asked the Taoiseach if he considers the proposed milk super-levy to be of such importance that he should now, even at this late stage, undertake a tour of the EEC capitals to inform his counterparts of Ireland's special position and to inform them that if such a proposal were implemented it would spell disaster for this country; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Milk Super-Levy.
1.
Apart from the many contacts being made by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Finance and Agriculture, in the Council of Ministers and bilaterally, I have had discussions in Brussels with the Belgian Acting Prime Minister and other Belgian Ministers. I have also put Ireland's case to the President of the European Commission on separate occasions as well as to two Vice-Presidents of the Commission. Recently I met with Mr. Rocard, French Minister for Agriculture, and Mr. Dankert, President of the European Parliament, as well as with a delegation from the Parliament. Next week I shall, at his invitation, be in Athens for discussions with the Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Papandreou, who will, as President in office, be chairing the European Council in Athens in December. I shall also be meeting soon with the British Prime Minister. Mrs. Thatcher, and with the German Chancellor, Herr Kohl, who, we expect, will be paying an official visit to this country, shortly. Between now and the settlement of these critical Community issues, I shall have whatever other discussions with Community leaders may be necessary and possible to ensure that our vital national interests are protected.
Finally, on the last part of the Deputy's question, it would not be appropriate to disclose details on these confidential discussions at a time of intensive and critical negotiations in the European Community.
Would the Taoiseach agree that this haphazard approach is damaging Ireland's case? Can he tell us at this stage if he is rejecting totally the milk levy or if he is accepting it with derogations? I want a clear statement.
There is nothing haphazard about the approach. What we have been doing has been carefully thought out and planned for months back. Everything we are doing has a purpose and a reason. As regards the super-levy, we regard it as an inappropriate mechanism in itself for the purpose of dealing with the problem because it introduces into the Community system something which in practice works like a quota and it would freeze the existing market situation, and therefore it operates against the basic market principles of the Community. We also, of course, oppose it in relation to our own position because of the inequity it would create in respect of a country like our own in which milk plays such an important part, accounting ultimately for something like 9 per cent of GNP, and has a role in our economy about five times as great as in the rest of the Community. As I have pointed out, the effect of the imposition of the super-levy here over a period of years on our national output would be enormously greater than the impact on other countries and enormously greater than the impact of other situations which are considered by other member states to be unacceptable to them, and have, indeed, been regarded by our partners in the Community as requiring adjustment.
Grave concern has been expressed about the Ard Fheis speech of the Minister for Agriculture where he stated that he will be looking for a derogation. I understood up to now that Government policy was——
A question.
——outright condemnation of the super-levy. Will the Taoiseach clarify the position and tell us if Government policy has changed in that area?
I have clarified that we are opposed in principle to the super-levy. I point out also that its operation in respect of this country if it were to be applied here would create an unacceptable situation. At both levels we are opposing it. The outcome of the negotiations obviously has yet to be determined, but the Deputy, the House and the farming community can be assured that we will continue to pursue the carefully planned approach to this matter designed to produce the best possible results for this country in difficult conditions and difficult negotiations. We have a vital interest in the success of the total negotiations because it is vital to us that the Community's own resources be increased; otherwise the CAP would be undermined in any event.
I ask the Taoiseach to clear up the confusion which exists in the country at present not alone in the farming community but among trade unions as well, that is the confusion created last weekend when the Taoiseach issued one statement and the Minister for Agriculture a totally different one. I ask the Taoiseach again if he is totally opposed to the milk levy or is he accepting it with derogations? Can I have a specific answer?
First of all, there is no confusion. I have come across none such as there must be in the Deputy's mind. I have not come across it anywhere else.
The Taoiseach has not been out very much if he does not know of confusion.
Very many comments have reached me in respect of the Ard Fheis and what was said there by myself and other Ministers and none of them contains the slightest hint of confusion. They have, on the whole, been favourable comments. Regarding the matter raised by the Deputy, I have made the position perfectly clear. We regard the super-levy as an inappropriate solution to the problem as offending against the basic principles of the market and we also regard its application to this country as unacceptable because of the damage it would do to our economy.
I would like to ask just one question. If, as the Taoiseach says, the approach has been strategically planned and prepared for several months, could he explain to us, first of all, the different statements, as outlined by Deputy Byrne, from the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture at their party gathering at the weekend; secondly, the apparently contradictory statements of the Minister for Agriculture himself on the day he was interviewed in Dublin Airport and the next day on the European scene? If it has been strategically planned over a long period, can he explain how the Minister for Agriculture seemed to have different approaches on two successive days?
That seems to be argument.
It is argument and I do not propose to argue it.
I am giving Deputy O'Keeffe a question and then I will call on Deputy Byrne for a final question.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied with the handling of the Minister for Agriculture of the present negotiations on the milk super-levy and the fact that he had neither the will not the way to fight the case for Irish farmers when he was leaving Dublin Airport?
I am totally satisfied with the Minister's handling of the matter which has been extremely effective, and I am not aware of any Irish farmers being let down. If there are such they must be extraordinarily fervent Fianna Fáil supporters who do not give a damn about agriculture.
(Interruptions.)
What arrogance.
I am calling Deputy Noel Treacy and then I will call Deputy Byrne.
In view of the Taoiseach's own admission of the serious consequences the super-levy would have on Irish agriculture, will he indicate to the House if the Minister for Agriculture will use the veto if necessary?
I dealt with that matter on a previous occasion, and I am quite prepared to give daily lessons in seminars to Members on the opposite side of the House on the operation of the Community if so requested, as I appear to be requested. The position in the Community is that, following the Luxembourg compromise in 1965, there was a situation in which if a matter is of vital national interest to a member state——
This appears to be repetition.
It is repetition, but what can I do? If I am asked the same stupid questions I must give the same sensible answers each time.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Byrne. The Taoiseach has answered this at great length twice since the Dáil assembled.
If anybody should attend a seminar it should be the Taoiseach and he should attend a seminar on agriculture. I would like to ask him to comment on the fact that very recently the Minister for Agriculture told us that three countries were supporting rejection of the levy. Very recently he told us that he is on his own now.
A question, please, Deputy.
I would like to know what the situation is. Is it three or one or does the Taoiseach know?
I do not intend to go into details about the negotiation, but there has been a changing pattern within the negotiation as it has proceeded.
And there have been changes in the answer.
There have been shifts in the position of member states which we must take into account in our negotiating arrangements.
Shifts including our own State.
Our position has remained constant throughout, for the obvious reason of our vital national interest. Other member countries, not having a similar background or interest, have a greater freedom to modify their tactics without doing themselves undue damage. We are fighting our battle. We are seeking such support as we can get on the basic issue of the application of the super-levy.
What support?
We are making it perfectly clear on the question of the application of the super-levy to Ireland that the proposal that it should be applied to us is unacceptable.
Question No. 2.
Could I ask if we have the support or not?