Deputy Dukes has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the question of what is described as the calf heifer scheme. Whether it means a heifer in-calf, a calved heifer or a heifer which has been calved, or whatever it means, Deputy Dukes will have 20 minutes during which he will enlighten the House.
Adjournment Debate. - In-Calf Heifer Scheme.
I am grateful to the Chair for giving me the opportunity of raising this matter this evening. The Chair may well ask what kind of scheme it is, since there appears to be a great deal of confusion as to whether or not that scheme actually exists. In spite of my best efforts, it has been very difficult to find out from the Minister what the situation is in that regard.
I first raised this matter during the Adjournment Debate on EEC farm prices on 6 May last. That evening I was concerned to find out from the Minister what exactly was happening in relation to the fixing of those prices and the various measures which go together with the farm prices, of which this calf heifer scheme was proposed at that stage to be one. I pointed out then that this was one of the schemes which I had proposed to the Community authority for inclusion in the farm prices package this year. We had already got agreement to our scheme of subsidies for calved heifers in 1982 on a national basis and I had proposed to the Community authorities that this scheme be continued for a further three years and that some Community funding be made available. The cost of the present scheme for one year is being borne entirely by the national Exchequer.
In his reply on that occasion the Minister made the point, in column 654 of the Official Report of 6 May:
—we have now got approval by the Council of Ministers for an in-calf heifer grant for every additional breeding heifer over and above this year's level.
He went on to give some more details about the scheme and then said:
That represents a three-year cycle guarantee to the breeding farmer.
That was what I took to be a fairly positive statement from the Minister as to what was in the package. The Minister made the point that they had got agreement at that stage. On 6 May, of course, we had not yet got that agreement on the EEC price package. However, I took that as an earnest of the Minister's intention to continue the negotiations on the basis that we would get agreement. Indeed, at the time we all wished him well because we were becoming rather impatient that neither the farm prices nor the measures which go with it had then yet been fixed for this year. We are all agreed on the importance of having a multi-annual scheme to build up our livestock and provide us with the basis for increasing the level of activity on farms and, indeed, in our meat factories.
For all those reasons into which we have gone, there was agreement on all sides of the House that we should have a scheme of this kind and that it was important that it be included in the farm price package. I raised the matter again on 19 May when we discussed the agreement which had just been reached on EEC farm prices for the 1982-83 year. Here again I refer to the Official Report of that date. I hope to be allowed to refer rather extensively to that debate, because it is important to establish what we understood the situation to be at that time. I quote from column 1771 and said as follows:
It is stated in the document the Government circulated that under the calf heifer scheme grant aid amounting to £70 will be paid by the Irish Exchequer this year and for the two following years. What is the real situation here?
That was a specific question to the Minister.
I had reports this morning that the calf heifer scheme was not agreed as part of the package, that it is a scheme which could be agreed only with unanimity in the Council, not because of the United Kingdom budget problem but because it is a scheme which needs sanction under Article 93 of the Treaty and therefore must be agreed unanimously. I heard that the matter was not raised in the Council until after the British Minister and his Minister of State left the meeting and therefore it was not possible to get unanimous agreement.
I said further:
I would like the Minister to tell us exactly what the position is in this respect.
I expressed the very real concern of everybody in this Houe and of the farming community about just what the next few years have in store for us in terms of livestock expansion and whether or not there will be a fixed plan extending over several years that would encourage the expansion of livestock production here. As I say, we had a statement from the Minister on 6 May to the effect that agreement had been reached on the scheme. According to Government information circulated to us on 19 May, agreement had been reached on a scheme which would cover the present year under the national scheme and a further two years under a slight variation of the scheme which the Minister explained.
It would be useful to refer specifically to the Treaty of Rome which deals with national aids. I do this for a very specific reason. It is important that it be explained fully to the House just what has been going on here. The second section of Article 93 of the Treaty, in its third paragraph states:
On application by a Member State, the Council, may, acting unanimously, decide that aid which that State is granting or intends to grant shall be considered to be compatible with the common market, in derogation from the provisions of Article 92 or from the regulations provided for in Article 94, if such a decision is justified by exceptional circumstances.
The case which I made originally for the measure which is now agreed for this year and that which I made for continuing that measure for a number of subsequent years — and which I understand the Minister has continued — were based on the fact that we in this country find ourselves in exceptional circumstances, circumstances which are reflected in the appaling reduction in farm income over the past three years, circumstances which are also reflected in our breeding herds for, indeed, a longer period than that. This seems to us — and there was general agreement on this — to justify special measures intended to increase our livestock production.
In reply to me that evening, the Minister spent the best part of ten minutes in a rambling discourse on the operation of the veto and various blocking mechanisms. He explained in detail what had happened, what initiatives had been taken to secure a situation in which farm prices would be agreed by a majority vote in the Council. A great deal of this could have been said much more briefly and, indeed, much more pithily. We listened to this discourse, I must say, with mounting dissatisfaction on this side of the House, to the point where Deputy D'Arcy and I — who, I think the Chair will agree, are normally two reasonably well conducted Members of the House — felt obliged to interrupt the Minister to ask if he would answer some of the specific questions which we had raised. I am bound to say that we got precious little satisfaction from him in response. At the end of the Minister's contribution, I felt obliged to congratulate him on having spoken for ten minutes without once having referred to the effect on our farmers of anything about which he was talking. However, my ill-humour about that has very little to do with the discussion we are having here this evening.
During the course of his reply I interrupted the Minister to ask him for some more details about the scheme which he said had been agreed. As reported at column 1778, volume 334, of the Official Report the Minister said:
On top of that we have a national aid of £70 per in-calf heifer. Deputy Dukes started off this scheme on a subsidy-interest basis. It has now been translated into a grant basis over the next three years.
The Minister for Defence, Deputy Power, opinioned that was a great deal of money, as it would be if, in fact, we had any of it this year. The Minister went on to say:
We are committed to do that over a three-year period.
I asked him specifically at that point:
Is that agreed to?
The Minister said:
It is agreed to.
A categorical statement. He went on to say:
This in-calf heifer grant is not included in the package but is a separate matter which has been agreed to.
We had to take that on its face value. The Minister said the matter had been agreed to. He said it several times and he said it quite clearly.
There have been persistent rumours ever since that the matter has not been agreed to entirely. I have been trying to find out what exactly the situation is. I have recalled to the House that I asked the Minister if it was true that the matter had not been fully agreed to at the Council of Ministers. I asked him if it was not true that it required unanimous agreement and could not be agreed to in the absence of any one of the Ministers. The Minister's reply was that it had been agreed to.
Over the weekend we had a number of newspaper reports, one in the Irish Independent last Saturday and one in The Irish Press last Saturday. The Irish Independent last Saturday had an article on page 3 headed: “Britain blocks £70 heifer scheme”. It said:
Farm Ministers did not pass the national aid measure — estimated to cost £37 million — because of an objection lodged by UK Farm Minister Peter Walker, at the controversial Farm Council which saw Britain's veto out-voted by the other member states.
It was also reported that the Minister for Agriculture was hopeful that agreement would be reached on this measure at the next meeting of the Farm Ministers of the Community. I know the Minister is a very hopeful man. He was hopeful last week and his hopes turned out not to be particularly well-founded. I am hopeful that the same kind of situation does not apply in this case.
There was another report to the effect that approval was blocked by Britain — this was in a different newspaper — at the meeting of the EEC Ministers early this month, that agreement had to be unanimous and that officials in Brussels were confident that the matter would be agreed when the Ministers next met.
I take a very serious view of this situation. If it is the case that the matter requires unanimous agreement, as is provided for in the Treaty, and if it is the case that is was not unanimously agreed at the meeting of the Farm Ministers which decided on 1982-83 prices, then it is up to the Minister to come here and tell us that, and to make it clear to this House and to the farmers just what the situation is.
If the Minister has made an error, or if he did not notice that the matter was not included in the package, it is up to him now to rectify that. If, on the other hand, he is quoted as being hopeful that the matter can be resolved at the next meeting, I want to ask him how he squares that hope with his statement in this House on 19 May to the effect that the matter had, in fact, been agreed to. If the Minister is not aware that this doubt exists, I ask him to make it his business to be aware of what the situation is and to give us some kind of guarantee that he will take up the matter properly the next time around, and that he will not let agreement on a matter like this slip through his fingers because the UK Minister and his Minister of State have left the meeting before the Minister has got around to raising the problem.
I ask the Minister tonight, in contrast to the approach he adopted in this House the last time we discussed these matters, to give a specific answer. Has the scheme been agreed to unanimously by the Council or has it not? If it has been agreed to, what are the terms? If it has not been agreed to, would the Minister please say so and tell us what he intends to do in order to make sure that this scheme, which he himself has put forward as being of some considerable importance, is agreed to? Would he further explain to us, if the scheme has not been agreed to, why he made so many categorical statements in this House to the effect that it had been?
I ask the Minister to restrict himself to the issues and say exactly what is going on, exactly what the position is, and forget other side issues. I ask him to forget about niceties of negotiations and tell us whether or not agreement has been reached on this matter. If the Minister has to tell us that agreement has not been reached, I want it to go very clearly on the record that the Minister had no foundation for what he said to us on the 19 May.
Certainly and with the greatest of pleasure I will answer specific questions and then go on to deal with the sort of specious nonsense to which we have listened.
We have listened to a lot of nonsense from the Minister.
If there is any Deputy present who is not disposed to listen to the Minister he should leave. Otherwise the debate will not continue.
The Minister should not talk about nonsense.
Deputy L'Estrange is not entitled to interrupt.
Neither is the Minister entitled to talk about nonsense from other Deputies.
Deputy L'Estrange, I will not allow the debate to continue if you are not prepared to listen. Otherwise I will have to ask you to leave the House. The Minister to proceed.
If I get the opportunity I will have something to say.
The Chair will not take it from Deputy L'Estrange. The Chair will ask him to leave. Deputy L'Estrange is no different from any other Deputy in this House. While he is here he will be orderly. If not, I will ask him to leave. The Minister to proceed without interruption.
From 1 July this year — and Irish farmers will be hearing about it in the coming weeks — we will have for the following 12 months a £70 interest grant scheme initiated and in operation. That is the scheme which Deputy Dukes initiated, an interest subsidy scheme, to which we objected in Opposition and rightly objected to on the basis that it was very much a limited subsidy to particular categories of farmers. However, we are proceeding with the implementation of that scheme from 1 July 1982 to 1 July 1983.
Starting on 1 July 1983 and 1 July 1984, and continuing until 1 July 1985, there will be in operation a straightforward in-calf heifer grant scheme. We will convert Deputy Dukes' and the Coalition's scheme — and I have made this clear before now — from an interest subsidy scheme to a straight grant scheme for every in-calf heifer over and above the level of the preceding year, so that starting from 1 July next year and 1 July 1984 every additional in-calf heifer will benefit from this scheme.
Over three years, starting off with Deputy Dukes' inadequate scheme, if I may say so, limited to an interest subsidy which we will implement this year, we will convert that into a far broader scheme involving a grant across the board to every additional in-calf heifer in the following two years. I will not make any point about the inadequacies of the first year. That is the responsibility of the previous Government, but we will implement their scheme. In year 1, starting 1 July this year, we will have an interest subsidy scheme which we will try to implement as flexibly as possible and as far as possible we will try to mesh it into the grant scheme which we can bring in specifically in the following year on 1 July 1983 and 1 July 1984. I hope that is clear. In that context, as Deputy Dukes is well aware, because the grant scheme which we will bring in next year and the following year is national aid we have to get the permission of the Council of Ministers to implement it. We are implementing it at the same rate as his interest subsidy scheme, £70 per animal. We got approval of that national aid outside the package — this is where Deputy Dukes is making a mistake. We got it by unanimous approval of the Council under Article 93 (2) at a meeting of the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg April 28 to 30. The Agricultural Council indicated support in principle and there was no dissent by any Minister and all ten Ministers were present, together with officials. That was prior — perhaps this explains the confusion in Deputy Dukes' mind — to the finalising of the actual prices package which happened at a subsequent date in Brussels. The Luxembourg decision at the meeting of 28 to 30 April is duly written into the minutes, approved by the President and his officials, the legal advisers to the Presidency and the Commission. That is a separate matter altogether, although going in parallel with the package proper. This is a question of approval by the Council of Ministers of national aid giving us the right to bring in this national aid which will cost the Exchequer money — it is not a European transfer of money.
I was away during the weekend in North Africa doing very practical business on behalf of Irish beef producers and exporters which I am glad to say proved successful. Leaving that aside, I saw the newspaper reports only after my return. I saw them this morning. These newspaper reports show confusion and Deputy Dukes has added to it. The calf premium which is the £22 for each dropped calf is a grant to be paid to every producer in the country with a dropped calf from the beginning of the marketing year to the end of the marketing year next year. For each dropped calf, on full rearing to six months, £22 will be paid. It is a rearing grant really and will be paid at the end of the rearing period of six months. That scheme is already in operation and is directly financed by the Community. It is a direct Community transfer to Ireland. The £37 million odd involved in the financing of that scheme has already gone into operation and is part of the package.
There are articles in both the Irish Independent and The Irish Press to both of which Deputy Dukes referred, particularly the Irish Independent and the writer confused the two issues of the in-calf heifer scheme which is a replacement of Deputy Dukes' scheme already in the budget prepared by the former Minister for Finance. There was an amount of, I think, £5.5 million, written in by Deputy Bruton which we also wrote into our budget. That will finance from the National Exchequer the interest subsidy scheme. That will be continued by us as a grant scheme next year and the following year. That is entirely separate from the actual package itself even though the negotiations went on in parallel. In the package itself we are concerned with Community finance only and that relates to the calf premium scheme of £22 per calf after six months rearing. That involved transfer from the Community of £37 million to our Exchequer.
I hope I have explained the matter fully. I do not understand how this storm has arisen; it is possibly a storm in a teacup. Perhaps I contributed to it myself by not being explicit enough, as Deputy Dukes suggested, on the previous occasion. I hope I have been explicit now. I shall not enter into any other extraneous issues as he has suggested. These are the basic, unalterable facts of this matter.
Why are the officials hoping that we will get it agreed at the next meeting then?
I do not understand Deputy Dukes. I do not think he is doing any service to the agricultural community.
I am seeking information.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 2 June 1982.