Northern Ireland Assembly

In last week's 'Farmers' Weekly' it was reported that Scotland's potato industry is on red alert after the discovery in a watercourse of the bacterium which causes brown rot. We have also heard reports of an increasing brown rot problem in England. I trust that the Minister will consult with her colleagues in England and Scotland to see what joint measures can be taken to prevent the problem finding its way across the North Channel.

Farmers in Northern Ireland must recognise the need to keep up with modern day practice. We must realise that methods change, and that farmers must change with them. This is something that cannot be achieved by the farmers unilaterally. We must provide assistance through training and advice for farmers on areas such as production methods, marketing strategies, market leads and demands. Such training and advice could be delivered through co-operation between the Departments, the producers, the suppliers and the retailers. I appeal to the Minister to recognise the goodwill that exists within the industry and to harness that goodwill for the benefit of all.

Support for young farmers is a major concern for many. If our industry is to survive, there must be incentives for young people to become farmers. I suggest that consideration be given to the introduction of an early retirement scheme. This would enable older farmers to step aside and let the next generation assume their mantle. However, an early retirement scheme should be linked to a restructuring of the industry, and training to enable young people to accept farming as a career.

A specific case of farmers facing difficulties at present are those in the Silent Valley catchment area who had to take their sheep off the land around the reservoir. They must be offered assistance, and I hope that they will be.

Finally, I urge the Minister responsible for agriculture to build upon this report and to take action on its recommendations. This would allow all in the industry to get their first slice of the cake. It would also provide a basis on which our farming industry could survive, a basis from which farmers could obtain a fair financial return on their investments and labour. Let us not be reactive; let us be proactive in our determination to bring the industry back to an elevated position in Ulster society. I recommend the report to the House.

Mr Bradley:

When the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee started work, our immediate priority was to take an in-depth look at the massive burden of debt being carried by the farming community and to attempt to seek a fair deal for the farmers of Northern Ireland. None of us was under any illusion about the financial state of the industry and the depth of despair among the farming community. Following the worst two years ever experienced by the industry, the attempt to address the helpless state that farmers were in just had to be given priority.

Members of a number of other Assembly Committees probably thought at the beginning that they were taking over the most difficult situation from previous direct rule Governments. I have no doubt that members of the Health Committee, the Education Committee, the Social Development Committee and the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee believed theirs to be the Committee with the greatest problems. However, I am convinced that I can say without fear of contradiction that the workload facing the Agriculture Committee presented the greatest challenges of all.

4.30 pm

The ongoing downward spiral of farmers' incomes came about through no fault. It came about from factors such as the loss of markets due to the BSE crisis, which the Minister and the Department are strenuously endeavouring to resolve. The strength of sterling, cheap imports and the ridiculously low farm gate prices presented a bleak starting point. In Olympic terms the Agricultural and Rural Development Committee was at the starting line of a marathon with the full knowledge that the long journey was all uphill.

If I did not have the advantage of printed reports and records of the long and numerous meetings that we have had to look back on, and if asked to recall moments and presentations that spring to mind, I believe that many of my recollections would largely coincide with those of the other 10 members of the Committee. For example, I clearly recall the presentation by Mr McGettigan of Musgrave Supervalu Centra, who presented evidence on the same day as the representatives of seven of our largest supermarkets. His explanation of the difference between his organisation and the other groups present was interesting. It demonstrated that through co-operation, family-owned grocery stores could live alongside the multinationals, although he admitted that his grouping did not enjoy the same margin of profit as the large supermarkets. He also went on record to confirm his company's commitment to supporting the local farming industry when he explained that over 70% of the produce sold locally by Musgrave Supervalu Centra is sourced in Northern Ireland. Even better news was his confirmation that 100% of the beef, lamb and pork sold there is locally sourced.

On the same day we learned that the UK grocery market is not fragmented to any great degree, with four main players controlling 80% of the market. Also, with the exception of the Co-op, they are all accountable to the Stock Exchange. The farm gate and the prices paid to the farmer at the gate are a million miles, and millions of pounds, away from those perceived to rank first in the eyes of the multinationals. I refer, of course, to their shareholders.

As we continued to take evidence and listen to a multitude of wide-ranging submissions week by week, one problem clearly emerged. As if further proof were needed of it, we heard again that the processors, the retailers and the consumer, without any great degree of control being imposed upon them, demand just what they want and dictate just how much they are prepared to pay. Regrettably, the farmers who grow the produce and produce the food do not enjoy such privileges. They have no say whatsoever in the price that they are paid for their produce.

The disadvantage of marketing perishable goods places the farmer in an impossible situation. I agree that a spirit of togetherness throughout the food industry has got to be entered into if agriculture in Northern Ireland is to survive. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will have to lead the way to maximise the potential of co-operation. Unfortunately, when all of the evidence is thoroughly scrutinised, all round liaison amongst everyone involved in the food chain, while desirable, may be difficult to attain.

We had numerous and lengthy discussions with the farming representative bodies, the Ulster Farmers' Union and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers' Association, and from a wide and varied section of people whose interests in the wellbeing of the farmer were genuine and sincere. We also had before us some participants who, perhaps in their own interest or in the interest of those they were representing, sometimes appeared over cautious with their evidence and answers to the Committee's questions. Overall, the farming industry and all the related problems were gone into in minute detail during our series of meetings.

The only people we did not interview at our meetings were farmers and their wives, but then, those of us from rural constituencies meet with this section of our community on a day-to-day basis, and we are fully au fait with their general problems. That said, none of us know the true extent of the problems being experienced in individual homes. This was clearly brought home to me one day in mid-August by a farmer's wife. She said

"PJ, we were putting away a few pounds in the hope that one day our children would go to university, but we had to use it to buy clothes for them before going back to primary school".

I wish to reflect upon another significant factor that continually arose during our deliberations: the importance that the word "quality" is going to play in the recovery and future survival of the agricultural industry. Emphasis has got to be placed on providing premium products for premium markets. There was clear evidence that the beef and sheep meat industries are unlikely to survive if they are achieving only commodity prices. Farmers will have to give careful consideration to the potential benefits of joining quality assurance schemes, and support will have to be forthcoming from the retailers and the processors in their willingness to pay a premium to the farmers for quality assured goods.

In conclusion, on behalf of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, I confirm the party's support for 'Retailing in Northern Ireland - A Fair Deal for the Farmer?', and I repeat my call - made in July following the launch of the report - for everyone involved in agriculture to read the publication and to set about carrying out, to the maximum of their ability, the recommendations that specifically relate to their role in the industry.

Mr Kane:

I welcome the motion. This has been an attempted assessment of the relationship between primary producers, processors, major retailers and the consumer. It is strikingly obvious that in the agri-food chain the primary producer - the farmer - is in a weak bargaining position. He cannot command greater returns for his farm produce; hence the enormous debt burden faced by farming in this Province.

It seems almost ironic that primary producers of something that is fundamental to life can arrive at a point where the processors and vendors of their product take the lion's share of returns. The producers, the section with the greatest workload and expense, receive returns which do not even match costs. The major retailing companies have expressed a desire to support local producers, and this has given rise to a co-operative approach to producing, processing and retailing the raw material. Most farming representatives have welcomed this initiative.

However, I share the reservations expressed by some other organisations, who point to the co-operation taking place in the agri-food chain and to the lack of compulsion that would force powerful processors and retailers to take part. On a note of caution, let us remember that co-operative initiatives have been tried over the past few decades, and benefits from them have been varied and sometimes quite minimal.

In my constituency, a lamb producers' group currently supplies 95% top carcass-grade lambs to a local processor. The processor's quotes are based upon the average live market prices for that week. Therefore, the highest-grade lambs are bought for the same average price as second-grade and third-grade lambs in the market.

I know of one incident where a co-operative attempted to market pigs, only for the processor, Malton's, to refuse to accept animals from the co-operative collectively, instead taking supplies from individual members. This is an illustration of how unco-operative the agri-food chain can be and how vulnerable a co-operative is in the hands of powerful processors. I call upon the Minister to investigate the imbalance that we can currently observe in the agri-food industry. I support the motion.

Mr McHugh:

A Cheann Comhairle, I also speak in favour of the motion and endorse most of what has been said by other Members up to this point. The Committee took evidence from representatives of many sources and sectors. As a Committee, we have intervened fairly effectively on behalf of both the industry and the farmers. Of all the volumes of evidence received by the Committee so far, it is the allegations about cartels and the organised control of prices to farmers by meat plants and processors which probably have the potential for the greatest impact on the Committee's findings. Farmers lack organisation on the ground and as individuals are vulnerable to exploitation by profiteers in the open market. They have consistently provided quality produce, expecting only a reasonable return for their work.

Given proper conditions of fairness and opportunity, producers have the potential to increase quality production. At present, there is an environment of distrust between the primary producers and processors or retailers, unequal partners in an otherwise profitable business. The organised exploitation of farmers may prove to be a major contributor to farm debt for many years before and after the BSE crisis. If this is the case, it would seem that it is in the interests of the profiteers to promote and continue this exploitation for their own selfish reasons.

Beef, sheep and pig producers have had this experience. Farmers are disheartened when they compare the low price they receive with the retail price on supermarket shelves. While prices in the shops have continued to increase over the last few years, farm incomes have fallen by 80%. Primary producers continue to receive low returns and the consumer has seen no benefit either.

A number of elements have combined to cause this dire situation. The BSE crisis and the continuance of the beef ban, Government policies and currency values are all outside the control of the producers. In addition there is marketing, which, I would contend, is also outside the control of the producers. The key responsibility of processors who say that a farmer should get to grips with the marketing side was to sell the produce outside the country and get a good return, and nowadays, funds are being earmarked to these same processors for further marketing drives. If they were doing their jobs properly, they should already have an adequate budget and marketing strategy in place.

The BSE crisis, combined with exploitation of vulnerable producers, has been the most serious cause of farm debt in recent years, so the evidence of small profit margins, which the large supermarket chains gave to the Committee, is clearly untrue. There is no way that shareholders of these large companies would accept returns of 3% to 5% on their money - a 12% to 25% return on capital would be more realistic. Retailers and others in the industry made many conflicting statements to the Committee - they obviously thought the Committee was naïve enough to believe them.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has a major role to play if the present situation is not to be continued. Was the proposal to exclude 2,600 smallholders from early aid payments an indicator of the visioning group's future strategy for small farmers, offering them the option of leasing their land or planting it for forestry?

The willingness of the Minister, Bríd Rodgers, to reverse last week's decision to exclude producers is brave, acknowledging partnership in Government and taking the views of the Committee into account. It is a welcome change from the brick-wall attitude I face when trying to resolve unintentional errors made by farmers when form filling, errors which cost them dearly in lost income and add to the debt situation.

Ministers are new to Government and have to battle their way through an established undergrowth of Departments. Perhaps the learning curve is steep for more than Assembly Members.

Farmers must start to organise themselves to face the obstacles of a difficult market in the future. Resources need to be put in place to help producers achieve organised marketing. I have been given the example of £280 million spent by the Southern Government on vegetable importation every year. We could grow that in this country, yet that is the kind of money that is spent on imports. We could have a good industry running on the back of that quite easily. The free market has brought opportunity, but with it has come an environment of greed and an exploitation of those in vulnerable positions for high profit. If we are to have a sustainable future, the high profits made from agriculture produce must give a balanced and fair return for everyone in the industry.

On the island of Ireland, we have one landmass and similar-type farms North and South. It would make sense to have the same agriculture policies North and South - the sooner farmers realise this, the better for everyone. They need to end their dependence on British Government policies - policies which are unsuited to farming here, which contribute to our uncompetitiveness with our counterparts in the South and in other parts of Europe, and which create a major debt factor.

I ask Members to read the report and its findings, and to make themselves aware of the debt details and the recommendations that we are asking be implemented. In asking the Assembly to support this motion, I ask that the farmers be given a fair deal.

4.45 pm

It is important that people make themselves aware of the situation. This is a very big issue for the whole country and for rural development. Many issues need to be considered, including food quality and consumer needs.

However, these factors are only part of the resolution. I have not mentioned our findings and recommendations in great detail, but they are there for people to read. I recommend that Members read them and that they support the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr McCarthy:

I support the motion. My Colleague Mr Ford, who is a member of the Committee, has other business. He is attending a meeting of the Flags Committee. I do not know that he necessarily got his priorities right between flags and this very important subject.

I support the work of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. I am not a member of that Committee, but I remember and understand the contents of the report. It reminds me of the workings of the agriculture committee during the existence of the Northern Ireland Forum, of which I was a member. The contents of this report mirror presentations made at that time, and the recommendations are largely similar.

Many things have been said about the contents of the report. I do not intend to repeat them. I will comment on the quality of the product coming from our farms.

Northern Ireland has a first-class product. The tragedy is that our local producers have experienced difficulties getting that product into supermarkets. Everyone is aware of the particular requests from supermarkets, and of the additional expense those requests put on our producers. That has resulted in decreased profit margins and some producers have been forced out of business.

In my constituency, many producers have great difficulty keeping up with supermarket demands. There are other factors to consider - but producers struggle on, hoping for better times.

I know the Assembly will support this report. If the Committee's recommendations are put into place, and acted upon, better days must lie ahead. I am delighted to see agreement between the Chairman of the Committee and the Minister, because at the end of last week there were some arguments between them. I am delighted that compromise has been reached.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

The press statement did not come from me, it went out from the Committee. I had already heard what the reaction would be and I made it clear to the Committee that I would be attacked - it is on record. The statement was read to the Committee and every Member of the Committee agreed it. I was not scaremongering - it was the Committee.

However, wiser counsels have prevailed. Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. I am glad we have saved 2,600 farms, and so is every member of the Committee.

Mr McCarthy:

I am sorry if I raised some heckles. I accept what the Chairman of the Committee has said. I hope the report's recommendations are acted upon and that better days lie ahead, not only for my constituency but for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mr Dallat:

I am also a member of the Flags Committee, but I managed to attend both meetings. This report is a celebration of co-operation between the various political parties. It is the result of a lot of hard work undertaken over many hours. It forms a firm basis of hope for the future of the agriculture industry, and the price it can raise for its produce. Pivotal to its main findings is the strength of the supermarkets, already referred to, coupled with farmers' weakness to organise in a way that commands the best price for their product.

I emphasise the fact that this report calls for collective responsibility in dealing with the farming industry's problems. I refer in particular to the call on the Department of the Environment to look seriously at ways in which the power of the large supermarkets can be controlled, thereby ensuring that fairness prevails in the retail trade, and that might does not replace right.

I add my support to the call for the Department of the Environment to look seriously at measures introduced in the Republic to protect the independent retail sector. This is critical for many reasons. However, for the purpose of this debate, it is only necessary to say that if controls are not put into place, the multi-nationals will have the capacity to kill off independent retailers and farmers will then be totally vulnerable. In the marketplace, might will be right and the farmer will have no control over the price he is offered for his produce. Former workers in the bread industry will understand what I mean by that.

The issue of whether the farmer gets a fair deal for his produce requires an inter-agency approach. There must be a level playing field so that justice and fair play are not only done, but seen to be done. Where there are codes of practice, penalties must be imposed on those who break them for the sake of a quick buck. Voluntary codes are fine, as long as everyone recognises the benefit of them and does not sacrifice the long-term interests of the industry for short-term gain.

Finally, I hope this report does not gather dust and that it will be implemented in its entirety. I am very conscious that resources are needed to give the farmer a fighting chance of survival, and in this respect I have to pay tribute to the Department.

Further efforts to develop an agriculture industry which produces the goods the public wants - and I particularly refer to Loughry College in that respect - are critical, and deserve the support of all Government Departments. Perhaps most of all, the industry deserves the good will and support of the public who buy the produce. I hope that those listening to this debate will add their support to resolving the plight of farmers and will consider local loyalty when making choices. I believe it is something Northern Irish people are particularly renowned for, and I appeal to them for that. In that way we are not only saving our farming industry but also protecting our rural communities. In doing that we give hope to our rural schools and everything that makes up a rural community. Above all, we must learn from the experiences in England, where even sizeable towns have been seriously undermined by the power and might of the large multi-nationals. Similar experiences are available for anyone to examine in Canada and in the United States.

As I said earlier, the report is the collective response of many people coming from quite diverse political perspectives and I believe that is what the farming community has been calling for. The farming community and their various organisations have been telling politicians for a long time to get their act together so that collectively we can save the agriculture industry. I hope we have seen an end to misunderstandings and shots across the bow between the Committee and the Minister. The public, and farmers in particular, want a collective response. They want teamwork because that is what will work. This report provides the basis for that. It was prepared collectively. The public is aware of that. It is what the public wants.

Mr Shannon:

The report is entitled 'Retailing in Northern Ireland - A Fair Deal for the Farmer?' In the past, it has not been a fair deal for the farmers; certainly not in the last few years. Is it a fair deal for the farmer today? The answer is again no. However, this recommendation which the Committee has put forward could bring about a fair deal for the farmer.

I would like to commend the Chairman and his Committee for the work that they have done. The recommendations in the report are excellent. They are a step in the right direction, and I believe that they can address the issues to the satisfaction of the farming community. For too long our Government have been prepared to stand idly by as the agriculture sector and the local producer have been forced to conform to draconian EU legislation.

There have also been changes here following the arrival of the large supermarket chains, which brought with them their own unofficial parameters, in that the farmer had to try to supply what they wanted. In many cases, when forced beyond financial, and even beyond practical viability, producers have gone to the wall. Every one of us could stand here and name producers and farmers who today are not in the business, vocation or job that they chose and thought they would be in for life.

Throughout the crisis, farmers and elected representatives have been crying out for a review of the situation whereby supermarket chain stores can maintain and even increase their prices, while at the same time, the farmer and the producer have seen their profit margins dwindle and disappear. The consumer has lost out as well as the farmer, as the savings have never been passed on. For a number of years our producers have been forced to work under ever-increasing financial strain. Farm incomes have been slashed, yet the supermarkets continue to reap 200% or sometimes even 500% profit on certain farm produce.

In my constituency, many people can name farms that are no longer there. Farms that were in a family for, perhaps, three or four generations are gone today; they have been sold. We know about the knock-on effect, about jobs having been lost in the shops. We can give examples of the domino effect on the community, of the shops in the countryside that are now closed. They are no longer there, because the farmers are not getting the income. When the farmer was doing well, the community did well. When the farmer made money, he spent it in the community, and everybody felt the benefits of that. Today, unfortunately, that is not happening.

The only people to benefit from this system have been the owners of the supermarkets whose profits continue to grow year-on-year. With the huge buying power that the large chains possess, they have purposefully cornered the market and maintained prices at the sometimes artificially high rates that we are now witnessing, and they can do this without any fear of challenge from the lowly independent, because as they have grown, the independents have decreased.

The sooner this monopoly is busted, the better it will be for our producers and for the consumer. Until now the retailer has had an iron grip on the sector and could dictate terms and conditions. It is now time for us to take resolute and necessary action to ensure that the present system, which is clearly discriminatory against both producers and consumers, be de-contaminated, so that our producers can have a fair deal for a fair day's work. There is a need to provide records to ensure that more produce is sourced locally. Sourcing goods locally would be a very positive move and one that would give the producer and the consumer what they are looking for.

It is very important that facts and figures be produced in order to back up the huge mark-up in prices that supermarkets see fit to impose. For years now, the multinationals have been wiping the eye of local consumers by saying that packaging and supply costs were the reasons why there were such large mark-ups on the price of products.

In the Agriculture Committee's report, three of the supermarket chains refer to the cost of sale and transport. If the product were being transported from Devon to Edinburgh or from Norwich to Liverpool, one could, perhaps, say that the mark-up was due to the cost of transport, but if a product were being transported within Northern Ireland, I suspect that the transport costs would not be a very high proportion of the overall cost. I do not think that any of us would believe that for one second. Even though, like every other business, supermarkets aim to make money, every citizen needs to see fair play on the part of the retailer.

The first recommendation of the Committee's report refers to incorporating incentives to develop existing producer groups, and I believe that that would be a very effective way of addressing some of the issues. The Aberdeen Angus group on the UK mainland has already proved that that works, and it has been able to return some profitability to the farmers. There are currently moves afoot to organise a similar group in Northern Ireland to see if it could do the same here.

5.00 pm

It is essential to the future success of the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland that everyone be involved in the ever increasing and proactive manner in which Northern Ireland produce is being promoted outside the country. Assembly support is the cornerstone of this greater goal. Ulster produce should be marketed and promoted at every agriculture and food show in the United Kingdom and beyond.

Northern Ireland's produce is superior to that of its competitors, and it is crucial that these high standards be used to market and publicise the product. A clear and lucid picture must be sent around the globe that Northern Ireland's produce is the best in the world. It should be emphasised that it meets the stringent rules and regulations that apply in Northern Ireland. To do this successfully would go a considerable distance towards giving new momentum to the local industry.

I fully support proposals to form closer formal links among producers to deal with the retail sector. Such links would reinforce and strengthen the hand of the producer. I am confident that every individual who has a stake in any aspect of the local industry would be happy to work alongside the Assembly in an effort to enhance the Province's profile and reputation. Plans to provide advice and research on new and developing markets are also to be welcomed. While the product may be first class, it will flop unless the supply of the product matches its quality.

On page six, paragraphs 10 to 13 deal with transparency and communication. I welcome this because it refers to accountability. It informs the farmer whether the retailers, in this case the supermarket chains, are doing what they said that they would do and are sourcing locally. The annual returns will show whether they are doing that. Therefore it is not just enough for the retailer to say that they will give a commitment. The agriculture industry wants to see hard facts and hard evidence. So far as transparency and communication are concerned, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and the Agriculture Committee, believe that they should be replying and recording the local sourcing of produce.

I hope that the full implementation of the recommendations laid out in this report will go a long way to loosening the supermarkets' grip on the financial viability for our farmers, and that some degree of fair trade will result. I commend the report.

Rev Dr William McCrea:

I support the motion and this report. It is a timely report and one worthy of careful study, not only by the Department but also by the agriculture industry. I trust that it will have support in the community.

The title 'Retailing in Northern Ireland - a Fair Deal for the Farmer?' describes exactly what the Assembly wants. It is asking for a fair deal for the farming community. We are not making any excessive demands, but we desire to have an agriculture industry left in Northern Ireland - one that is vibrant, has promise and has a vision for the future. My Colleague Dr Paisley, Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, and his Committee members have examined the issue carefully. I commend the report placed before the House.

Everyone agrees that the farming industry has been, and still is, in a crisis situation. Nobody can overstate or overestimate the heartache and pain that many farmers in Northern Ireland, and their families, have endured in simply endeavouring to keep afloat. While not making a profit, they have worked hard to keep hold of the property which has been in their family for generations so as to be able to hand it on to future generations. Sad to say, some of them have failed.

As a result of this crisis there are farmers who unfortunately are no longer in the industry. They had a family farm which was handed down to them. It was not theirs to make a profit on and they did not desire to make a great profit by selling it. It was only theirs to pass on. It had been in the family for many generations in the past, and when it came to them they accepted it with great respect.

Unfortunately, because of the difficult times and the crisis they faced, they were no longer able to hold onto it. That was why many farmers were on the verge of committing suicide, yet their products have been excellent. Their working practices, the diligence and the hard work they have put into trying to keep their farms going and their produce of excellent quality, have been very commendable.

So why are they in this situation? Why the crisis? We can identify no single reason, but several reasons brought together can help us to understand what is behind the situation in the farming community in Northern Ireland. The farmers are not to blame for the crisis. Many farmers simply complied with the Department's regulations, and many of those regulations promised to make the path easy for them.

Many farmers spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to bring their farms up to the standard which the European Community demanded of them. Whenever they faced financial crisis, nobody wanted to know them, nobody cared. The Department held its hands up and said that there was nothing it could do. Yet the amusing thing was that very few companies in the rest of Europe were complying with these quality regulations that were set down by the EU. When this crisis was faced, they were left with no financial backing and no financial support. The BSE situation -

Mr Paisley Jnr:

One of the measures the Member is referring to is the regulation about stalls and tethers for pig farmers. Does the Member agree that the imposition of those very stringent regulations which were supposed to improve the industry has not worked, and the housewife is not purchasing the best quality pork in Europe?

Rev Dr William McCrea:

I wholeheartedly agree. The pig farmers were promised that this would give them a healthy financial return.

However, here is another amazing thing: the very same companies that were taking our quality pigs were also taking other pigs. They were sent out as produce sourced in Northern Ireland, and our farmers did not get their just rewards, and that is still going on at present. Our farmers were certainly burdened with heavy financial costs because of the stalls and tethers and other regulations, and the rest of Europe is laughing at us because we stringently comply with them while the rest of Europe does not.

Of course, when I raised this with a previous Minister, the noble Lord, he said that just because everybody else breaks the rules, we cannot, because we hold our heads up high and walk with our noses in the air. We play by the rules. Everybody else breaks the rules, but they win. Farmers in other countries have been supported by their Governments with grants. They have a healthy industry at the end of it, and we have a crippled one. Pig farmers to whom I have spoken in recent times assure me that it is not healthy to this very day. They are not getting a just return.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Is it not a fact that when certain regulations were breached, especially by the Italian Government, the headquarters of the EC did not take any action whatsoever but excused the breach of its own rules?

Rev Dr William McCrea:

Of course, this has been going on in Europe for years, and it is continuing to go on. No one has breached the regulations more than France. When their farmers were in difficulty, the French Government gave them money - our Government said there was nothing they could do. They said that France would be taken to court and the farmers would have to pay the money back. I said to them, and there is an official sitting not far from me, that the difference between the French Government and ours is that they save their farmers from going into bankruptcy. They saved their pig industry.

They saved their pig industry, while we sat on our hands and did little or nothing for the people: only a welfare scheme to kill pigs for a humane reason. We are facing grave difficulties.

To add to the problems, we have the questionable commitment displayed by the supermarket chains to local producers. In many of them, in the past, you would have had to get a magnifying glass to find the produce of Northern Ireland. That is ridiculous. They take the money from the system but they do not use the excellent quality produce that we have in Northern Ireland to give to our consumers.

Mr Agnew:

Is the hon Member aware that Danepak is sponsoring a world cup preliminary game between Northern Ireland and Denmark on 7 October at Windsor Park in Belfast?

Rev Dr William McCrea:

I join with many of my Colleagues in saying that I am absolutely disgusted by that situation. It is a situation that ought not to occur, especially bearing in mind the calamitous situation of our pig industry in recent months.

To add to the problems, there is a disparity between the prices paid at the farm gate and those charged to consumers. It is absolutely ridiculous. We have a crisis in our country. To be honest, consumers did not benefit from the drop in farm gate prices. They still paid through the nose for their produce. That was how the consumer felt. The farmer was not getting a fair slice of the cake. That is all we were asking for: a fair slice of the cake. I was absolutely positive that there was still a cake in the midst of the difficulty. There was still a cake to be cut and there was profitability there. It seemed that there were those who had their greedy hands out, taking all of the cake and putting the farmers into an impossible situation.

Prices did not even cover the costs of electricity, foodstuffs, meal, water, and all the other costs that have been placed upon our farmers. That is why we are in such a situation. The banks could have been more sympathetic to the farmers' plight. It is absolutely amazing. To the best of my knowledge, none of the big supermarkets have gone bankrupt. Certainly none of the banks have. All they did in the midst of it was announce big profits. They increased profits while the farmers were going under.

Action needs to be taken to save the farming industry. I accept that at this moment the future of the industry is not bright. Farmers are holding on, believing there has to be a turn. It cannot go any further. There will be restructuring in the farming industry. That is a fact of life, but I say that the Department will have to finance that restructuring. There will have to be money. I heard Mr Blair talk about money. We hear about the same package of money practically all the time. The amazing thing is that everybody seems to get it but the farmers. Very little has actually reached the farmer's pocket or the farmer's bank account to keep him from disaster. Young farmers need an incentive. The only way is to have a proper early retirement scheme. That has already been mentioned. The Committee has taken that up in the past. We need to allow the young farming community to keep the farming industry alive.

We have prided ourselves in saying that farming is our primary industry, and so it is. We have a lot to be proud of. The farmers are proud people. But for that pride and that dignity, they would not have even faced the situation let alone continued under the intolerable conditions of the present crisis. This report is asking for a fair deal for farmers. I commend my hon Friend and his Committee. I trust that we will ensure that farmers will not only expect to hear promises from this Assembly, but that money will be provided to back up the promises.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>