.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This debate is of enormous importance and I hope that no Member will attempt to score political points on the issue of the pig and sheep farming sectors which have suffered much, particularly in recent years. It is important that we support the Minister and the Government in their ongoing efforts to support and plan for the future of these sectors which are so important to rural Ireland.

The pig sector is very important to my home counties of Cavan and Monaghan, but it has been badly hit in the past two years, particularly since the fire at the Lovell and Christmas plant. This fire reduced the national slaughtering capacity by 14% with disastrous effects, particularly in the Cavan-Monaghan region. Coupled with this was the downward trend in pig prices which was particularly damaging for pig farmers. In the past two years many of these farmers have left pig production and those who remain are suffering financial hardship. These people must be supported in these difficult times to ensure their well-being and that of their families. I welcome the recent assistance offered by the Government to pig farmers. The Minister has worked hard over a long period to assist in these difficult times and I urge him to continue his support for this hard-pressed sector.

The sheepmeat sector has also experienced severe difficulties in recent years as a result of weak markets. The pig and sheep sectors are vulnerable to market forces. When demand falls prices fall significantly. In the past few years there has been an increase in the volume of sheepmeat being imported from the UK, resulting in lower prices for Irish farmers. The EU Commission must immediately introduce a subsidised private storage scheme to take some of the excess produce off the market.

I compliment the Government on the excellent allocation for the agricultural sector in the national development plan. The plan will greatly boost the economy and all of Ireland. It will bring enormous benefits to rural areas with investment in roads, services, communications, water supply and training. Live exports of cattle have been a wonderful support to the country in recent years and I urge the Minister to do everything he can to ensure they continue. I support the amendment to the motion.

I thank Members for their welcome. At the outset I want to address the questions raised about the performance of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. I am glad to have the opportunity of doing so because the performance of the Department, particularly since we joined the EEC in 1973, has never been properly acknowledged. As one of the largest Departments it is involved in an extremely wide range of activities encompassing agriculture, food and rural development, areas of fundamental importance to the economy. The Department's publications, namely, its annual report, the annual review and outlook and its schemes and services, provide comprehensive information on these activities. The way in which these activities are delivered by my Department are set out in the First Annual Report on the Implementation of the Statement of Strategy, 1998-2000. The various sections in that report outline the implementation of the strategic management initiative within the Department; give details regarding the implementation of the programme for quality customer service; report on the Department's achievements under each of its policies and operational goals; look to the future and identify the main challenges ahead.

While the Department has been criticised for apparent individual failures – much of it was pub talk, to use a phrase of the late Brian Lenihan – sight has been lost of the overall performance and scale of operations. I wish to illustrate the scale of the operations in one area alone. Since lreland's accession to the European Union my Department has secured and disbursed over £20 billion from the EU budget to aid the development of Irish agriculture. The Department has had to implement and respect thousands of complex pieces of EU legislation in this process. A measure of its success is that in that period the EU Commission has only disallowed 0.49% of total expenditure. My Department's record by comparison with other member states is more favourable and I am arranging for a summary detail of that record to be circulated to Senators.

The administration of the schemes and services for which my Department has responsibility are subject to ongoing scrutiny at both administrative, political and legal levels within Ireland and outside the country. Among the more recent changes are the CAP reform of 1992 which switched the emphasis of EU support from market supports, notably export refunds and intervention, which is in progressive decline, to direct income support to individual farmers. The Department's handling of this major undertaking has been an acknowledged success. Its performance in delivery of these income support payments is among the best in Europe. Strong financial control and audit procedures have been introduced in recent years. The Department is now certified annually by an independent auditing firm as a paying agency for the Commission by complying with the rigorous requirements of the FEOGA accreditation process.

The reach and capacity of the Department's IT services have been vastly extended. The upgraded internal audit unit was established in 1994. An audit committee headed by an external accountant was also established in 1994 to advise management. The Department has introduced a system of fair procedures and a customer complaints unit. A modernisation programme has been under way for some years, encompassing major improvements in the financial control environment and service culture. From my experience, the people I have worked with and have known over 30 years are some of the finest civil servants in the country and should not be subject to attacks. I think they enjoy the confidence of the farming bodies who are in daily contact. The negotiation by officials every day of every week, particularly on Agenda 2000, was well appreciated by the farming organisations.

It is the Minister and his Ministers of State in whom they have no confidence.

In addressing the difficulties faced at present in the pig and sheep production, processing and marketing sectors, the sectors need to be put in their proper perspective of national and international developments and the operation of the Single Market within the European Union. As is common in the agriculture industry, both sectors are more than self-sufficient and surplus production has to be disposed of outside the country.

The pigmeat market worldwide has been in difficulties over the past year or so due mainly to over-production. In the EU over-production occurred as a result of classical swine fever which necessitated the slaughter of large numbers of pigs and their withdrawal from the market. The subsequent rise in prices led producers who were not affected by the disease to increase their production, as Senator Gibbons said. Weakness in the beef market also led to increased pigmeat prices. When disease was eliminated and the beef market improved, pigmeat production continued to increase and prices dropped. Other factors contributing to the difficulties were the market weaknesses in Japan and Russia, which traditionally imported large quantities of pigmeat.

Recognising the market difficulties facing Irish pig producers, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development took a number of important steps at EU level to improve matters. Together with his colleagues in the Council of Agriculture Ministers, he sought and obtained generous increases in export refunds from the EU Commission on a number of occasions in 1998 and 1999. These increases ranged from 33% to 80%. The EU Commission also introduced an aids to private storage scheme for pigmeat. This scheme, which concluded in September this year, removed over 420,000 tonnes of pigmeat from the EU market. A food aid programme for Russia, which included 100,000 tonnes of pigmeat, was also put in place by the Commission and to date about 60,000 tonnes of pigmeat have been exported from the EU under the programme.

The measures had some effect, as evidenced by the fact that prices obtained by Irish pigmeat producers have increased by nearly 18% since the beginning of the year. Despite this, there is clearly scope for further improvement in prices to producers. In this regard last Monday at the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting in Brussels the Minister again raised the matter of market support with the Commission. He urged the Commission to take immediate action in raising export refunds, in particular restoring the high refund rate for Russia. He also pressed the Commission to speed up the delivery of the remaining 40,000 tonnes of pigmeat to Russia under the food aid programme, which would have the effect of removing surplus product from the EU market.

The Minister also met with the Irish Grain and Feed Association and representatives of the main banks to discuss the current situation in the pigmeat sector. He sought and received their continuing support to pig producers during this difficult period, and both groups reaffirmed their commitment to the maintenance of the existing producer base. They will do everything possible to help producers during the current difficult market situation.

This afternoon the Minister, Deputy Walsh, met with senior management of the pigmeat producers to discuss the ongoing weakness in the market and the serious effect this will have on producers' incomes. The Minister impressed upon processors the need to ensure producers continue to have outlets for the pigs they produce. The Minister also had recent meetings with Enterprise Ireland and An Bord Bia and he asked both organisations to see what action they can take to assist the pigmeat sector. Enterprise Ireland was asked for an immediate assessment of slaughtering capacity and to examine aspects of the industry which may require attention and possible investment. The Minister specifically asked that aspects of regional capacity be addressed in view of the developments in Northern Ireland.

An Bord Bia recently launched a promotion campaign costing £300,000 aimed at promoting quality assured bacon. The aim of the promotion is to encourage the increased consumption of home produced product by emphasising the excellent eating quality of quality assured bacon and the fact that it is fully traceable as it is sourced only from approved farms. The campaign includes television, radio and print advertising and will no doubt help producers due to the increased demand for pigmeat which it will generate.

The Minister recognises that there is a particular difficulty for pig producers in the Border region arising from the fire which destroyed a pigmeat processing plant in Northern Ireland last year. In the recent past the Minister has had detailed discussions with these pig producers and he is actively looking at the position to see if he can do something to help their situation. However, there are serious EU legal constraints which must be respected and within which the Minister is obliged to operate. He has already raised this matter with the Commission and further discussions will take place.

I want to stress that the long-term outlook for pig prices is favourable. The EU Commission has forecast that the average EU market price will rise by over 4% between now and the end of the year. In addition, the increased demand during the Christmas season should also aid pig prices.

It is well known that pigmeat production is a cyclical business. As has already been said, the current cycle is particularly deep and drawn out. The Minister has done and continues to do everything possible within the common market organisation of the sector to support the producer base and to enable them weather their current difficulties. Notwithstanding these actions, we should not lose sight of the fact that there is an onus on the industry to ensure that the produce is right, that it is produced and marketed in a way which provides a reasonable and adequate return to suppliers, who after all are fundamental to the long-term future of the industry.

Turning to the sheep sector, the Minister is aware of the difficulties facing sheep producers at present. The low prices currently being paid by processors stem largely from increased supplies of UK lamb which have depressed returns from the French market. We export 70% of our sheepmeat and three quarters of this is marketed in France. Consequently, any difficulties on the French market have an immediate impact on the Irish sheepmeat trade. Another factor is that French lamb is perceived by consumers to be superior to imported product and as a result they are willing to pay premium prices for domestically produced lamb. Unfortunately, we are also at the mercy of the trade activities in the neighbouring UK market which has a lamb output that is six times greater than that of Ireland. Apart from this, the sheepmeat market is also affected by the weakness in the pigmeat market in that it is in direct competition with relatively cheap pigmeat. The ongoing difficulties in Russia continue to impact on the prices of lamb skins which are currently worth only a fraction of their value 18 months ago. This is also reflected in the price paid by the processing industry for lambs.

The current difficulties in the sheepmeat market highlight one of the deficiencies which has been identified in the ewe premium system, that is the failure of this system to take account of the fact that prices are much higher in some member states than others. In view of the fact that prices in Ireland and the UK are well behind 1998 levels, there was a strong expectation that the 1999 ewe premium would be fixed at a higher level than last year. However, the Commission estimates that the 1999 ewe premium will be at more or less the same level as in 1998. This is due to two factors: prices in continental Europe are relatively strong, largely because of the renationalisation of the EU market, and the appreciation of sterling has led to a situation where the fall in UK prices is not fully reflected in the average EU price.

The Minister understands and shares the sense of grievance felt by Irish producers about the matter. He also understands their view that it is extremely difficult to justify the retention of the stabiliser in a situation where ewe numbers across Europe have fallen significantly since 1992, when the stabiliser was fixed at its present level.

One of the other deficiencies in the ewe premium system is the non-payment of the extensification premium on ewes in spite of the fact that they are included in the calculation of stocking density for the premium. There is also concern that the cattle extensification provisions in Agenda 2000 will result in a sharp fall in sheep numbers. My Department was aware of this concern during the negotiations on Agenda 2000 and the Minister believes that the major improvements in the Commission's original proposals, which he negotiated as part of the final agreement, should minimise the risk posed by the beef extensification premium to sheep production. The increase in the maximum stocking densities from 1.4 lu/ha to 2.0 lu/ha for 2000 and 2001 and to 1.8 lu/ha from 2002 onwards will ensure that the vast majority of farmers who currently qualify for the extensification premium will not have to destock sheep numbers in order to retain eligibility for the premium. Indeed this is a view shared by the Teagasc sheep expert who, I note from yesterday's Farming Independent, believes that it will be easier for sheep farmers to collect extensification in the next couple of years.

As regards the inequalities of the ewe premium regime, the Minister has made strong representations to Commissioner Fischler over the years and most recently at the meeting of the Agriculture Council earlier this week. He outlined the serious income situation facing sheep producers at present and the failure of the ewe premium system to properly compensate Irish producers because of the lack of convergence of prices across the EU. He called on the Commissioner to take urgent action to address these issues, including by way of the temporary suspension of the stabiliser or through the payment of a supplementary premium in member states where prices are significantly below the EU average. Apart from the UK, he received no support from other member states. The Commissioner indicated that he intends to review the current regime next year. He intends to continue to press the Commission on this issue.

Earlier in the autumn the Minister took a number of initiatives to help address the difficulties in the sector. He made strong representations to Commissioner Fischler for a scheme of aid for private storage in order to alleviate the difficulties in the market. The Commission introduced such a scheme last month in order to take up to 130,000 lambs off the market in Ireland and the UK. He is satisfied that this scheme has helped to relieve the situation in the sector and that this, together with a lift in French demand in the past two weeks, has resulted in a firmer trade with factory quotes improved by between 2p and 4p per pound in the past week or two. Prices are now 10% above last year's levels. This firmer market should be sustained by the strengthening demand in the run-up to Christmas.

The effective marketing of lamb is of major importance to both producers and processors. In view of this, the Minister requested An Bord Bia to follow up the potential for developing new markets in southern Europe. An Bord Bia has also conducted an autumn promotional campaign on the domestic market to encourage demand by informing consumers about the positive qualities of Irish lamb. The theme of this campaign was that lamb is a healthy convenient food.

The Minister believes that it is worthwhile to remember that, in spite of all its defects, the ewe premium system provides income support to Irish producers amounting to £10 million per annum, with a further £22 million coming from the headage payments under the Structural Funds. This is a substantial amount of money and, while he is committed to securing improvements in the system, we have to acknowledge that the Commission and other members states view the regime as relatively expensive. Our demands for an improvement in the system have to be seen in that context. Nevertheless, the Minister wants to emphasise that he is conscious of the difficulties facing sheep producers at present and he intends to continue to press the Commission for urgent solutions.

The Minister believes that it is important for sheep producers to make the maximum use of all the EU schemes available to them to improve their income position. Recent studies by Teagasc have shown that the income of sheep producers who participated in the rural environment protection scheme has improved their income position quite significantly relative to those who remained outside the scheme. Less than 50% of specialist sheep producers are involved in REPS. Clearly, there is considerable scope for those sheep producers not yet involved in REPS to enhance their incomes by participating in this worthwhile scheme. As Members will be aware, money and funds are now available to allow this scheme continue for the next seven years.

As the House is aware, the Minister set up the sheepmeat forum some time ago to evaluate the future of the sheepmeat sector and to assess how the industry can best address the constraints and future challenges facing it. The forum, which is chaired by my Department and includes members from all interests connected to the sheep sector, identified a wide range of issues on all areas of the sector. The forum agreed a comprehensive series of recommendations which, if implemented, would enable the industry to prepare for the challenges ahead. The Minister is anxious to ensure maximum progress on implementation of these recommendations. For that reason he has decided to set up a monitoring committee to drive the process forward. The committee will be representative of all interests in the industry and will work closely with my Department.

Everything possible has been done to assist the pigmeat and sheepmeat sectors. My Department is to be complimented on the overall satisfactory performance of its responsibilities down through the years. The challenges facing agriculture, food and rural development and my Department have been identified and are being addressed. Most recently this is being done in the publication of the National Development Plan 2000-06, which contains a specific chapter on rural development, as I assured Senator Tom Hayes it would when I addressed a county council meeting in south Tipperary. The Senator will be pleased with the amount of money allocated to that area and the recognition it receives. The plan completes the framework for the development both of the agricultural sector into the first decade of the new millennium and of the Department into its second century.

We take no pleasure in putting motions on farm income difficulties before the House. This must be the sixth such motion in the lifetime of this Seanad. Neither Senator Tom Hayes, our agriculture spokesman, nor I take joy from that. This motion relates to the difficulties being experienced by pig and sheep producers.

Part of the anger of sheep farmers is due to the Minister, Deputy Walsh, reneging on a promise he made before coming into office. The Minister of State pointed out that the extensification scheme does not extend to ewes or sheep. The Minister, when he was his party's spokesperson on agriculture in 1996-7, promised to secure the expansion of the extensification scheme to the sheepmeat sector. Farmers are rightly angry that he reneged on his promise. The Minister failed to secure it at the Agenda 2000 negotiations but he never explained why or how well he fought the battle. We are public representatives and we hear the anger of sheep producers in our constituencies. It is only right that we raise it here and we should not be criticised for so doing. We do not criticise the civil servants in the Department. They do an excellent job. We criticise the policy makers, the Minister and the Cabinet. They are the cause of these problems.

The problem in the pig meat industry is that the pig meat market in the European Union needs greater management. We know it is cyclical. The Minister tells us that, according to the EU, the price will rise by 4 per cent between now and the end of this year. The price of pig meat in Ireland is falling. The pig census for the European Union puts the pig population at approximately 55 million in the fourth quarter of 1999. In the fourth quarter of 2000, it is estimated that the figure will drop to approximately 52 million but that is not enough to stabilise the market. The production level will still be above the level of demand. That means a continued decrease in price and continued pressure on producers' incomes.

Consider what has happened to the net price of pork. In 1998, it was 90p per kilo. At that stage, the break even point for the production of a kilo of pork was 98p. In 1999, the price per kilo is 82p and the break even point stands at 95p, a small decrease since last year. That amounts to a loss, over the two years, of £7.32 per pig on a national output of 7.5 million pigs. That gives a national loss of income for pig producers and for the economy of approximately £53.5 million. It would be even more, perhaps £60 million, if one were to include the losses of Border producers, which are even more acute.

We are aware of the cyclical nature of the market and the problems caused by swine fever, which accelerated the industry reaching the bottom of this cycle. A few years ago there was a buoyant market for pigs. However, these things should be foreseen. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development should, above all else, foresee them and ensure it is reflected in EU policy that they are foreseen.

Why do Irish producers suffer to a greater extent than producers in the other major pig producing countries in the EU such as Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Spain and Germany? While the producers in those countries have suffered, their incomes have not suffered to the same extent as the incomes of Irish producers. The answer to my question is policy failure. The Department's officials do the work but the policies to ameliorate these problems and create a better deal are made by the political head of the Department.

I referred earlier to the problems of sheep producers. The Minister of State referred to the stabiliser. The stabiliser is patently unfair and we should not simply seek a temporary suspension. Given its patent unfairness we should seek its abolition. The stabiliser was introduced in 1988 as a means of controlling EU sheep meat production and it operated on the principle that for every 1% increase in EU sheep production there was a corresponding 1% increase in the stabiliser. By 1992, the stabiliser had reached 7%. In that year, under the first round of CAP reforms, production quotas were introduced and these capped EU sheep production into the future. Despite a reduction in sheep production in Ireland and in some other EU states, the 7% stabiliser is fully applied and is unfairly used to reduce the ewe premium payments of all producers.

We should seek the abolition of that regulation, not its temporary suspension. It is patently unfair to Irish sheep producers. We have a specific national interest in, and should fight much harder for, its abolition. However, I have no evidence and there is none to be found in the Department's press releases that any effort is being made in this regard.

There is also the difficult problem of lamb imports from New Zealand. These imports amount this year to approximately 220,000 tonnes. They were initially a condition of Britain's entry into the then European Economic Community and we had to accept it. However, the imports are burgeoning and are doing serious damage to producers in the EU. They are doing particular damage to producers in Ireland who are reliant on exports. Nowadays we export little of our sheepmeat to markets outside the EU and we must rely on markets within the EU. Yet there are huge imports of New Zealand lamb into the Community which are doing enormous damage.

I recognise the difficulty of the problem. By nature, I favour free trade. The outcome of the world trade talks will present Irish agriculture with major challenges. In the course of my work with the Council of Europe I met the new director of the World Trade Organisation in Geneva a few months ago. The agenda in relation to freeing up trade in agricultural produce is quite worrying for this country. However, in the context of the WTO talks, this country should raise the great difficulty imports of New Zealand lamb are creating for sheep production in this country.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Davern. This motion refers to serious matters, the price of pigs, the price of sheep and the Agenda 2000 discussions and it calls on the Minister to "take urgent action to restore public confidence in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, which has been seriously eroded by recent events". These matters are extremely important. I agree that the price producers get for sheepmeat, lamb and pigmeat is poor and has been poor for some time. It is important that action is taken by the Minister and the Department to ensure these industries are stabilised but what action can be taken over and above what the Minister has done?

I had expected that the Senators who tabled this motion would have proposed a solution to the problem, but the only solution I heard was that the Minister and the Ministers of State at the Department should take action. I thought the Senators would have told us what the action might involve. Senator Gibbons set out the position and the difficulties facing the two industries, but we must go further than that. In these industries husbandry, breeding, management and presentation are important. It is also important to ensure products are produced to the high stan dards required by consumers because they are concerned about the quality of these food products, although I am certain, by and large, that we meet those standards.

There is overproduction in these industries and we must consider how we can cater for that. Imports from outside the EU are affecting the pigmeat and sheepmeat industries and we must also consider what can be done about that. I raised this issue in the House on a previous occasion. Do those imports meet the high standards we have set for such products to ensure they meet the high standards required by our consumers? That question has not been answered satisfactorily. Whoever is responsible, whether it is the Department of Health and Children or the recently set up food monitoring committee, should ensure these imports meet the standards we have set for the products.

I wish to refer to a serious element of the motion, the call on the Minister to ensure that confidence is restored in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. I am not aware of a lack of confidence on the part of the farming community, farming organisations or anybody who knows anything about agriculture in the Department, its staff, the Minister of the two Ministers of State. The farming organisations to a person acknowledged the great contribution made by the Ministers politically and by the Department's officials to the discussions at the end of the Agenda 2000 negotiations. They acknowledged fully the success achieved on that extremely difficult occasion. I would like to think the Department's officials, the Minister, the Ministers of State and all those involved in discussions with the World Trade Organisation carry with them the goodwill shown to them by everybody, including Senators across the floor of this House on that occasion, when they participate in future negotiations, and they will need it.

I wish to refer to a statement from a farm leader in the context of this motion, but I want to take it one step further. The suggestion of the separation of the functions within the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and setting up a new agency to deal with payments is doing the rounds. I am totally opposed to that proposal. It would not lead to a good resolution of any of the problems that exist at present. I would consider it a backward step, although I would like to hear the argument in favour of it.

I address this matter with sincerity. We heard the criticism made here today about the National Roads Authority. It is an independent authority and is not answerable to anybody. That would be the case with a new agency established to deal with payments to farmers. Regulators have said that they are not answerable to anybody and have refused to come before Oireachtas committees. Do we need to set up another structure to deal with agricultural payments for 135,000 farmers in respect of one million map acres or parcels of land? Do we want to set up another agency that is not answerable to anybody? Ministers and Ministers of State are answerable to the Dáil in respect of questions tabled to them and they are also answerable to this House.

The press release from the farm leader states:

It is important that we separate the future role and service to be provided by the Department of Agriculture from the baggage of the Beef Tribunal. [We know what that involved.] At this stage, the intervention regime has almost been entirely wound down and it is clear that it would be individual farmers who would be most disrupted by what is being proposed in the Government review.

You are well aware that since the MacSharry Reforms of 1992 farmers have been struggling to cope with the bureaucracy attached to the direct payments system. I want to put on record that over a period of years significant improvements have been made by the Department in the service which they provide to farmers under the direct payments system. Dismembering the Department to create an independent agency to administer FEOGA and other payments such as premia to farmers would inevitably cause a massive setback to the quality of service which the Department now provides.

I want to emphasise that, as the agent of the EU Commission, the Department is already under very close scrutiny by the Commission's own Auditors in addition to the EU Court of Auditors, apart altogether from being held accountable to the Oireachtas through the Public Accounts Committee, and also through the Comptroller and Auditor General's Office.

I am concerned that the repercussions of the proposal in the Government's programme have not been properly considered. Certainly, the proposal has not been debated in the Dáil or by any Committee of the Oireachtas.

That statement was written by the President of IFA. The IFA is a critical organisation and I share its views.

The data circulated by the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, shows that Ireland ranks among the top four member states of the European Union in terms of expenditure disallowed as a percentage of total expenditure and in terms of ours being one of the best management organisations. That is a compliment to our officials, administrators and our political system.

I express my view on this matter because undermining the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and its officials without being able to qualify such remarks and making them only for the sake of change does not lead to good administration. We should tell the officials, the Minister and the Ministers of State that they enjoy our confidence. We should stop shooting ourselves in the foot. We should do for agriculture what has been done for other sectors – we should develop it and ensure we have good products which meet the requirements of our consumers. We should also ensure producers get a good return for their products and that processors are allowed to do their jobs.

Mr. Ryan

I want to comment on the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, although I am not intimately aware of its operations. The Minister should not play games by saying his Department has secured and disbursed over £20 billion from the EU and that the Commission has only disallowed 0.49% of total expenditure. That is £50 million, which is not small money. One cannot act in percentages.

Compare it to other countries.

Mr. Ryan

If we had spent our lives comparing ourselves to other countries we would not have grown economically to the stage we are at now. We are growing because we decided to do it right rather than measure ourselves against other people.

Who does the Senator mean by "we"?

Mr. Ryan

Some £50 million is a lot of money. It would run a large agricultural college for a long time. It may be better than others but it is not good enough to boast about it. If the institution where I work had to reimburse an equivalent amount of money, which would be approximately £50,000 per year, the director would be sacked. If the Comptroller and Auditor General had to tell the director every year that £50,000 had gone astray, he would be sacked. The Minister should not play games with me.

It is about inclusivity, not exclusivity and the interpretation of rules.

Mr. Ryan

That is a good phrase but £50 million is still a lot of money. The Minister should not play games with numbers. One of the problems is that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has always been presumed to be the Department responsible for agriculture and food. However, it saw its role as the Department for farmers. Until recently, it was more or less oblivious to the fact there was a consumer who was supposed to get good quality. Many people argue that agriculture and food should not be under the same Department or Minister because the vested interests of producers will inevitably rise above the demands and choices of consumers. That is why the Common Agricultural Policy survived for so long, although it was utterly inimical to the interests of consumers.

The belated setting up of a genuinely independent agency for food safety makes one wonder about the priorities of the Department. It is extraordinary that a large part of agricultural education is under the Department, something which is not true of any other area of development. The Department of Public Enterprise does not control education in the area of electronics, telecommunications etc. and the Department of the Environment and Local Government does not control the education of civil engineers. Why should the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development control agricultural edu cation? It has resulted in a completely inadequate, under-focused and low horizon view of what a farmer needs in terms of education. Agriculture is a business. There should be people in farming who have business degrees in agriculture, not people who have two years of training in an agricultural training college under the control of an under-visionary Department.

I support the motion, although I should be the only one of my colleagues who votes for it because members of the Labour Party are the only people left in Leinster House who believe in the principle of taxation to redistribute income from those who are well off to those who are badly off. This motion means that Seanad Éireann calls on the taxpayers of urban Ireland to transfer resources to make up for the unfortunate position in which farmers in the pig and sheep industries find themselves. If the figures are correct about the collapse in farm incomes, it is our duty in solidarity to ensure that people who are trying their best to make a living do not collapse into poverty. That is what the Labour Party believes, although it is not a fashionable view as we will observe from the dedication of the Minister for Finance to reduce the tax take for people who are already too well off.

It is always a con job when people call on the Minister to do something about people's incomes. That is saying we should get money from someone else to give to these people. I believe that and that is why I support the motion. I have no idea what Fine Gael is doing about it because it does not believe in that principle. It will tell urban dwellers that someone else should provide them with an additional income. I do not believe in such politics. I wish my colleagues in Fine Gael – I will not call them comrades because it would upset them – would develop a little common sense about this issue.

At least the Senator realises it.

We have no problem with that.

Mr. Ryan

There is an air of unreality about this motion which calls on the Minister to restore people's incomes. It should not take a socialist, such as myself, to explain to people in Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil that we live in a market economy. When I became a trade Unionist 25 years ago, printers were fighting a rearguard action to preserve their incomes and jobs in the face of fundamental changes in the marketplace. However, they lost and there is no longer a printers' union. If I tabled a motion stating that "Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to take immediate steps to restore the income of printers", everyone would laugh at me.

We would not.

Mr. Ryan

One must live in reality, as Senator Gibbons said. We cannot make the world stop. People in the ESB and Eircom had to change and people in CIE, whether they are willing to, will have to change. People in many areas of society have had to change because the world has changed. People in education have turned themselves inside out twice in the past 20 years. I do not teach anything now that I learned in college nor do I use any computer which was introduced when I was in college. Everyone must learn the same thing. It is profoundly misleading to call on the Minister to restore incomes and to pretend the big bad world does not exist.

I am astonished at the degree to which the fact that we live in such an economy seems to frequently escape the attention of both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael when it comes to agriculture. One cannot isolate one section of society from the realities of the marketplace unless one wants to give people direct income support, in which I believe because it is profoundly important to keep people living in rural areas. A large element of what is currently spent on supporting agriculture and guaranteeing payments to maintain livestock on farms for which there is no market would be better used subsidising rural Garda stations and post offices and guaranteeing the maintenance of the social infrastructure of small towns, villages and rural areas.

Senator Gibbons correctly said that in a competitive market one must produce a product the consumers want and at a price they are prepared to pay. Hidden in all the obfuscation is that the prime consumers on the Continent will not buy our sheepmeat. That is the fundamental problem, yet it is barely mentioned here. Why is the price of sheep or lamb meat different in a single European market?

Because it has been renationalised in recent years.

Mr. Ryan

It is because people will pay a premium price for a product that meets their quality aspirations. One will buy different computers from different manufacturers for different prices because people believe one is better than the other and they will pay more for a better product.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of supporting people's incomes to keep rural life alive and of the redistribution of resources. This is the most unequal country in the OECD in terms of income distribution. Included in that uneven and unfair distribution is a large section of the farming population.

Competition has created the problem for farmers. Fine Gael should be aware of the person who initiated this, one of their great icons who became the director general of GATT and then of the World Trade Organisation and has devastated many people. I support the motion reluctantly because it does not face the fundamental problem, but the self-congratulatory amendment is a guarantee that I will support the motion.

Senator Ryan is, at least, consistent.

I thought the Senator was an idealist.

I welcome the Minister of State and I compliment the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development on the work he has done for agriculture. The motion refers to pigs and sheep. The problems in pig farming vary from one part of the country to another and we must distinguish between them. A problem arose because of a serious fire in the northern part of the country and pig producers found their market and slaughtering facilities destroyed overnight. There was also a downward spiral in prices nationally.

The survival of the pig sector is threatened in the north of the country where most pig farmers produce on a small scale. We must pay particular attention to the problems of small pig producers because bigger producers are in a better position to surmount the current problems in the pig industry. Something must be done for small producers who provide vital employment in rural areas. Bigger and better organised pig producers are probably producing a better quality product. However, some producers of very high quality products have suddenly found themselves unable to sell that product. Even earlier this year when the market was better generally, prices were higher in the southern half of the country. We must help the small pig producers most of whom are in the northern half of the country. We cannot blame the Department for the problems which have arisen in the pig industry. I find it hard to understand why the Opposition motion was tabled. A very small number of pig producers are affected and one cannot point an accusing finger at the Department or at the Minister for this.

There are problems in the sheep sector but the small number of sheep farmers who are producing better quality lamb have no difficulty selling their product. They produce it at the right time of the year and place it in the right market. Sheep producers cannot remain as they were ten years ago – they must produce new breeds, move with the times and supply the product which is required by the market. The Minister of State has highlighted the improvements that have taken place recently. He has indicated the possibility of a slight reduction in prices which normally occurs after Christmas but he foresees an improvement in the spring. This is to be welcomed.

The Minister of State has spoken of the amount of European money drawn down and of the percentage which was not drawn down. It is clear that the Department has ensured that the maximum possible aid has been drawn down for Irish farmers. Opposition Members might very well examine the chart supplied by the Minister of State which shows some years to be particularly bad and they should reflect on who was Minister in some of those years. Farmers have been much happier in the past two years since the Minister, Deputy Walsh, and Ministers of State, Deputies Davern and O'Keeffe, have had responsibility for agriculture. Farmers have been receiving their payments on time and this is recognised by the Irish Farmers Association.

I support the amendment to the motion and I commend the Department and the Minister on the excellent work being done for agriculture.

I commend Senator Tom Hayes on tabling this timely motion and I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, to the House. He is a regular visitor here, usually at the invitation of Senator Tom Hayes, his colleague in south Tipperary. I have no doubt he takes the issue before us very seriously and is addressing it as effectively as possible. However, the problem in the Department rests with the Minister who, when he took office two years ago, took his hands off the reins. His predecessor held the Department on a tighter rein and achieved much more. The Minister operates at a greater remove than his predecessor. This was the case when Deputy Walsh was Minister on a previous occasion. Various tribunals are now uncovering what happened in the Department during his previous period of office and we are seeing something similar now. Ministers of State are somewhat handicapped by their senior Ministers at Cabinet level, for which I commiserate with the Minister of State, Deputy Davern.

This motion deals with a very specific sector of the agriculture industry. We must recognise that the livelihoods of more than 45,000 families are supplemented or supported fully by the sheep industry. It is the third highest income generating area in the agriculture sector. It is an important sector to areas of high disadvantage which do not have intense agriculture. When a crisis arises in that area, therefore, it hits people whose margins and incomes are already very small. Any diminution in their income is a real crisis, which is why it is extremely important that action is taken. At a time when huge amounts of money are being generated by the Celtic tiger, there is an onus on the Government and the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to come to the rescue.

I welcome Senator Ryan's reluctant support for the motion. I am not sure if he fully understands the Labour Party's policies and how it has moved from his college days to a much more centralist position – perhaps somewhat towards the Fine Gael policy position. I do not think he has been long enough in the Labour Party to fully appreciate the direction in which it is going. However, he will, in the fullness of time, recognise its position on various issues and that it is moving much more towards a capitalist position than was previously the case. When he finds that out he might not be quite as satisfied with its position.

Senator Taylor-Quinn's party might accept him if he moves again.

This is an important motion. There are actions that the Minister can take. The Minister of State said in his speech that the Minister has made various efforts, particularly when he met the Commission during the week. The Minister of State told us about the various discussions and what the Minister tried to impress on the Commission, but he did not tell us what the Minister actually achieved. The Minister of State said the Minister "urged the Commission to take immediate action in raising export refunds", he "pressed the Commission to speed up the delivery of the remaining 40,000 tonnes of pigmeat to Russia" and he "also met with the Irish Grain and Feed Association and representatives of the main banks to discuss the current situation in the pigmeat sector".

What was the end result of this urging, pressing and meeting? Where is the concrete evidence? What was the definitive outcome? What will the net effect be for hill sheep farmers in west Cork or pig farmers in Cavan? We have not heard whether any real advantages occurred as a result of that urging, pressing and meeting. The Minister of State was, unfortunately, not in a position to put that on the record because obviously nothing positive has emanated yet. I am sure that as soon as it does he will return to the House to tell us exactly what has happened.

It is ongoing.

It is important that the Minister examine a number of issues. We are supposed to be part of a European Union which has common policies on various matters, yet there are huge inequalities in the sheep sector between member states, such as France, Austria, Ireland and Britain, for a variety of reasons. The Minister must strive to ensure that some equality is brought to bear. The feasibility of securing an adjustment of the stabiliser should be examined by the Minister. In addition, he should consider introducing the extensification premia, which exist for the beef sector, to ewe premia and the sheep sector.

Animals must be retained on the land and cannot be sold until a certain date for beef and sheep headage premia purposes. That should be re-examined in the sheep and beef sectors in order to stagger those dates somewhat, which can have a crippling effect on farms, depending on the quality of the land and so on. The Minister is very familiar with that. These matters should be looked at urgently.

The Minister of State, Deputy Davern, is a man with practical experience, although he comes from the very affluent area of south Tipperary which has the best land in the country. If he came from west Cork, as does his colleague, Senator Callanan, he would have a greater understanding of the real hardship experienced by those who still survive in the agricultural sector in those areas. I invite the Minister of State to come west more often and get an idea of real hardship, so that when he travels to Brussels he will be in a better position. Senator Moylan spoke about the importance of small family producers, with which I fully concur. We invite the Minister of State to travel west more often so that he can see the real hardships being experienced by small farmers there.

I appreciate that, coming from the largest retailer in Ballyvaughan.

I thank the Members who contributed to this very interesting and informative debate. If it achieved anything, I hope it has brought home to the Government the crisis in both the pig and sheep sectors. We tabled this motion because there has been an ongoing crisis in the pig industry for a long time. Promises were made that the position would improve over time but that has not happened. People are leaving the pig industry in droves because their indebtedness to banks, building societies, feed merchants and co-ops has increased massively in recent years. Some of these people cannot even dispose of their assets because they are worthless. There is a crisis in the pig industry.

In regard to the sheep sector, the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, made an amazing admission tonight about the Minister, Deputy Walsh's, failure to secure aid in Brussels. We tabled this motion because the Government failed to convince the European Union there is a problem in the sheep sector.

The Senator is being a bit premature.

That can be contrasted with what happened the last time the sheep industry was in trouble, when the then Minister, Deputy Yates, travelled to Brussels and secured a world premium and a top-up premium on headage. It was an amazing admission, for the first time, that the Minister, Deputy Walsh, has failed. I am delighted the Minister of State was honest enough to tell us the Minister failed to secure that deal.

That is yesterday's news.

He admitted the Minister failed to get the support—

The Senator should remember the stabiliser system works two ways.

—of his counterparts in Brussels. In that context, it is no wonder sheep farmers have protested every week outside Leinster House and are leaving the industry in droves. I thank Senators for contributing to the debate and the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, for his openness and forthrightness.

Amendment put.

Bohan, Eddie.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Cox, Margaret.Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzgerald, Tom.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Gibbons, Jim.Glynn, Camillus.

Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Kiely, Rory.Lanigan, Mick.Lydon, Don.Mooney, Paschal.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Donovan, Denis.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Walsh, Jim.

Níl

Burke, Paddy.Coghlan, Paul.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Cosgrave, Liam T.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Doyle, Joe.Hayes, Tom.

Henry, Mary.Jackman, Mary.McDonagh, Jarlath.Norris, David.O'Dowd, Fergus.Ridge, Thérèse.Ryan, Brendan.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.

Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Burke and Ridge.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put: “That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.”

Bohan, Eddie.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Cox, Margaret.Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzgerald, Tom.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Gibbons, Jim.Glynn, Camillus.Kett, Tony.

Kiely, Daniel.Kiely, Rory.Lanigan, Mick.Lydon, Don.Mooney, Paschal.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Donovan, Denis.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Walsh, Jim.

Níl

Burke, Paddy.Coghlan, Paul.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Cosgrave, Liam T.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Doyle, Joe.Hayes, Tom.

Henry, Mary.Jackman, Mary.McDonagh, Jarlath.Norris, David.O'Dowd, Fergus.Ridge, Thérèse.Ryan, Brendan.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.

Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Burke and Ridge.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 18 November 1999.

Barr
Roinn