asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if, having regard to the fact that the European Commission is currently conducting an assessment of the relative value of the existing intervention system and a possible system of deficiency payments, he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Beef Intervention System.
5.
Experience over the past couple of years has shown that the existing beef intervention system is not fully effective in supporting producer prices when the market is over-supplied. A deficiency payments system would be more effective in this respect but it would give rise to very considerable administrative difficulties for most member States, and from the Community point of view would be likely to be far more costly than intervention. In view of the very high proportion of our beef production which is exported, a vital consideration for us is, of course, that any support system should be fully financed by the Community.
Would the Minister not agree that the intervention system as far as cattle are concerned has been, from our point of view, a total failure, especially last year? For that reason, would the Minister not agree that the development of our cattle trade, especially, is absolutely dependent on the producer, and the producer alone, being compensated for depressing drops in the market price, and that the British system, or something like it, in regard to agricultural produce throughout the Community would be better? The practice and the experience gathered by the UK in the last decade must be of great value.
My reply indicates that a deficiency system would be preferable to a system of intervention if it were paid for totally by the Community. That is where the big snag exists. A big snag also exists if in one country you have an intervention system and in another deficiency payments. The Commission indicated at one stage that if there had been a deficiency system last year the burden would have been intolerable. If the bottom fell out of the market, as it did in 1974, FEOGA would not be able to meet the cost from the budget provided.
Surely this is a questionable and hypothetical thesis for the Commission to put forward, if they did put it forward? Was not the real reason for the collapse last year the importation of third country meat and the sale of enormous quantities of intervention beef to third countries?
That was a very large part of the cause of the recession that took place last year but it was not by any means the total cause.
Has any research been done by the Commission into the comparative desirability of the two systems?
I have no doubt that the Commission have fully investigated the two systems, otherwise the Commissioner would not have made the statement about the comparative worth or value of the two systems. The Deputy may take it that the UK are pushing their system very strongly.