Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. While I accept there is an agreed motion before the House, there is a considerable difference between the Government and those of us on this side of the House on a number of important issues. While we broadly agree on the policy framework that is now underpinning the agricultural industry, Food Harvest 2020, there are important factors that must be taken into consideration. There is broad agreement on many of the points made in this document, but there are issues that need to be addressed. It is important that new systems, new ways of doing business and new ways of improving the sector are developed. If we are to see the kind of innovation that is necessary to reach the targets set out in Food Harvest 2020, we will need ongoing input from this Government. It will not be enough for the Government to say this is the legacy it was left by the previous Government. It will need to develop its own set of initiatives to ensure there is support for the framework that is now in existence.
To that end, the Government will need to take a fresh look at the area of innovation, and as part of that, it will have to consider Teagasc and the service it provides. It will need to consider the level of innovation it is delivering within its corporate structure, but also its level of involvement with farmers on the ground. Sadly, a decision was taken by the board of Teagasc, as a result of budgetary measures, to close offices around the country and reduce the level of interaction between farmers and advisers, suggesting the private sector would somehow have the capacity to do much of the form-filling that was involved. I have no problem with that in principle, but the agricultural advisers provided a much greater level of input into the capacity of farmers to re-engineer their ways of doing business, develop new streams of income and develop their farms to the greatest extent possible.
I grew up on a small farm in the west. As a result, I am aware of the importance of the work done by agricultural advisers over many years in assisting people who farmed on marginal lands in exploiting, to the greatest extent possible, the outputs from those lands. There is a need for a complete review of the policy of Teagasc. I request that the Minister of State, Deputy Shane McEntee, engage with the board of Teagasc and as its members to review, in their entirety, the proposals relating to the closure of some of the organisation’s offices.
I have no wish to be parochial but a number of offices in Clare are earmarked for closure. The office in Ennistymon has already been closed and the one in Scariff is destined to follow suit. I have examined, from an economic point of view, the logic behind the closure of the Scariff office and I can state that it makes absolutely no sense to me. It is going to cost more to transfer the service from Scariff to Ennis. We are discussing an agricultural service and it seems ludicrous to suggest that the entire delivery of advice to farmers would be centralised into an urban area. That just does not make sense. I ask the Minister of State to review what is proposed. Perhaps we might have an opportunity to discuss the matter at some future date.
The previous speaker referred at length to the fair trade issue. When it was in government, Fianna Fáil promised action on this issue and significant moves had been made before the party left office. I hope the current Administration will take up the reins and move matters forward. It was outrageous that farmers were obliged to take to the streets earlier today. The number of farmers who took part in the protest outside the gates of Leinster House during what is their most productive and busiest period and particularly when farming is going well should speak volumes to the Government and to those in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in particular with regard to the concerns that arise in the context of the issue of fair trade.
It was scandalous that officers of the Competition Authority were allowed to raid the headquarters of the IFA. If the main farming organisation is not in a position to speak on behalf of its members, it undermines the entire principle of representation. What occurred would not have happened if a trade union were involved. I do not understand why it was allowed to happen in this instance. We all know that farmers are price takers and that it is the multiples which dictate the price. If there is collusion, then I suggest that the Competition Authority should look towards the people who are setting the price. Farmers certainly have no responsibility in that regard.
The Government will be making a major and fundamental mistake if it does not take immediate action on this matter. No one should be allowed to suggest that the organisation which represents farmers should not be in a position to seek to ensure a viable living for its members. I do not know what the courts will ultimately decide in respect of this matter. However, what happened in recent days does not get us to the nub of the matter, namely, where the price is set. If a change in legislation is required in order that this might be achieved, then the Government should introduce the relevant measure quite quickly. This matter, which arose on foot of the actions of the Competition Authority, must be dealt with without delay. I hope the Government will bring forward proposals on it in the near future.
I was disappointed by the announcement by the Minister, Deputy Coveney, during his first few days in office about the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, and the considerable curtailment, from €5,000 to €4,000, in the amount payable to farmers under the scheme. Some of us on this side of the House fought hard when our party was in government to try to ensure that the scheme was put in place. I am not trying to be exclusive with regard to this matter but Members from the west know the importance of the payments associated with the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, and the AEOS. We are also aware of the effect such payments have in the context of the livelihoods of small operators. Some of the latter are not commercially viable in their own right but they provide a good service and supply an appropriate level of commodity to the market. Such schemes help to keep people on the land.
As a result of the Minister’s announcement, farmers availing of the AEOS will each be worse off to the tune of €1,000. There is some dispute about this matter but the money for the scheme was set aside in the Estimates and it is clear that a payment plan - with which the Minister of State’s officials will be extremely familiar - which would have delivered up to €5,000 to each farmer was envisaged. I hope Minister, Deputy Coveney, will be in a position to reconsider this matter. I contributed to the earlier debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill and if the Minister is concerned that there is a funding shortfall, I can inform him that the Government will be raising an additional €110 million this year as a result of the introduction of the pension levy. I suggest that he seek some of this money because, ultimately, it comes down to priorities. I accept that money is scarce. However, the Government is still generating money, particularly, as already stated, through the imposition of a pension levy. So funding is available.
It comes down to priorities. If the Government is serious about supporting the vision set out in Food Harvest 2020 and if it is prepared to recognise the fundamental benefits this will deliver to the State through the creation and retention of employment and the protection of the rural environment, it must then be prepared to make the necessary choices to support this policy. In my opinion, such support must focus on encouraging research and development, ensuring that we obtain the maximum benefit from the land currently being farmed, particularly for those who have returned to farming, and backing those whose enterprises are not commercially viable in the current environment through the restoration of the €5,000 upper limit relating to the AEOS.
I request that a debate take place when the new joint committee on agriculture is established. I expect that the latter will be set up in the near future, particularly as the Seanad is now sitting. I ask that a consultative process be put in place within the Houses. Due to the fact that there is general agreement on the importance of the industry, which is evidenced by the way in which this motion is being dealt with, I am of the view that there should be a more informal approach to the entire agriculture sector in the context of developing the policies relating to the vision I referred to at the outset.
I ask the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Coveney, to begin working with the new joint committee at the earliest opportunity so that the broad spectrum of views which exist might be presented to them through the committee by the various stakeholders in the sector. Given that I come from the west, the aspects of agriculture with which I am most familiar relate to the beef and milk sectors. I would be less familiar with milk and more conversant with the suckler cow and beef sector. There are people with different interests, including, for example, those who operate in the horticulture sector - particularly in north County Dublin, on the border with the Minister of State’s constituency - who must also be heard. There must be a significant level of input from all the stakeholders rather than Ministers outlining what they believe to be the best approach and then proceeding to adopt it without engaging in consultation.
Joe Carey (Clare, Fine Gael) 
