Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I support this amendment. The Minister will be aware that below-cost selling or a ban on the sale or purchase, depending on what angle you are coming from, of goods below the cost of production has been one of the biggest sources of debate throughout the discussion. The most important amendment in respect of the regulator and the easiest one for the Minister to accept is amendment No. 10 which provides that the regulator would be empowered to determine what the cost of production is. We discussed this when I tabled a similar amendment on Committee Stage. I used the phrase "The regulator shall collate the costs associated with the production of different foodstuffs". The Minister's principal argument against it was the term "foodstuffs". He contended that it was not legally defined. The phrase in Deputy Kerrane's amendment is "agricultural and food products", which is clearly defined. It would be a welcome, progressive step if the Minister were to accept amendment No. 10 and simply provide the regulator with the authority to determine the cost of production and to publish that cost on an annual basis so the public would at least have the information. If the Minister will not accept it now, Deputy McNamara's proposal and other proposals in respect of below-cost selling could become the subject of real political argument.

It is important to say that although some say that the idea of banning below-cost selling would be radical or revolutionary, they do not recognise that such a ban was in place not so long ago. It has not been so long since a Fianna Fáil Minister lifted what was known as the "groceries order". I have attended many meetings with farming organisations and farmers. I recall that during my first series of meetings with farmers, when I was first elected to the European Parliament, I was struck by the number of times farmers said to me that the single thing that could make a difference to their lives and livelihoods would be the reintroduction of the groceries order. How did they know that? It is because they know the impact it had when it was lifted. It had an impact.

Other Deputies have spoken about the price wars that were waged around fruit and vegetables. We have paid a heavy price for that. The evidence is seen in every supermarket as it is harder to find a piece of Irish fruit or an Irish vegetable in most supermarkets than it should be for a start and in some cases it is virtually impossible. I contend that because there is no labelling directive for fruit and vegetables, people are not purchasing Irish products when they buy from the vast majority of restaurants, takeaways and everywhere else we see fruit or vegetables. That is disappointing in many respects as it means an entire sector has virtually been wiped out. We are almost a bit player in potato production which is ironic and disappointing on so many levels. However, it has wider implications.

Generally those involved in these debates are people who have a keen interest in our agricultural community and want to defend our family farmers. That is across the board. We have spent the past few years listening to the vilification and demonisation of certain cohorts of farmers. The media portrayal of that debate has not recognised that many of the dairy farmers, for example, moved away from tillage and fruit and into dairy for the precise reason that there was no money in their previous livelihoods and there was money in dairy production. It was not that they wanted to make that move but that in many respects, they were forced to make it. Now the finger of blame is being pointed at them as though they were the villains of our environmental and climate action ambitions, when the truth is that the villains are those who implemented policies such as the lifting of the groceries order and forced them into that position. If we want - as I am sure we all do - to reduce the carbon emissions coming from agriculture, a big part of that will have to be to restore and develop our tillage and fruit sectors. That is impossible to do and will not be done unless we can provide assurance to farmers who might be contemplating making that move that there will be a livelihood in the sector in the future. The only way an assurance can be provided to farmers about their livelihood is if they can be told they will receive more for their products than it cost to produce them in the first place. Without that assurance, no one will make a move in that direction. The only move they will make is away from beef or dairy and out of farming altogether, which has wider social and economic implications, especially for our rural communities and economies.

I urge the Minister to support amendment No. 8. There are valid reasons to do so. If he decides not to, will he outline clearly what he has against amendment No. 10 with respect to instructing the regulator to collate and outline the cost of production? I see that Deputy Cairns has made a similar proposal in amendment No. 12. I contend that there is no reason amendment No. 10 would not be passed other than to provide cover to those who are manipulating the market, fleecing our family farmers and, in turn, fleecing consumers every time they enter a supermarket because they are unable to purchase an Irish piece of fruit or an Irish vegetable due to the price wars that were facilitated by the decisions of the Minister's predecessor.

See this speech in context