Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Jun 1994

Vol. 443 No. 6

Adjournment Debate. - Pig Industry.

I received reports of secret payments amounting to approximately £5 million to be made to pig producers. I am informed that a series of meetings was held in April between officials of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and representatives of the Irish Master Butchers Federation, the pork slaughtering industry and the IFA representing pig producers. I am informed that at these meetings arrangements were outlined for the payment of approximately £5 million to pig producers and these provided for the payment of a premium of £1.50 per pig for each pig slaughtered between March 1993 and February 1994. The payment of such a premium is not permitted by the European Union and, as the money has not been voted for that purpose by the Dáil, it was necessary to come up with a method of laundering the payments through the industry.

I am informed that approximately £5 million is to be paid by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to CBF which in turn is to make payments from this sum to pork slaughterers based on the number of pigs slaughtered between March 1993 and February 1994 and that in turn they are to pass on the money on the basis of £1.50 per pig to pig producers. I am further informed that these arrangements have been hurriedly put in place in advance of the European elections and that the participants at the various meetings have been cautioned to keep the arrangements secret.

I am raising the matter in the House to enable the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to make a statement. Is it true that pig producers are to be paid a premium of £1.50 per pig? What arrangements have been made by his Department for the payment of this premium? Do these arrangements and the payment comply with all European Union requirements? Why has there been such secrecy about the scheme? Where is the money to come from and when was it voted by the Dáil?

As part of a programme of measures to assist the pig industry and protect employment within it, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry requested pig processors to pursue every possible means of assisting pig producers who had experienced a prolonged period of low prices due to market conditions. This was done in the belief that it is in the interests of pig processors, many of whom have invested heavily in the recent past in processing facilities, to take action to ensure adequate supplies of pigs in the future. Future supplies of pigs were under threat because many pig producers could have gone out of business due to the market situation to which I have referred. Such a development would not damage the producers but would have serious repercussion on employment in the sector. The pig processors undertook to give this request by the Department sympathetic consideration.

Other measures which have been taken to assist the pig industry include the provision of additional staff to Teagasc to launch an enhanced programme of advice for pig producers to assist them in achieving significant cost reductions within a short time frame; the provision of additional funds to CBF to intensify their pigmeat promotion programme; an examination by the Department of how competitive disadvantages in feed costs between Irish pig producers and pig producers in other member states can be overcome. I am confident that these measures will benefit the industry both at production and processing levels, and have already done so.

Before I call Deputy Fitzgerald I wish to remind Members that the matter to be raised relates to the proposed closure of Madonna House and the implications for residential child care services. Reference to matters connected with the pending trial of a person formerly employed in Madonna House would not be in order under the revised sub judice rules.

On a point of order, I appreciate that the Minister of State has a difficulty in responding, a difficulty which arises when Ministers from other Departments come in to respond to Adjournment Debates, but the reply she has read to the House does not address the issue I have raised.

That is not a point of order.

Top
Share