asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the action he is taking in the EEC Council of Ministers of Agriculture to have the sugar subsidy paid by Britain to refineries discontinued.
16.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EEC Sugar Policy.
15.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the implications for Irish sugar beet growers of the most recent deliberations of the Council of Ministers in Brussels.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 16 together.
Two matters relating to sugar were dealt with by the Council of Ministers at its meeting on 17th and 18th July. First of all, the Council had before it proposals from the Commission on the future sugar policy of the Community, on imports of sugar from certain developing countries and on the Community's position at the forthcoming session of the United Nations Sugar Conference. The Council decided that these detailed and complex proposals should be studied by officials and that they should be considered again by Ministers in September. It is my intention that in the meantime my Department should have consultations with the beet growers here and the Sugar Company. I might say that for Ireland the proposals would involve the present "A" quota and a reduced "B" quota, but they are, of course, liable to be changed considerably before a final decision is taken by the Council of Ministers.
The second matter related to a subsidy being paid to cane sugar refiners in the UK. Under the Treaty of Accession there is an obligation to allow sugar imported into the UK until February, 1975, under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement to be marketed in that country. The UK authorities indicated in March that the margin allowed to refineries in respect of this sugar was not adequate to ensure the refining and marketing of the sugar, and that an Exchequer subsidy was accordingly being paid. At its meeting last week the Council of Ministers decided that, in the exceptional circumstances existing and in order to ensure that the Accession Treaty obligation could be honoured, the UK should be allowed to continue the subsidy until the end of next June.
Does the Minister not agree that this contains very serious implications, first of all, for the size of the Irish sugar beet crop and, secondly, for its profitability, since it permits the subsidisation by Britain and, I think, also by France, of West Indian sugar that is being imported into the EEC?
It permits the subsidisation of a limited amount of sugar that the British were allowed to bring in under the Treaty of Accession, and it is for one year only.
Is there not an implication that the acreage that we expected to be permitted to grow will have to be reduced?
No. This is an agreement made at the time of their accession, and we also agreed that they would be allowed to bring in this quantity of sugar. There is no increase in quantity.
There will be no reduction in the acreage?
That is a different matter.
Is the Minister aware that the Commission has told the British Government that this subsidy is contrary to the EEC regulations, despite this agreement?
I fail to see how that could have happened, because this was agreed by the Council of Ministers.
I can give the Minister the source privately afterwards.
Is the Minister aware that his answer today is slightly different from the one which he gave me to a question I put down some time ago inquiring as to what steps we were taking at the International Conference on Sugar in Geneva in connection with vested interests in Britain who were involved in the importation of cane sugar into the EEC countries? The answer I got was——
The Deputy's supplementary must relate to the question on the Order Paper today.
The Deputy is on another subject altogether.