Vol. 545 No. 3
1 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the steps he will take in advance of the December meeting of the European Council of Ministers to secure a reform of the European Union sheepmeat regime that will match the recommendation made by the European Parliament; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30276/01]
The EU Commission's proposal to replace the existing variable ewe premium with a fixed premium of 21 per head was rejected by the Council at the meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers last week. The final Presidency compromise provided for the basic premium of 21 to be supplemented by the equivalent of 1 per head in the form of a national envelope. This compromise was rejected by some member states, including Ireland, as being insufficient and by other member states because it was too generous and too costly. A number of other member states also indicated that they would vote against any further increase in the sheepmeat budget, which would have been fixed at approximately 1.9 billion per annum if the Presidency compromise had been adopted.
The six member states which voted against the Commission's proposal constitute 27 votes. A blocking minority is 26 votes. Therefore, it takes only one member state to change its vote for the present proposal to go through. This demonstrates the difficulties facing us in securing any improvement at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in December.
The amendments proposed by the European Parliament included a premium of 30 for all eligible animals, an increase in the supplementary premium, additional payments through a national envelope system and the exclusion of the first 15 livestock units of ewes for the purposes of the calculation of the extensification premium. These proposals, if adopted, would result in a substantial increase in expenditure on the sheepmeat regime and are unacceptable to the majority of member states, many of which are extremely concerned about the budgetary situation. They are also unacceptable to Commissioner Fischler.
The negotiations on the reform are taking place in a context of serious budgetary concerns and a market situation in which sheep prices this year in Ireland are currently on average 40% higher than last year. The ewe premium this year is now likely to be below 10 per head. While I fully appreciate that the present price levels are the product of a particular situation, namely, the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and the inability of British sheep to access the French market, they are, nevertheless, a factor in the current negotiations.
During the year I used every possible argument to convince Commissioner Fischler and in bilateral meetings with my colleagues in the Council of the validity of Ireland's case for a higher premium. I will continue to press this case strongly but the outcome will be determined by a vote in the Council. However, the voting position in the Council is precarious and any improvement on the current proposal will be extremely difficult to achieve.
I invite the Minister to read the question. I did not ask him what happened at the Council of Ministers – we know that – I asked him what he is doing to ensure an improved proposal from the Commission on the next occasion and where we might get close to what the House, through the Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, asked the Minister to bring back. Does the Minster agree that on the question of expenditure of the total agricultural budget, there is more than enough leeway left to cover the extra cost of the proposals, as agreed in the committee? Does he also accept that Commissioner Fischler indicated to the European Parliament that there might be a move, at least on the issue of the exclusion of the sheep equivalent of 15 livestock units from extensification? Is he taking any steps in direct discussion with his other colleagues on the Council of Ministers to secure an improvement in the situation next month?
With regard to the sheep regime, first, there is adequate space in the budget to provide a significant increase in the ewe premium. Second, there is a deficit in sheepmeat in the European Union and, third, sheep production is generally in disadvantaged and less favoured areas of the Union. The Union favours multi-functional agriculture, so from all points of view and especially the socio-economic one, there is a good case for a substantial increase in the ewe premium.
In mixed herds of sheep and cattle there is a very strong case for an extensification premium because if sheep are counted and no extensification premium is paid people will divert to cattle. There is a surplus of beef in the Community. For all of these reasons I engaged in bilateral talks and am continuing to do so. The French are closest to the Irish position but the difficulty is that the French Minister did not even wait for the conclusion of the meeting and did not participate. The French, the Portuguese and a range of other countries now want to support the 22 per head proposal. That is the problem.
There is no point preaching to the converted. I know all that, I arrived at that position a long time ago. What is the Minister doing to convince the French, British and German Ministers to view things in the manner outlined by him? What is he doing to convince other Ministers of the rightness of the cause?
Not alone do the majority of the Ministers referred to by the Deputy not support an increase, they are completely opposed to what is on the table because it is too generous.
The Minister has to change their minds for them.
The French, who have similar farming and sheep farming operations reached the conclusion, despite everybody's best efforts, that the current premium level is a good one. That is the problem we are facing.
Question No. 2.
Are we now paying the price for the shenanigans of the Minister for Finance last year?
The current premium is less than 10, there is a proposal on the table for 22 plus a rural world premium of seven and the equivalent of 13 for headage which is 42.
The Minister is on his own.
I will stay on my own. I am the only person making a case for sheep farmers in Europe.
That is the problem.
We will never make progress that way.
2 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the degree of support at European Council level for the fixed ewe premium level; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30278/01
I do not see the need to read the reply to this question as it is similar to that given in respect of Question No. 1.
I was surprised both questions were not taken together.
That is not the Chair's choice.
I am surprised the Minister-—
The Minister has the floor. Has the Minister completed his reply?
(Carlow-Kilkenny): It has to be the same answer.
The final presidency compromise is 21 plus one of a package.
We are dealing with Priority Questions. The only Deputy entitled to ask the Minister a question is Deputy Penrose.
I see this proposed reform as giving us an opportunity to address some of the acute problems in the sheep regime, namely, an adequate premium, an extensificiation premium and support for a farming regime which is generally carried out in disadvantaged areas. It is clear that a majority of member states do not concur with that point of view. They view the current proposal as an adequate level of premium. The Commission tried to have this matter transferred from the Agriculture Council to the Fisheries Council this week. If that had happened, it would have gone through. Unanimity was required. I was the only Minister who objected to this proposal and it was not, therefore, taken at the Fisheries Council this week. It is up for consideration at the December Council of Agriculture Ministers.
We had more than five million sheep in 1992, we are now down to 4.3 million sheep. That is a significant drop. Is it not the position that the European Union is only 75% self-sufficient? We had 52,000 sheep farmers in 1992 and are now down to 38,000, a drop of 14,000. The Minister is aware of the importance of the sheep industry as an integral part of dry-stock farming. Would he agree we are now on our own. Do we have any friends left in Europe? Is it the position that only Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Austria were on the same side and that the Swedes and Danes voted against the proposals because they thought it was too high? Does the Minister realise that the Danish Minister will row in with the Commission proposal so that the blocking minority will effectively be gone? Do we have anyone to support in this? Has the Minister spoken to the French Minister, Mr. Glavany? What contacts has the Minister had with the French? In a reply given to a colleague in this House on 13 November the Minister said he had only spoken with the Swedes, the Belgians, the UK and Spain. What happened to the other ten members?
If we do not bring our European colleagues on board we will not get anywhere. Is it the case that the Commission's proposal, if it goes to a meeting, will be rammed through unless we can get effective change prior to 19 December?
Yes, the position is as stated by Deputy Penrose. There is a deficit in sheepmeat production in the EU. There is adequate scope in the budget for the sheep regime to get an increase on what is already on the table. On a number of occasions I met the French Minister, Mr. Glavany who supported an increase in what was on the table. There was 20 on the table. When the Commission compromise was introduced, it was only increased by one to 21. In the course of the negotiations, a further 1 was put on the table by way of a package. At that stage, the French felt an adequate increase had been given and did not support the case for a further increase. That is still my case for all the reasons I have outlined. I continue with that position.
Have some of the big players like the French, gone off side? Are the Portuguese now going to vote with the Commission proposals leaving us effectively hanging by a thread? I know the Minister has done a great deal of work on this which I appreciate and acknowledge. Is it not time he brought the Taoiseach to Europe? Should we not get going at international and European Union level with the leaders to try to secure an improved deal? We are dancing at the last chance saloon for farmers. It is now or never for them. This is the opportunity to provide them with a decent livelihood. This year's returns are totally false because of the—
The Deputy has to understand that this is Question Time. He must put a question to the Minister.
Is it not the position that this year's returns are a one-off and that we will be back, in the next 12 months, to normality whereby sheep farmers struggle to survive and that we should wheel out every big gun we have at our disposal to secure an improvement on what is currently offered?
Yes. The sheep regime is due for substantial reform. It was omitted from the Agenda 2000 negotiations. We have made a tremendously strong case in Europe for sheep farmers. We succeeded in getting the sheepmeat regime studied, the result of which was that the variable premium should be a fixed one. That principle was accepted. The difficulty then was to reach agreement on a fixed premium at a reasonable level. A reasonable level was generally regarded as about 30. What was put on the table initially was 20 which has now been increased to 22. The Deputy is correct in saying that Portugal and Denmark no longer support an increase.
